6 ms·

I have to confess my bias upfront and say that I'm not a fan of John Gruber. He eloquently spins bullshit, constructing superficially supported arguments that d

by ergo98 16y ago

I have to confess my bias upfront and say that I'm not a fan of John Gruber. He eloquently spins bullshit, constructing superficially supported arguments that don't bear any scrutiny at all. He is so far down the Apple rabbit hole that he seldom convinces anyone other than the already convinced (which, for historic reasons, includes much of HN). In this case he's talking about video calling. Ignoring the fact that nobody is actually going to use video calling (it has come so many times on many devices. The Evo was far from the first device to implement it), let's humor his point. So let's compare- Apple iPhone 4 - video calling between iPhone 4 devices, only over wifi, using Apple's completely new, completely non-standard protocol. Apparently it "works great", at least for people using demo units at an Apple conference under controlled circumstances. Evo 4G - Android device with a front-facing camera. Apps support it to talk on any network you want. Fring, for instance, allowing you to call Skype video users on pretty much anything including PCs. This is over wifi, or a 3G/4G connection that can support it. Gruber has close to no experience with the iPhone 4G, and his entire experience with the Evo 4G is one reviewer's take. Nonetheless, that has made him an expert. Is iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 calling considered done? Seriously? To me that barely qualifies as beta. It barely qualifies as alpha. There are a legacy of long existing, open video calling protocols, and many existing implementations. Only the truly faithful could call Apple's take done. EDIT To draw from a comment I left elsewhere, here's an exercise for Daring Fireball supporters: Imagine, if you will, that Motorola just introduced their latest Android device, front-facing camera and all, called the iDroid. The iDroid comes with an easy to use, ultra-simple video conferencing solution, but it only works on wifi, and it only works between iDroid devices. How, I ask, would John Gruber respond to that? Imagine that it's been tightly polished and all. Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it.

