I don’t often spend time in FeedDemon during the weekend… most blogs take the weekend “off” and I figure that I can play catch up for the extra 10 minutes on Monday morning. And it’s on that morning that I try not to post anything because I already know that 50% of what I read makes me cranky. Like hearing that “60% of Vista needs to be re-written”. How in the hell can people actually believe that? Especially after the last two CTP’s… Pft.

Another classic comment came from The New York Times, saying that Microsoft should do what Apple did: orphan users by “not worrying about backwards compatibility” and fling a VM at them. That one makes my ass twitch. Not because Microsoft would do it. Hell, if the tech reporters were to be believed, that’s what the original Vista plan was, before the 2004 “shake up”… and the reporters freaked when they heard that which caused the public to freak. That’s what makes me twitch: if Windows PC’s are 90% of the marketplace, what should Windows users do if we just said “Oh, you need a new version of your applications on Vista”. Riiiight. That would be smart business. Snort. The only reason why Apple could do it is because they had 2% of the marketplace at the time. Meh.

But that’s not what got me to break my silence this morning… oh, no. I was willing to let that go, until I stopped by TUAW.

TUAW: No one would argue that iPods are scratch resistant. They seem to be scratch magnets, but does it really matter? Chris at decaffeinated thinks not, in fact he thinks that the iPod’s propensity for getting scuffed up only adds to the experience. His reasoning is this: the iPod is now a fashion accessory, so that means it has to be beautiful, which it is. Beautiful things tend to be delicate, and since the iPod is scratched so easily it is therefore delicate.

What the fuck is wrong with this guy? Yeah, for the first time in a while I’m not pissed at TUAW, and I’m not even going to shoot the messenger. I’m confused by this comment from Chris. It’s a fashion accessory so it should scratch easier?

Here’s a bit of history on the ultimate fashion accessory, the engagement ring. Ever wonder why they are usually made with diamonds as the main stone? Yah, I never did either, but my sister is a freak for gems and the knowledge got stuck in my head. Anyway, in years past, the main stone used to be sapphires… until it became obvious that there were more “good quality” diamonds in the world than there were good quality sapphires. Well, that and normal people couldn’t afford sapphires, like royalty could. Yeah, I’m talking Middle Ages here. Even so… Emeralds are also beautiful and still considered a precious gem. Why were they never used as an engagement ring’s main stone? Because diamonds are hard; sapphires are nearly as hard as diamonds. Emeralds are not. People went with the hardest and most scratch resistant stone that they could find, since it was a fashion accessory. All three are beautiful, but the ones that are stronger became an everyday gem.

So, now, how does this relate to the iPod? Why wasn’t the iPod – if it is in fact a fashion accessory – made of sterner stuff? Why was my iPod nano beat to hell within two days of owning it, when I didn’t do anything bad with it? It stayed in a bag for feck’s sake! I had to polish it up with Brasso and slapped it into a clear case to get it looking like new… bah.

I simply don’t get it. He spins it as: It’s pretty so it should be scratched – people who don’t know about technology won’t care if it’s scratched! How about we take this analogy and apply it to that shiny new car you just bought? Should getting dinged in a parking lot add to that experience as well? Fat fuckin’ chance and rightfully so. I know of no mystique that comes from watching damage build up on things I’ve bought and used in a normal manner.

Lame… how very, very lame.