5 ms·

Like all prominent bloggers, Gruber could use some insightful criticism. Too bad this post doesn't offer any. A thousand words that add up to "I can't really pu

Like all prominent bloggers, Gruber could use some insightful criticism. Too bad this post doesn't offer any. A thousand words that add up to "I can't really put my finger on it or name any specifics, but Daring Fireball seems more uncritically approving of Apple lately" is fine for pub conversation, but it's not much use as reasoned argument. How could Gruber respond to this? The only specific point of Gruber's that the author cites is "iPhone critics have seldom let facts get in their way." I'm sure there's something to criticize in that statement, but it's a pretty slender reed on which to hang a blanket condemnation of dozens of articles.

bradleyland 16y ago
I agree 100%. I think the reality is probably closer to this. In the past, Hank probably agreed with John more than he disagreed, so it was easy for him to resolve any internal conflict; there was little of it. This was during a time when Apple primarily made desktop/laptop computers with a standard desktop operating system -- as opposed to operating systems like iPhone OS -- that was sufficiently Unix-like to please most geeks with a bend toward the Unix mindset. The conflict comes in the fact that the Unix mindset allied with the hacker mindset. Some would argue they're one and the same. Apple's new direction (iPhone OS) cuts the hacker off from the Unix-y underpinnings of the device. To take it a step further, you can't easily run native software you developed yourself on a variety of devices. So there's a cognitive dissonance developing within many Mac users. Their Mac-self wants to continue to enjoy the use of tools from the one company who seems to share the same values as them (well-built products, Unix-y ideas), but their geek-self is struggling with the loss of access to the parts that satisfy the hacker inside. I can identify with Hank, because despite finding no logical flaw with Gruber's arguments, I disagree with him. There is an indisputable subjective component to selecting tools. Gruber's inner-hacker is also offended by Apple's stance of the walled garden, but he recognizes that this offense is separate and unrelated to whether or not the product is a "good product", and he realizes that most of the world aren't hackers. This leads him to generally positive-leaning comments. At least in the context of potential market success. To put it simply, most people don't care that they can't get to a shell prompt on their iPad. They're perfectly happy browsing their iTunes library, watching YouTube, and reading web pages. I wish I had a good wrap-up/ending, but I just kind of hammered that out on the fly. Maybe I'll use it as the basis for a blog post.
- pohl 16y ago
  Well said.
- jordanroher 16y ago
  I agree wholeheartedly with the inner conflict aspect, but I wonder about Gruber's inner hacker as it applies to the App Store. From his projects page, it seems that Gruber works on small command-line tools and extensions to other people's software. I'm not trying to impugn his coding credentials; his writing doesn't hinge on how far he's made it past HELLO WORLD. But none of the software he writes would be the sort of thing that would make it on to the App Store even if Apple fired their reviewers and opened the floodgates. He takes the "Apple does X because it's in their best interests to do X" stance because his livelihood doesn't hinge on whether the App Store is open, closed, or purple. I suspect we'd have a very different Daring Fireball if he finished his dream mail app "Letters" and tried to release it on the App Store. Would it be rejected because it "duplicates existing functionality?" Or because someone can use it to e-mail the Kama Sutra? Or some other arbitrary rule Apple has yet to invent? Or would he not even bother, for fear of wasting time developing software that he couldn't sell?
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    Despite John being one of the two people behind Markdown (a pretty significant programming contribution), I see what you mean about him being in a "I don't have a horse in this race" position. However, I think that allows him to objectify a little bit more than others... I can almost feel the rumble of the laughter in the audience. Let me provide some examples. John doesn't like the way the App Store functions in its current state, but he understands why Apple operates it the way they do. As evidence that he doesn't like it, I'll offer some excerpts: http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/iphone_os_too_closed http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/iphone_os_too_closed Jason Snell: "All Apple needs to do is add a new feature, buried several menu items down in the Settings app, that mirrors the one found on Android devices: an option that lets you install Apps from 'unknown sources.'" John Gruber response: "Personally, I’d welcome such a move, but I don’t think it would have the effect Snell envisions." A lot of what John Gruber says could be interpreted as back-handed agreement, were you not to trust him. But the body of his writing suggest that he's genuine. ------------- http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/nack_control http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/nack_control John Nack: "The effect on product development and innovation can be chilling. Yes, it’s easy to point to 200,000 apps on the App Store; it’s harder to note all those that aren’t there — serious apps that will be created only if developers know they’ll get a truly fair shot to innovate and compete." John Gruber: "I agree with much of this piece by John Nack today, regarding what everyone — developers, users, and even Apple itself — is missing out on because of Apple’s tight control and management of the App Store" ------------- Back from 2008: http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_exclusion http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_exclusion Fraser Speirs: "Apple’s current practice of rejecting certain applications at the final hurdle — submission to the App Store — is disastrous for investor confidence." John Gruber: "Exactly right. If you only find out at the end of the development process that your app has been rejected — not for a technical problem that you can address but because Apple deems the entire concept to be out of bounds — then who is going to put serious time and talent into an iPhone app?" John Gruber conclusion: "Either way, something is seriously wrong." ------------- http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311 John Gruber: "I don’t know that Apple is right. As I said above, de Icaza’s perspective — that these decisions and risks should be up to individual developers to make — is utterly sensible. Siracusa is exactly right that this is a wager from Apple. Apple is betting its entire mobile future that their developer platform is better than everyone else’s." It's especially evident that he's conflicted here. He doesn't necessarily agree, but he understands Apple's position. ------------- There are a myriad of other places where he's been critical, yet understanding of the forces driving Apple. What's concerning is that recently, John has been reconciling this conflict -- seemingly as much for himself as for his audience -- by pushing the Web Apps as an alternative approach. I'd love to provide a link to support that, but it's more of a tone than a specific rant. Based on the nine occurrences of "Web App" on Daring Fireball right now, as well as the injection of some links supporting criticism of the lack of a robust Web App IDE, I'd suspect that a thoroughly vetted rant is in the works.
ob 16y ago
Gruber regularly deals with critics that will write basically anything, even criticizing products that have not been announce yet. Hank Williams' statement: Essentially, anyone who has criticized the iPhone, or presumably Apple is just someone not dealing with the facts. The only reasonable position one could have after looking at any iPhone related facts is, generally, acceptance and approval. strikes me as nonsense. It doesn't even follow from Gruber's original statement. I.e. "seldom" means "not often", it doesn't mean "never". So "anyone who has criticized the iPhone" just doesn't follow. And unless the so-called "facts" are not indeed facts ("a thing that is indisputable the case") then yes, "the only reasonable position one could have after looking at any iPhone related fact" is "acceptance". IT IS A FACT! You can criticize the iPhone, but if you say "people are not buying it" then you are arguing against the facts.