jodrellblank 16y ago
How can you start off saying Gruber is awful for spinning superficially supported arguments, then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact. Especially when the whole point of Gruber's article is that nobody uses video calling because it's a confusing and complex mess, and when it isn't so (e.g. skype) it gets used, and when iPhone 4 comes out it will get used a lot more. So let's compare- Apple iPhone 4 - instantly popular with millions of people using the exact same make and model with the same software within a few months. Video calling baked in as a single button visible on every phonecall, advertised as a primary feature, designed for easy use. Evo 4G - Phone with camera on the front. Not such a one-off instantly popular hit. Video calling not possible until specific apps heard of, downloaded and installed, configured, then still different and more hassle to use than a normal phonecall. Other features vary by app. And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact. It was obviously a personal opinion. See, I'm not making a grand blog entry waxing poetically on why no one will ever make video calls, carefully creating a curated (word of the month) list of support blog and tweet entries to bolster my supposition. I offered zero supports to my opinionn. I think you're missing a big difference there. I don't pretend that I have supports for personal opinion. >So let's compare- Apple is big and successful (biggest tech company...yet people still pretend that they're counter-culture supporting them. Funny, that). Therefore their "we're big and successful" gives them leave to build things only for their, to use the trite descriptive, walled garden? "You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!" Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical. >And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever. Obviously it will change. Gruber considers it "done right". I think it is done absolutely horrifically, and it is done in a way that is exactly the problem many people have had with Apple's actions.
  - cwilson 16y ago
    Hmm, from the hours of 9am until about 6pm I can list off about 2 dozen people who I might actually call (girlfriend, dad, best friend, etc) who I know will be on a wifi network and are planning on buying iPhone 4's. You know why? Because between those hours they are at work. Guess what? I can also bet that around 8pm until midnight I can also call them, because they are at home, where they have wifi networks. And guess what? The other times, when they are on the go (walking around out in the world, or driving) are times I wouldn't want to video call anyway. People video calling in public is going to be the new nextel walkie-talkie feature; fucking annoying. Driving while video calling, well, hopefully I don't have to comment on that one. This is NOT a perfect solution. Of course being able to do it over 3G or 4G would be awesome. As Steve Jobs said.. that will come. They are working with the carriers to make it happen. Why does the solution have to be perfect day one? Baby steps my friend. Do you not think Steve Jobs wants it to work this way as well? You saying it's done absolutely horrifically is comical, not the other way around. To you, what makes it horrific, is the fact that it only works sometimes, not 24/7. That's pretty ridiculous. Also, I must point out that when Apple releases something it usually IS done right. It usually is very, very close to finished. Apple polishes before they release, it's in their DNA. Steve Jobs is insane about sweating the details.
thewileyone 16y ago
I agree. Gruber is full of shit. Forward facing cameras on Nokia phones have been working on non-3g telephony networks for a while. Saying that "it works right" between two iPhone 4Gs and limited to a wifi network, is like saying the AMC Gremlin is the greatest car in the world on a local track.
astrange 16y ago
> Apple's completely new, completely non-standard protocol. It uses a standard Internet protocol (SIP+SRTP) as they said in the keynote. Skype actually does use a proprietary codec (On2 VP7, which Google hasn't released) in their Skype<>Skype video chat. Does Fring use that, or does it support 3G too? In any case I'd see not using 3G as a major advantage for FaceTime, since H.264+AAC is much better than low-bitrate H.263 used in 3G.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >It uses a standard Internet protocol (SIP+SRTP) as they said in the keynote. While it draws from a lot of existing standards, it embraces and extends. It isn't interoperable with anything currently deployed. Which is interesting because one alternative world would have seen them introducing the standard a year ago, to be met by broad acceptance and compatibility at release. They chose not to do this, meaning that early adopters enter a very scarce world.
  - infinite8s 16y ago
    That would have given away their game with respect to the new iPhone. Also, until iOS 4 is released we can't really say how it's implemented/what it will interoperate with.
asmosoinio 16y ago
> Ignoring the fact that nobody is actually going to use > video calling (it has come so many times on many devices. > The Evo was far from the first device to implement it), > let's humor his point. I just discussed video calls with some of my friends (we all work/have worked with mobile phone software). We agreed that it is one of the biggest technologies that the manufacturers have specified and implemented that _nobody_ has _ever_ used. Now this article was the first time I read about iPhone 4 and video calls. I wonder if Apple is going to be the first one to have people actually using the feature. I mean it's not that odd a feature, people chat on Skype with webcams all the time. Also kind of interesting that video call was one of the main arguments to spend billions to build 3G networks (at least here in Finland).. what.. almost 10 years ago? And IF this works for Apple, it's not going to use any of the technology built back then (not the 3G network and not the software specifications).
dieterrams 16y ago
> Imagine, if you will, that Motorola just introduced their latest Android device, front-facing camera and all, called the iDroid. The iDroid comes with an easy to use, ultra-simple video conferencing solution, but it only works on wifi, and it only works between iDroid devices. How, I ask, would John Gruber respond to that? Imagine that it's been tightly polished and all. Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it. ---------- I love how you're using a hypothetical scenario in which Gruber would very plausibly praise the implementation in question in order to undermine his credibility. He has often pointed out when a competitor does something better than Apple does, or otherwise markedly improves on the status quo. All you've done is create a gestalt which people who don't know any better will interpret according to their biases. Talk about arguments that don't bear any scrutiny.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >I love how you're using a hypothetical scenario in which Gruber would very plausibly praise the implementation in question in order to undermine his credibility. Most who reads DF would come to a common prediction about how Gruber would have responded to that hypothetical. It doesn't undermine his credibility, but simply puts into context that he is, failing to have a better word, a fanboy.
  - infinite8s 16y ago
    A technology fanboy.
isleyaardvark 16y ago
He has commented on Droid features in the past, vicious attacks like: "The email client adds support for Exchange and, moving ahead of the iPhone’s MobileMail, adds support for a combined “all accounts” inbox view." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/27/android-20 http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/27/android-20) "Interestingly, browser scrolling in Android 2.0 seems to have far less “friction” than the iPhone — flick the page and it seems to scroll until you stop it." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/28/engadget-droid http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/28/engadget-droid) "The best thing that could happen for iPhone users would be for the Android and/or WebOS communities to start shipping apps that make iPhone owners jealous. Google Voice for Android is the best example so far." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/10/torrez-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/10/torrez-android) I think it's a shame that you're attacking him for a counterfactual.
- ergo98 16y ago
  You went searching through the DF archives to find some damning praise and that's the best you could come up with. In each case you selectively chose what you thought was a compliment (protip: His friction comment was not a compliment), yet if you quoted the whole entry you would see that it's damning praise. A compliment sandwich wrapped around a "it's a second class platform" filling. It's also interesting that the best you could find was from over a half a year ago. Most criticism of Daring Fireball has to do with how it has turned so rabidly one-sided over the past few months. Gruber has somehow taken up the battle as a personal mission, now valiantly defending Apple against the evils of Google or Adobe. While before he did the whole "compliment sandwich around an insult" thing, now he doesn't even bother with that and it's instead just all criticism.
  - isleyaardvark 16y ago
    I expected you to move the goalposts. "Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it." He has complimented innovation, and in all those cases he did not "viciously attack it". I'm disappointed that many of the comments on this thread have to do with the version of John Gruber in your head, and are attacking his character instead of his real arguments, as opposed to the arguments he makes in your imagination.

