Okay, Okay It Was Keynote, Not Powerpoint

Sorry, but I don't think that's good enough.
Nose-blowing tissue is a commodity. There is almost no difference discernable to the blower between most different brands of tissue. The use of a brand name as a generic descriptor may disadvantage competitors, but it doesn't disadvantage users.
When it comes to slide display type programs, Powerpoint is clearly a market leader, but Keynote is demonstrably superior in several respects. Failure to acknowledge the name of the program, and indeed the attribution of credit to a different program, in this case not only disadvantages Powerpoint's competitors, but also misinforms and disadvantages consumers.
A Ferrari is the epitome of a sporty, stylish sports car. If a Ford sports car won a race, would you write that the race had been won by a Ferrari?
Better standards of ethics are expected of writers whose cuurrency is their reputation.

Ouch - was that an apology. ... excellent stuff.

For good information on the world of Apple's Keynote, I suggest this web address.

http://homepage.mac.com/lesposen/blogwavestudio/index.html

It is first-rate.

Good for you, Arik. It takes a man to admit when he's wrong. This might seem trivial, but I'm always surprised at how many people would rather defend an untenable position rather than say sorry.

You can't include the above link in your column? I think many Windows users might want to know that there are much better presentation solutions than Powerpoint. And, let's face it-- nobody HAS to buy a Windows PC anymore; one can get a Mac and dual-boot, if certain Windows apps are truly needed.

Actually, you might want to call it a "powerpoint", as capitalizing Powerpoint refers to the specific program, not a generic term.

Would it have be so terribly difficult to add after the first iteration of the word Powerpoint, as a parenthetical statement, "(Actually, the software used was Apple's Keynote and not Microsoft's Powerpoint)?" It would be more accurate, and I'm sure you value accuracy and want your columns to be respected for being truthful.

Why perpetuate a known fallacy by dumbing down your prose on the assumption that non-Mac users are incapable of comprehending the difference (or similarities) between a Powerpoint slide presentation and a Keynote slide presentation? You are not writing for first graders. The relevant generic term in this discussion is 'slide presentation', not Powerpoint.

Further, if you insist on inventing a 'generic' category, then it should more appropriately be presented in lower case; i.e., 'powerpoint presentation'. To falsely credit Powerpoint (with a capitol P, therefore identifying the trademarked application belonging to Microsoft) as the tool used in the genesis of Gore's historically significant film is inaccurate and, at this stage of the game, disingenuous.

Well here's the problem, Arik. You do a disservice to Microsoft, Apple, Businessweek, your readers and yourself by not having got it right in the first place and by refusing to correct the original article in the second. Microsoft has its PowerPoint brand damaged by you not only using the name generically but also justifying your error in public on the grounds that the public perceives the name as generic. Your statements could, in the future be used as evidence in court to support the loss of this trademark for MS. Apple is obviously harmed by you not adquately crediting and respecting their efforts to create a better product than PowerPoint. Businessweek and yourself are damaged because of your sloppy reporting and subsequent egotistical refusal to correct an acknowledged error. And you insult your readers by assuming they do not know the difference or would care to know the difference. What arrogance on your part; you're fired.

What kind of reasoning is that not to use proper terminology? How are non mac users ever going to be fully informed that Keynote is a form of presentation software, much like MS Powerpoint???????
Is that so hard to write in your column?

Unbelievably lazy rational.

Let's keep our readers ignorant of the fact that in the world there are alternatives to Powerpoint.

The Wow is now alright.

So do call your Dyson vacuum a Hoover as well?

There has NEVER been a generic use of PowerPoint as presentation software. What's next? Will you refer to OS X as "Windows" claiming the same ridiculous excuse? Any such generic use exists only in the mind of MS fanbois, which are becoming much more defensive lately.

Why couldn't you just admit the error and move on?

More importantly, it is outright misleading on your part not to update your story. If a non-Mac user doesn't know what Keynote is, so what? It's irrelevant to the fact that it's what Gore used. Meanwhile, you maintain the impression that Gore used an MS product (which is of course your intent).

"I won't be changing the wording ............. and so as such, the generic use of Powerpoint will have to suffice."

I hope you don''t call yourself a journalist. A real journalist would correct an error, and this was an error on your part, not leave it because the so called journalist (sic) knows better what his audience needs to know. A real journalist would make the correction so as to education his audience. The bottom line is by leaving your column as it is you are lying, no way around it.

"I won't be changing the wording in the column mainly because I think not enough non-Mac users know the difference between a keynote address, and "Keynote" the software, and so as such, the generic use of Powerpoint will have to suffice."

And it's far better for Microsoft to get the credit for something they were not involved in... And to keep the FUD going that you can't do anything serious on a Mac...

The problem here is that you are associating the product of one company (Microsoft) with someone associated with that company's competitor (Apple). Although most people wouldn't care whether the word "PowerPoint" was used, there are those who will use or mention your factual error.

Try using the word "iPod" when describing all types of MP3 players. See if you get anything from Apple legal.

Please count me in on everything else added by the posts above. Can't say it any better. There needs to be a correction in the original article, period.

If you don't want to use the term Keynote you could just refer to it as a software slide show. As a Keynote user it is a tad heartbreaking to hear AG's work referred to as a Powerpoint presentation when I know it is not.

As a generic term Powerpoint does have some meaning apart from the brand name but the meaning is derogatory. As in "Death by Powerpoint." See Edward Tufte's writing about Powerpoint for more of this.

Well, you got what you really wanted: you got more people to read your column a second time.
You want to try for a third time, 'admitting' your mistake again to drive even more traffic to your columns?

Does Microsoft pay you as much as they pay Rob Enderle?

Ahhh. Let him be. The PC mantra is "it's good enough."

Apologizing but letting the old article stand is probably felt by Arik to be "good enough". But he's just a blogger anyway. Not a real journalist. Oooops. Sorry.

You should fix the article to correct the error. End of story. Your excuse for not doing so makes no sense.

1) branding: arik says he didnt know and now doesnt really care about the difference between a brand name & a generic. In other words, the aspect of added-value has no place in businessweek technology coverage. Yeah, i think that will make his publisher & BW advertisers REALLY happy ;-)

2) accuracy: in point of fact, arik is DEAD WRONG about big P "Powerpoint" (the brand) being synonymous with little p 'powerpoint'.

The generic concept for slideware is referred to as a"preso" just as a preser conference is called a "presser" and a man-on-the-street interview is called a "streeter" ...

and there is another short-hand that arik seems to be too familiar with - "journo" as in J.O.U.R.N.A.L.I.S.T. :-)