bradleyland 16y ago

I agree 100%. I think the reality is probably closer to this. In the past, Hank probably agreed with John more than he disagreed, so it was easy for him to resolve any internal conflict; there was little of it. This was during a time when Apple primarily made desktop/laptop computers with a standard desktop operating system -- as opposed to operating systems like iPhone OS -- that was sufficiently Unix-like to please most geeks with a bend toward the Unix mindset. The conflict comes in the fact that the Unix mindset allied with the hacker mindset. Some would argue they're one and the same. Apple's new direction (iPhone OS) cuts the hacker off from the Unix-y underpinnings of the device. To take it a step further, you can't easily run native software you developed yourself on a variety of devices. So there's a cognitive dissonance developing within many Mac users. Their Mac-self wants to continue to enjoy the use of tools from the one company who seems to share the same values as them (well-built products, Unix-y ideas), but their geek-self is struggling with the loss of access to the parts that satisfy the hacker inside. I can identify with Hank, because despite finding no logical flaw with Gruber's arguments, I disagree with him. There is an indisputable subjective component to selecting tools. Gruber's inner-hacker is also offended by Apple's stance of the walled garden, but he recognizes that this offense is separate and unrelated to whether or not the product is a "good product", and he realizes that most of the world aren't hackers. This leads him to generally positive-leaning comments. At least in the context of potential market success. To put it simply, most people don't care that they can't get to a shell prompt on their iPad. They're perfectly happy browsing their iTunes library, watching YouTube, and reading web pages. I wish I had a good wrap-up/ending, but I just kind of hammered that out on the fly. Maybe I'll use it as the basis for a blog post.