by ergo98 16y ago

jodrellblank 16y ago

How can you start off saying Gruber is awful for spinning superficially supported arguments, then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact. Especially when the whole point of Gruber's article is that nobody uses video calling because it's a confusing and complex mess, and when it isn't so (e.g. skype) it gets used, and when iPhone 4 comes out it will get used a lot more. So let's compare- Apple iPhone 4 - instantly popular with millions of people using the exact same make and model with the same software within a few months. Video calling baked in as a single button visible on every phonecall, advertised as a primary feature, designed for easy use. Evo 4G - Phone with camera on the front. Not such a one-off instantly popular hit. Video calling not possible until specific apps heard of, downloaded and installed, configured, then still different and more hassle to use than a normal phonecall. Other features vary by app. And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever.

ergo98 16y ago
>then go on to claim "nobody is going to use video calling" as a fact. It was obviously a personal opinion. See, I'm not making a grand blog entry waxing poetically on why no one will ever make video calls, carefully creating a curated (word of the month) list of support blog and tweet entries to bolster my supposition. I offered zero supports to my opinionn. I think you're missing a big difference there. I don't pretend that I have supports for personal opinion. >So let's compare- Apple is big and successful (biggest tech company...yet people still pretend that they're counter-culture supporting them. Funny, that). Therefore their "we're big and successful" gives them leave to build things only for their, to use the trite descriptive, walled garden? "You can made all the video calls you want...as long as anyone you want to call has an iPhone 4 and is currently on wifi...and so are you. Easie-peasie!" Seriously, this pushes to the point of being comical. >And only the truly antiApple could suggest that people are calling Apple's take "done" in any final sense as if nobody believes it will ever change ever. Obviously it will change. Gruber considers it "done right". I think it is done absolutely horrifically, and it is done in a way that is exactly the problem many people have had with Apple's actions.
- cwilson 16y ago
  Hmm, from the hours of 9am until about 6pm I can list off about 2 dozen people who I might actually call (girlfriend, dad, best friend, etc) who I know will be on a wifi network and are planning on buying iPhone 4's. You know why? Because between those hours they are at work. Guess what? I can also bet that around 8pm until midnight I can also call them, because they are at home, where they have wifi networks. And guess what? The other times, when they are on the go (walking around out in the world, or driving) are times I wouldn't want to video call anyway. People video calling in public is going to be the new nextel walkie-talkie feature; fucking annoying. Driving while video calling, well, hopefully I don't have to comment on that one. This is NOT a perfect solution. Of course being able to do it over 3G or 4G would be awesome. As Steve Jobs said.. that will come. They are working with the carriers to make it happen. Why does the solution have to be perfect day one? Baby steps my friend. Do you not think Steve Jobs wants it to work this way as well? You saying it's done absolutely horrifically is comical, not the other way around. To you, what makes it horrific, is the fact that it only works sometimes, not 24/7. That's pretty ridiculous. Also, I must point out that when Apple releases something it usually IS done right. It usually is very, very close to finished. Apple polishes before they release, it's in their DNA. Steve Jobs is insane about sweating the details.

