5 ms·
The author's analysis is top-notch because he actually understands what the newest incarnation of Apple is about, unlike most of the people who write about Appl
by dreyfiz 17y ago
The author's analysis is top-notch because he actually understands what the newest incarnation of Apple is about, unlike most of the people who write about Apple.
- dreyfiz 17y agoHe's only been writing the piece since September: http://twitter.com/gruber/status/7250169522 http://twitter.com/gruber/status/7250169522. Does most speculation about Apple's next move strike you as something that much care was put into?
- borism 17y agohttp://thingsjohngruberiswrongabout.tumblr.com http://thingsjohngruberiswrongabout.tumblr.com
- dreyfiz 17y agoAnonymous hate speech is tedious. It's not even any good, he just reads like a Slashdotter with nerd rage. Edit: it's also already a failed site. Its name pretends to a comprehensiveness that is belied by the meager three dates on which he's posted, the latest of which is in September, 2009. Gruber posts something almost daily-surely he's been wrong about something since September?
- borism 17y ago1. no need to post every week to point out that Gruber is wrong (a lot). you may also head to Fake Steve Jobs and find out the same almost every week. 2. don't see any hate speech
- dreyfiz 17y agoThe whole thing is a hate site. It exists for the sole purpose of one man's axe-grinding against another. This is a low-value pursuit and a complete waste of time. As for specific "hate speech" that I disliked, try the comment about a "cold dick in the mouth", or the one about how Gruber "has a hard-on" for Apple. Poor writing, pointless mission, and just an all-around waste.
- sker 17y agoI think the author's writing skills are top-notch. The article was entertaining to read from the beginning to the end and he looks like a smart guy with great ideas. That said, I don't think his analysis is that great in this particular article, that's why I quoted the word analysis in my original post. Like I said, this feels like pure speculation backed by intuition on the author's part. His analysis doesn't use any sort of sales numbers or statistics to show where the market is heading and why Apply would take certain decisions.
- DougBTX 17y agothis feels like pure speculation backed by intuition on the author's part Yes, it feels like that. Since he explicitly says as much in the article. Few other Apple pundits are so self-aware.
- dreyfiz 17y agoWhat sales numbers or statistics would have helped you predict what the iPhone would be like before you knew anything about it other than "Apple is working on some kind of a phone"? All we know today is that Apple is working on some kind of a tablet. There are no relevant facts or sales numbers that would have improved the article. Whatever market Apple creates or redefines with the new device will look completely different afterwards.
- cstross 17y agoYes, this. Cringely opined some years ago that tech companies evolve through three categories (or stages of development): technology driven, sales driven, and marketing driven. There's an assumption in this ontology: that growth and evolution of a tech company is predicated on new technology. The new (post-1997, Jobs II) Apple breaks this rule. Apple is design driven, at a level that makes more sense to folks with a Fine Art degree than a CS background. (The reason for their success? Lots of folks with an aesthetic background like this stuff and will pay extra for it.) They're seeking a better user experience, vertically integrated at all levels with their web ecosystem. Gruber -- who's been tracking apple for something like 20 years -- gets this. J. Random Gizmo columnist doesn't.