[mc32]

I think the backlash has been too sensitive.

Of course there is a rubbernecking feeling to it, but it's not all that different from the NYT sending Nachtwey ot someone of equal caliber to a devastation zone to bring viewers closer to the action.

I'm sure we'd be outraged if it happened with regard to the ongoing North Bay fires, but you know what, five years hence, this will be an ordinary way to bring the news to your environment.

People are "shocked" because they are not used to the medium. One day they will be and this reporting will be ordinary.

[emodendroket]

It's not the technology so much as the tone of the video that was off-putting, I think. The Times also did some 360 video of PR devastation and nobody was shocked.

[tmccrmck]

It's not the tone - it's the fact that one uses a natural disaster for self-promotion while the other does it to inform the populace about the extent of damage.

[hackinthebochs]

How can using any new medium in such a context NOT be seen as self-promotion? It can't. But the benefits of the new medium also shouldn't be sidelined over the fear that folks like you might get outraged over a non-issue.

[emodendroket]

I feel like it'd help to avoid saying features of your product "are really cool" as you use it to present disaster footage. Also the upbeat cartoon avatars were probably not a good choice.

[2g67vupsoknn]

Do you agree that TechCrunch's headline (and, by extension, HN's) is misrepresenting what the apology was actually for?

Regardless of if the criticism is justified, my point here is that there was no apology made for the planning/execution of the presentation itself -- just for the offense it caused to those who misunderstood the goals of the presenter.

It's one thing to believe an apology wasn't necessary. It's another thing to believe it's OK for "journalists" to massage this corporate non-apology into something more palatable.