IPhones, Iphones and iPhones

Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing:

This year, I resolve to minimize my use of incaps when writing about commercial products and companies. An incap changes a word into a logo, and has no place in journalism or commentary — it’s branding activity that colonizes everyday communications. It’s free advertising.

So: “Iphone,” not “iPhone” and “Paypal,” not “PayPal.”

No. Free advertising is writing breathlessly and non-critically about things like iPhones and PayPal.

Of course, this doesn’t extend to the names of people that traditionally take an incap, like “McDonald”; nor to companies that are named for people, like “McDonald’s.”

Because while using “iPhone” offers Apple free advertising, writing about “McDonald’s Big Mac” does not.

Nor does it extend to technical descriptions that include CamelCase, including VariableNames and WikipediaPolicies.

A Google search for “WikipediaPolicies” only turn up references to “Wikipedia:Policies” so I don’t know. The VariableNames example just makes sense.

As with every style question, the primary goal is clarity, and so it’s common sense to make some other exceptions: “WhoRepresents.com” not “Whorepresents.com.” But better to structure your writing to avoid ambiguity altogether: “Who Represents (www.whorepresents.com)”

I agree the primary goal is clarity, which is a reason to stick with “iPhone” over “Iphone”. The latter (a) looks dumb, (b) calls attention to itself instead of simply conveying meaning and (c) looks like “lphone” in some fonts (including the rarely used font Arial).

It’s a small thing, but it’s amazing how much incapping leaps off the page when you start paying attention to it.

Totally bizarre how when you start paying attention for something you start seeing it more.

(The Washington Post‘s Bill Walsh wants us to start sentences with “IPhone”. While I understand his logic, I think that looks really stupid.)

Why I don’t think Google was ever planning to release a maps app for iOS any time soon

John Gruber’s right: Google is probably lying when it says it was surprised by Apple’s decision to build a new Maps app not using Google’s data. But the advantage is that it’s plausible enough that they can let Apple stew for awhile (six months?) before it decides if it should release an iOS maps app without getting blamed for being dicks. Apple’s iOS Maps have been inferior to Android’s for years, because Google held the best stuff for itself, and the folks at Google are smart enough to know that Apple would have a hard time building a suitable mapping replacement in time for iOS 6.

So, by Google failing to release a maps app for iOS, the difference between iOS and Android maps is made greater (advantage Google).

If Google, on the other hand, had released its own maps app using its own data for iOS, like it did for YouTube when Apple dropped it from iOS 6, the story wouldn’t be “Apple’s Maps sucks.” Instead it’s “Apple’s Maps sucks, but Google Maps is fine, just install that.”

The latter doesn’t become the subject of a column in The New York Times from David Pogue. The former does.

Better tech writing

Brian Lam does technology writing differently at The Wirecutter. Instead of writing about every single dodad and gizmo, he writes “a list of great technology,” aiming to only tell readers what the best thing in a category is. Of course he wrote about the new iPhone:

These things are always the same. But better in small but meaningful ways. That’s all I remember from today’s news, really.

It’s also pretty much the same thing Apple says on their website and on the website of every other publication that writes about this stuff. It’s also pretty much what I wrote for the 4s and the 4 and the 3gs and the 3g, too. I feel despair when I am forced to write words that provide no service or additional value, but there’s a balancing act between saying what I think is useful and saying what people want to hear, so here we are.

Should you get one? If you want, sure.

His post is short, to the point, and not breathless, all of which is, sadly, refreshing in the world on online-gadget writing.

The International Sandwich Hall of Fame

For a long time, because these are the kinds of things I think and worry about, I’ve wondered what would be enshrined at a hall of fame for sandwiches. And, on a long drive back from vacation following the consumption of several cheese steaks, I had some time to nail it down.

First, the criteria for candidacy:

The inductee must be a sandwich. It must involve bread with a filling. This seems obvious, but with the growth of paleo, gluten-free diets, sandwich shops selling wraps, and other trends, it’s important to be explicit. Sandwiches that use rolls or other forms of bread instead of sliced bread and open-faced sandwiches that use a single slice of bread will be considered for inclusion. “Flat bread,” the term some restaurants seem to be adopting because they don’t want to say they serve pizza, is not a sandwich.

The inductee must be an all-time-great. No second-tier, or fad sandwiches will be inducted. When looking down the list of inductees, you should see a list of sandwiches that are a who’s who of the world’s sandwiches.

The inductee should have cultural significance. While we consider the sandwich’s taste, we’re not interested in amazing-tasting sandwiches that no one has ever heard of or eaten. Regional specialties are eligible (and, often, strong candidates).

The inductee must be a canonical version of the sandwich, though some variations are acceptable.  While many sandwiches are so good that they’ve spawned their own variations, the considered sandwich must be a canonical version, not a entire class of sandwiches. This, perhaps, the hardest part to lay out, but generally means that the composition of the sandwich should be understood by its name. So while hoagies or po’ boys might be mighty fine sandwiches, they are, in the end, platforms that require some explanation; you can’t simply walk into a sandwich shop, order “a hoagie” and know what exactly you’ll get. A cheeseburger, while there exist infinite variations, is understood to be a bun, a beef patty and melted cheese. This is similar how the martini might be inducted into a cocktail hall of fame. Leaving aside the gin verses vodka debate, the drink would be inducted as a whole, and a martini garnished with a twist would not be inducted separately from a martini garnished with olive. The hall is not interested in defining the One True Version of a sandwich, but, rather, the acceptable parameters for a sandwich with a specific name.

And now, the inaugural class of the International Sandwich Hall of Fame:

Reuben: rye bread, corned beef, sauerkraut, Swiss cheese, thousand island or Russian dressing

Cheese steak: Italian roll; thinly sliced beef; white American, provolone or Cheez Whiz; fried onions are optional, though encouraged

BLT: bacon, lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise

Peanut Butter and Jelly: smooth or crunchy peanut butter, strawberry or grape jelly, white or wheat sandwich bread

Cheeseburger: bun; beef patty; Cheddar or American cheese; ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, onion and pickle are optional

What would you add?