wired.com - Gawker

posts about #wiredcom more →
Ars Technica Slammed in Condé Nast Digital Layoffs
Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
Digital dealmaker and a dozen others out at Wired
Wired.com fires 12, a quarter of its staff
Remember, if McCain wins we blame the machines
Wired to relaunch sports website, 12 years later
Wired parent buys Ars Technica — and Webmonkey, too?

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

ifstone
04/02/09

In reply to Ars Technica Slammed in Condé Nast Digital Layoffs
Jesus, if Ars Technica is considered an "in depth" publisher of "technical articles," then that says all you need to know about the superficiality of general technology coverage on the web. Sure, it's more substantial than, say, Gizmodo, Engadget and a thousand other idiotic gadget blogs (or NPR's new cringe-making gadget segment), but it's still pretty thin gruel and lately lacking technical depth.

A few years ago they did run longer detailed articles on technical subjects like microprocessors, and these contained many howlers demonstrating limited technical expertise.

A couple of years ago they breathlessly covered a nascent wireless video technology with which I was directly familiar, having worked with the company that developed it. I sent them some notes debunking many claims being made -- and the company has unsurprisingly gotten nowhere -- but they weren't interested.
Reply

ifstone was starred ifstone was unstarred

Shadowlayer
04/02/09

In reply to Ars Technica Slammed in Condé Nast Digital Layoffs
Ars rocks, the amiga articles were great.
Reply

Shadowlayer was starred Shadowlayer was unstarred

Jim Topoleski
04/02/09

In reply to Ars Technica Slammed in Condé Nast Digital Layoffs
Its typical print editors. They are losing the battle so instead of moving with the times, they are going to try to kill off the very people they are losing the battle to, thinking it will stave off things just long enough so they can get out and retire.

Unfortunately all it will really do is move some of their best reporters to new sites, not earning profits for their company while they continue to slowly wither and die.

What I dont get though is WHY print acts like this. Its not a isolated thing at all and not just about the web but even in the way they MAKE the paper its always a constant battle to move things ahead while the higher ups push back.
Reply

Jim Topoleski was starred Jim Topoleski was unstarred

FormerEnglishMajor
04/02/09

@Jim Topoleski: Astonishing that Portfolio reaps 9-figure millions for years, while Ars got the plug yanked after a year of ownership. Not even giving the "new media" a chance - or perhaps that's the point.
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

Drunken Economist
04/01/09

In reply to Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
If they can get rid of Brian 'Macolm Azn X' Chen then it'll be worth it.
Reply

Drunken Economist was starred

jiminy.peep
04/01/09

In reply to Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
I've also been mistakenly fingered by Nick Denton before.
Reply

jiminy.peep was starred jiminy.peep was unstarred

everfade
04/01/09

@jiminy.peep: Do tell.
Reply

everfade was starred everfade was unstarred

bosskev
04/01/09

In reply to Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
This explains how Gizmodo's Hobomodo recently was able to offer me a free subscription to Wired...going out of business, why not give away the store?
Reply

bosskev was starred bosskev was unstarred

morninggloria
04/01/09

In reply to Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
"Computers are a fad," said one Wired staffer, "it's best that a magazine about technology stick to what's old and what works."
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

Awesome X
04/01/09

In reply to Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
Yet Details endures.
Reply

Awesome X was starred Awesome X was unstarred

GuyBitchy
04/01/09

@Awesome X: Weird, right? (A lot of closeted gays in the heartland buying newsstand copies?)

Is Fast Company hurting?
Reply

GuyBitchy was starred GuyBitchy was unstarred

Mount_Prion
04/01/09

In reply to Wired.com 'Gutted' in Conde Layoffs
One would hope that a tech magazine would be forward-thinking enough to keep its online side alive over the print operation...

Then again, I have no idea how profitable either part of Wired is, so perhaps they have their reasons.
Reply

Mount_Prion was starred Mount_Prion was unstarred

aurora*raby
04/01/09

@Mount_Prion: Publishing tech departments are becoming somewhat obsolete because the programs are now so simple to operate. For that very reason, a friend of mine was recently hired to both edit and maintain a small newspaper's Web site. It's cheaper to train my friend, an editor, to upload and link stuff than it is to train a tech person to edit, I guess ... for now ... but I know that nobody cares about restrictive clauses or parallelism or noun-pronoun agreement anymore.

Most Conde Nast magazines, including Wired, are not making any money at the moment.
Reply

aurora*raby was starred aurora*raby was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment