Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eonil 4598 days ago
Currently, tech magazines for men is nothing fun to women.

In majority, women want artistic fun rather then numerical fun.

Again, in majority, women has no interest on benchmark number stuffs, and more interested in which app look more beautiful. Such as "Best sexy looking app top 10" rather than "World fastest super-computer top 10".

In other words, their behavior has not been changed. Only the medium has been changed. It was fashion and beauty stuffs before, and now it just expanded to electronics.

2 comments

1950 called. They want their worldview back.
Judging from the OP, he's right and you're living in lala-land.

Ie - it could be a case of major conspiracy on the part of publishers (who are all women btw) to keep their readers away from tech. Or they could simply be giving their readers what they want.

Or there could be an unfilled niche.
If (masses of) women really had a need like that, they'd buy the current tech magazines - it wouldn't fit the niche perfectly, but it would at least partly fulfill that need.

They don't. Which is evidence that there is no such unfilled niche.

Or, much more likely, they aren't interested in the male focus of said tech magazines. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6738657 for a quick look at the covers of the tech magazine T3. Are you saying the average woman would really want to read a tech magazine with that sort of focus?

We're not talking CACM here; we're talking tech magazines that, for the longest time, celebrated conference booth babes.

If what you say is true, then all the world's women with the desire for reading tech would flock to the few tech magazines that have less of "that sort of focus", they exist. This would cause these "non-booth-babed" magazines to have a disproportionally large amount of women buyers, which they would see immediately... but it's not happening.

Reality is that which doesn't go away if you disbelieve or dislike it.

Depends. And in my experience, that's all pretty bollocks.