Unethical groups?
Unethical groups?
- Subject: Unethical groups?
- From: Yan Feng <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 11:33:03 +0800
Greetings all,
I checked out Spymac again this morning my time, and found this:
>
Macworld Volunteers : Thanks to the dozens of members who enthusiastically
>
volunteered to help out at the upcoming Macworld in July. Your requests will
>
be forwarded to The Apple User Group Advisory Board and the Macworld Planning
>
Committee.
>
>
Review Software : In preparation of our upcoming User Group section, we're
>
looking for experienced writers to review Not-For-Sale copies of applications
>
like Keynote and AppleWorks. Please see this discussion thread for more
>
information.
>
So I checked out the Online groups list at Apple, and somehow Spymac Network
was included in this. (URL:
http://appleusergroups.com/locator/find/locate.cgi?online )
My question simply is: is this an ethical move?
Rumour sites have a record of being plain illegitimate in business, as they
could be revealing info Apple doesn't want to give.
Potentially, such information could also be used to the advantage of
potential competitors. In the end, they could be working to the disadvantage
of Apple.
We all have a right to know. But the fact is, sometimes our right to know
forces us to dig into areas where it's best we not know about some certain
things. I think such rumour sites such as Spymac digs information that we
may be interested in but is actually not what we should know about.
I may be thinking differently from the Western model. It maybe that I'm used
to only reading things from the official line. It's the unofficial and often
truer, murkier line that could be attracting us. But I digress, to some
extent.
I still question why Apple User Groups would admit a rumour-monger in. In my
personal belief, I think rumour groups are possibly not the best of class to
be admitted and to be recognised.
While I do not request the removal of the Spymac listing, it does indeed
make us think twice in future. Rumour sites sometimes are unscientific in
their estimates. There are some rumour sites out there which are nothing
more than blantant violators of Apple's NDA (as an example, last May's WWDC,
which revealed Jaguar; the event was mostly under NDA, but some rumour sites
just blatantly posted a lot of Jaguar screenshots).
The ultimate fate of that group and its listing is not to be decided by me.
I expect it to be decided upon by those responsible, and by general
consensus. I do not wish to outline my expectations on the fate of that
group. I shall not interfere in any way in the decision-making of this case.
I am just expressing my personal views in this matter.
Honestly, I don't want Spymac to go away. This message is not a direct
insult or attack to them. And as much as my internal alter ego may wish to
dispute it, I respect the presence of that group. But what I hope to get
across here is how user groups are recognised, and in particular, if a
certain group has moral and ethical standards that are acceptable to being
an Apple-recognised user group.
I have no intentions of being a supreme patrol of all user group activities,
or playing policeman to the user group world. As I have said before, I am
merely expressing my opinions, which may be qualified or questioned by
others.
Respectfully,
Yan Feng
President - BeiMac
Beijing Macintosh User Group
http://www.beimac.com/
Apple Regional Liaison for East Asia
(excluding Japan, AU and NZ)
Email address:
email@hidden
Emergency email address:
email@hidden
General inquiries:
email@hidden
---
_______________________________________________
augd mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/augd
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.