I'm on page two of the story but I am already starting to doubt the writer's basic understanding of technology and question whether continuing to read it is a waste of time:
1) "If your bakery doesn’t have an iPhone, it will soon be at the mercy of outfits like Yelp." - What does that even mean?
2) "A little known fact about Google, for instance, is that its investment in Python (one of the three languages the company uses for its work)" - Gonna go out on a limb here and state that Google uses more than three languages.
For 1. I'm being generous and reading it as shorthand for; "If your bakery doesn't manage it's presence on the network and patrol it's reviews and it's image online; it's business will be eaten by those of your competitors who 'get it'." I'm not sure why an iPhone is required equipment, but the point he's reaching for isn't entirely lost.
For 2. I'd say he's right in that python has played a fairly large role in Google's developer outreach and seems to be the lingua franca for expressing ideas in code within Google.
The first point is just sloppy, and suggests that Forbes doesn't engage in the outdated and unfashionable practice of editing it's writers. The second is a fairly pedestrian observation about the software industry, that languages and technologies are identified with some entities more than others. That the languages a person who is a developer knows may affect his view of companies that use them is not in question, whether it's a benefit to the companies in question is unknowable.
Forbes contributors (staff and outsiders) are generally copyedited for style but my understanding is that content is generally the responsibility of the author.
This model may not be for everyone but it allows us to bring in great non-staff writers like Timothy Lee (http://blogs.forbes.com/timothylee/).
While contributors can still pitch mag stories there's still a lot of editorial involvement in the print publication.
I think the intent of #1 is clear (I agree with your reading of it) but the sloppiness of the statement is distracting. Same really for #2, though it looks like I'm wrong and Google does have three official languages..still I have a hard time believe a 30,000 employee company would not use many more languages internally in some capacity.
>still I have a hard time believe a 30,000 employee company would not use many more languages internally in some capacity.
There are likely uses of other languages internally for small projects or one-off kind of things, but large companies generally prefer some standard practices/patterns/languages. For well written code, you have to realize, your code will likely outlast your employment. That means someone must maintain it, fix bugs, augment its functionality, etc... It is MUCH easier to manage that whole flow with strict(ish) stylistic standards (Google has these) and a small range of possible languages. If you've ever seen code written 15 years ago in the (then) language du jour, with no sort of consistent/recognizable style/coding patterns, etc.. you will understand why companies do this kind of thing.
The first quote is difficult to describe for me, but let's call it "poetic", as my brain is too fried to think of a better term for it. Basically, my interpretation of what he's saying is: if your bakery isn't tech-savvy, even at a basic level, they could be getting killed by reviewers (or some other bogeyman) online without knowing it.
The second quote is pretty easy to support with sources. Google has three _official_ languages that can be deployed into production, and Python is one of them. See [this post from a Googler](http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/01/python-is-better-than-...), for instance. I have no idea how hard a rule this is, but many a Googler has mentioned it. I think it's worthy of being called a 'fact', and thus completely valid in the article in question.
Agree with yours (and olefoo's) interpretation of #1; I singled it out because it raised a red flag for me as the kind of statement non-tech savvy people would make, thus calling into question the validity of this piece as a whole. (As much as I, as a software developer, would like to believe it!)
2) "A little known fact about Google, for instance, is that its investment in Python (one of the three languages the company uses for its work)" - Gonna go out on a limb here and state that Google uses more than three languages
For a long time the 3 "approved" languages for use in production systems at Google were Java, Python and (a subset of) C++ (Javascript was a fourth language, but was a special case - used only in the browser) [1][2].
I believe that has changed recently with Sawzel, Go, Dart, etc, but he is correct in principle.
I remember hearing about this. Sounds like she should have placed a limit on the number of deals Groupon could sell. But what's the connection to his line about having an iPhone?
If you had your own iPhone app and knew how to market it properly, you wouldn't be at the mercy of Groupon's well-known strong-arm tactics in dealing with small businesses for instance. Or some other alternative tech-savvy way to market your business so you aren't killed by a few bad Yelp reviews or discounts from the social commerce/coupon startups that you don't know can hurt you till you try them. Many of the more prosperous small businesses are already starting to vie for control over their customer acquisition channels.
1) "If your bakery doesn’t have an iPhone, it will soon be at the mercy of outfits like Yelp." - What does that even mean?
2) "A little known fact about Google, for instance, is that its investment in Python (one of the three languages the company uses for its work)" - Gonna go out on a limb here and state that Google uses more than three languages.