pohl 16y ago
Well said.
jordanroher 16y ago
I agree wholeheartedly with the inner conflict aspect, but I wonder about Gruber's inner hacker as it applies to the App Store. From his projects page, it seems that Gruber works on small command-line tools and extensions to other people's software. I'm not trying to impugn his coding credentials; his writing doesn't hinge on how far he's made it past HELLO WORLD. But none of the software he writes would be the sort of thing that would make it on to the App Store even if Apple fired their reviewers and opened the floodgates. He takes the "Apple does X because it's in their best interests to do X" stance because his livelihood doesn't hinge on whether the App Store is open, closed, or purple. I suspect we'd have a very different Daring Fireball if he finished his dream mail app "Letters" and tried to release it on the App Store. Would it be rejected because it "duplicates existing functionality?" Or because someone can use it to e-mail the Kama Sutra? Or some other arbitrary rule Apple has yet to invent? Or would he not even bother, for fear of wasting time developing software that he couldn't sell?
- bradleyland 16y ago
  Despite John being one of the two people behind Markdown (a pretty significant programming contribution), I see what you mean about him being in a "I don't have a horse in this race" position. However, I think that allows him to objectify a little bit more than others... I can almost feel the rumble of the laughter in the audience. Let me provide some examples. John doesn't like the way the App Store functions in its current state, but he understands why Apple operates it the way they do. As evidence that he doesn't like it, I'll offer some excerpts: http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/iphone_os_too_closed http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/iphone_os_too_closed Jason Snell: "All Apple needs to do is add a new feature, buried several menu items down in the Settings app, that mirrors the one found on Android devices: an option that lets you install Apps from 'unknown sources.'" John Gruber response: "Personally, I’d welcome such a move, but I don’t think it would have the effect Snell envisions." A lot of what John Gruber says could be interpreted as back-handed agreement, were you not to trust him. But the body of his writing suggest that he's genuine. ------------- http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/nack_control http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/nack_control John Nack: "The effect on product development and innovation can be chilling. Yes, it’s easy to point to 200,000 apps on the App Store; it’s harder to note all those that aren’t there — serious apps that will be created only if developers know they’ll get a truly fair shot to innovate and compete." John Gruber: "I agree with much of this piece by John Nack today, regarding what everyone — developers, users, and even Apple itself — is missing out on because of Apple’s tight control and management of the App Store" ------------- Back from 2008: http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_exclusion http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_exclusion Fraser Speirs: "Apple’s current practice of rejecting certain applications at the final hurdle — submission to the App Store — is disastrous for investor confidence." John Gruber: "Exactly right. If you only find out at the end of the development process that your app has been rejected — not for a technical problem that you can address but because Apple deems the entire concept to be out of bounds — then who is going to put serious time and talent into an iPhone app?" John Gruber conclusion: "Either way, something is seriously wrong." ------------- http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/middleware_and_section_311 John Gruber: "I don’t know that Apple is right. As I said above, de Icaza’s perspective — that these decisions and risks should be up to individual developers to make — is utterly sensible. Siracusa is exactly right that this is a wager from Apple. Apple is betting its entire mobile future that their developer platform is better than everyone else’s." It's especially evident that he's conflicted here. He doesn't necessarily agree, but he understands Apple's position. ------------- There are a myriad of other places where he's been critical, yet understanding of the forces driving Apple. What's concerning is that recently, John has been reconciling this conflict -- seemingly as much for himself as for his audience -- by pushing the Web Apps as an alternative approach. I'd love to provide a link to support that, but it's more of a tone than a specific rant. Based on the nine occurrences of "Web App" on Daring Fireball right now, as well as the injection of some links supporting criticism of the lack of a robust Web App IDE, I'd suspect that a thoroughly vetted rant is in the works.

ob 16y ago

Gruber regularly deals with critics that will write basically anything, even criticizing products that have not been announce yet. Hank Williams' statement: Essentially, anyone who has criticized the iPhone, or presumably Apple is just someone not dealing with the facts. The only reasonable position one could have after looking at any iPhone related facts is, generally, acceptance and approval. strikes me as nonsense. It doesn't even follow from Gruber's original statement. I.e. "seldom" means "not often", it doesn't mean "never". So "anyone who has criticized the iPhone" just doesn't follow. And unless the so-called "facts" are not indeed facts ("a thing that is indisputable the case") then yes, "the only reasonable position one could have after looking at any iPhone related fact" is "acceptance". IT IS A FACT! You can criticize the iPhone, but if you say "people are not buying it" then you are arguing against the facts.