语言与文风201037signals.com
苹果如何通过改换措辞来改变争论
Apple changes words in order to change the debate
导读
这篇 37signals 的文章讨论 Apple 如何通过更换措辞来改变辩论框架：当 Google 强调 Android 的“开放”时，Apple 把话题转向“碎片化”和“什么对用户最好”，从而把辩论拉到自己占优的战场。对写作者来说，这是一堂关于“框架”（framing）的实战课——你选择谈论哪个词，往往决定了争论的走向。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
选择辩论的战场比赢得辩论更重要：把话题引向对你有利的框架，而不是在对方的框架里防守。
- 02
一个词就能改变整场讨论——“开放”vs“碎片化”、“对用户最好”，写作者应有意识地挑选自己的核心措辞。
- 03
好的框架要能经受现实的检验：如果“开放”最终没有惠及终端用户，这个框架迟早会被戳破。
- 04
警惕别人给你设定的框架，也要意识到几乎所有故事都不止一个面向。
HN 评论精选
Apple 改变措辞有其合理性，因为 Google 的“开放”框架本身经不起现实检验。
别急着用愤世嫉俗的眼光看这件事，改变对话方向并非不合理。Google 对“开放”的利用充其量是不诚实的：Android 的开放性从未惠及终端用户，反而被运营商利用来预装垃圾应用、禁用功能。运营商的动机是短期内尽可能榨取用户的钱，厂商甚至会用固件熔断机制阻止你 root 手机。最终 iOS 和 Android 在大公司控制体验这件事上不相上下，剩下的比较维度只有动机。
danilocampos查看英文原文
It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user. Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like this? Too bad. Android's openness isn't for you, now that carriers and manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to that awesome Blockbuster app. In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big companies trying to control the final experience. Which leaves us with one thing: motivations. Carrier motivations are to fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible in the short term. In the past that meant disabling device features to force you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another. They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to. Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this, including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make it somewhat clean again. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the long term – thanks, matwood) If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss. I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android, it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there goes the power of Android as a brand. Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers. When was the last time you heard someone write those guys a love letter?
选择在“对用户最好”而非“开放”的框架下作战，是 Apple 的明智之举。
Apple 确实有动机重新框定辩论。理论上 Apple 可以反驳说 Google 的核心资产（搜索和广告）并不开源，其 Android 应用也不开源，“开放”只是 Google 用来打击 Apple 的营销口号——但那是在 Google 选定的战场上作战。“什么对客户最好”（以及对开发者最好）是 Apple 更有力的论点，所以 Apple 选择在这块阵地作战并不奇怪。作为开发者，我认同 Apple 的说法；Rovio 在 Android 上只发布免费广告版、Android 付费应用下载量低、碎片化问题，都说明 Apple 的论点在市场上确实有共鸣。
credo查看英文原文
Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically, Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google. "What is best for the customer" (and also what is best for app developers) is imo a much better argument for Apple and so it isn't surprising that Apple would prefer to fight on this turf. As an app developer, I develop for the iPhone/iPad (even though I wrote an Android app with their beta SDK long before Apple launched the app store and Google launched their first Android device). So I personally agree with the case made by Apple. In this context, it is also worth noting that Rovio (which earned >$1M/month with their $0.99 iPhone app) recently released an Android app, but made it free. They seem to be using the "ad-supported" model for the same reason that many developers don't develop paid Android apps (and I hope I haven't offended too many Android users by pointing out that Android users download very few paid apps). Rovio has also mentioned the difficulties with Android fragmentation. Overall, I'd say that Apple's argument does resonate in the market.Google's argument (and the fact that it is available on all major US carriers) is also very effective. Overall, this is a great time for mobile devices/apps
框架设定是发言人的核心技巧，但读者应警惕被单一框架带偏，看到问题的多个面向。
框架设定是每个称职的发言人都玩得转的强大而迷人的游戏。乔布斯大谈碎片化、对开放避而不谈；而 Andy Rubin 恰恰相反，强调开放、不谈碎片化——因为他不傻。这正是许多公开论战令人沮丧的原因：在理想世界里，人们不会被框架牵着走，能意识到一个故事几乎总有不止一个面向。比如核电的拥护者只会谈碳排放，反对者只会谈安全和废料，这让我抓狂。
ugh查看英文原文
Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money plays. Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness? Because he is not stupid, that’s why. That’s what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a perfect world humans wouldn’t get distracted by frames. They would be able to recognize that there is nearly always more than one aspect to a story. It absolutely drives me crazy when, for example, so many advocates of nuclear power can only ever talk about CO2 and so many adversaries of nuclear power can only ever talk about safety and waste.
改名的例子：行业通过重新命名来重塑公众认知。
另一个“绝佳”的例子：玉米精炼协会已申请把“高果糖玉米糖浆”（HFCS）改名为“玉米糖”。
steveklabnik查看英文原文
Another "great" example of this: the Corn Refiner's Association has applied to rebrand HFCS into "corn sugar." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syrup_image
同类还值得读
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
这篇短文主张写作应像说话一样自然、清晰，避免装腔作势的书面腔。
语言与文风2015 · 647 分 · 272 评4 条写作要点编辑精选法律语言难懂源于写作不佳，而非专业概念
Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
这是一项认知科学研究：法律文本难懂，主要不是因为充斥专业术语，而是因为写作者把句子写得又长又绕、修饰语层层嵌套、回指距离过远。
语言与文风2022 · 559 分 · 322 评5 条写作要点编辑精选写得简单
Write Simply
保罗·格拉汉姆在这篇短文里主张：好文章应该写得简单——用日常词汇、短句、直白的结构，不为显得聪明而堆砌复杂表达。
语言与文风2021 · 484 分 · 330 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Tortured phrases：科学写作中出现的一种可疑文风
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
《自然》新闻报道了一种在科学论文中蔓延的怪现象：原本标准的术语被同义替换软件改写成了古怪说法，比如把 "cloud computing" 写成 "haze figuring"。
语言与文风2021 · 329 分 · 256 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
这是奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评。
语言与文风2014 · 305 分 · 240 评4 条写作要点编辑精选