thewileyone 16y ago

I agree. Gruber is full of shit. Forward facing cameras on Nokia phones have been working on non-3g telephony networks for a while. Saying that "it works right" between two iPhone 4Gs and limited to a wifi network, is like saying the AMC Gremlin is the greatest car in the world on a local track.

astrange 16y ago

> Apple's completely new, completely non-standard protocol. It uses a standard Internet protocol (SIP+SRTP) as they said in the keynote. Skype actually does use a proprietary codec (On2 VP7, which Google hasn't released) in their Skype<>Skype video chat. Does Fring use that, or does it support 3G too? In any case I'd see not using 3G as a major advantage for FaceTime, since H.264+AAC is much better than low-bitrate H.263 used in 3G.

ergo98 16y ago
>It uses a standard Internet protocol (SIP+SRTP) as they said in the keynote. While it draws from a lot of existing standards, it embraces and extends. It isn't interoperable with anything currently deployed. Which is interesting because one alternative world would have seen them introducing the standard a year ago, to be met by broad acceptance and compatibility at release. They chose not to do this, meaning that early adopters enter a very scarce world.
- infinite8s 16y ago
  That would have given away their game with respect to the new iPhone. Also, until iOS 4 is released we can't really say how it's implemented/what it will interoperate with.

asmosoinio 16y ago

> Ignoring the fact that nobody is actually going to use > video calling (it has come so many times on many devices. > The Evo was far from the first device to implement it), > let's humor his point. I just discussed video calls with some of my friends (we all work/have worked with mobile phone software). We agreed that it is one of the biggest technologies that the manufacturers have specified and implemented that _nobody_ has _ever_ used. Now this article was the first time I read about iPhone 4 and video calls. I wonder if Apple is going to be the first one to have people actually using the feature. I mean it's not that odd a feature, people chat on Skype with webcams all the time. Also kind of interesting that video call was one of the main arguments to spend billions to build 3G networks (at least here in Finland).. what.. almost 10 years ago? And IF this works for Apple, it's not going to use any of the technology built back then (not the 3G network and not the software specifications).

dieterrams 16y ago

> Imagine, if you will, that Motorola just introduced their latest Android device, front-facing camera and all, called the iDroid. The iDroid comes with an easy to use, ultra-simple video conferencing solution, but it only works on wifi, and it only works between iDroid devices. How, I ask, would John Gruber respond to that? Imagine that it's been tightly polished and all. Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it. ---------- I love how you're using a hypothetical scenario in which Gruber would very plausibly praise the implementation in question in order to undermine his credibility. He has often pointed out when a competitor does something better than Apple does, or otherwise markedly improves on the status quo. All you've done is create a gestalt which people who don't know any better will interpret according to their biases. Talk about arguments that don't bear any scrutiny.

ergo98 16y ago
>I love how you're using a hypothetical scenario in which Gruber would very plausibly praise the implementation in question in order to undermine his credibility. Most who reads DF would come to a common prediction about how Gruber would have responded to that hypothetical. It doesn't undermine his credibility, but simply puts into context that he is, failing to have a better word, a fanboy.
- infinite8s 16y ago
  A technology fanboy.

isleyaardvark 16y ago

He has commented on Droid features in the past, vicious attacks like: "The email client adds support for Exchange and, moving ahead of the iPhone’s MobileMail, adds support for a combined “all accounts” inbox view." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/27/android-20 http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/27/android-20) "Interestingly, browser scrolling in Android 2.0 seems to have far less “friction” than the iPhone — flick the page and it seems to scroll until you stop it." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/28/engadget-droid http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/28/engadget-droid) "The best thing that could happen for iPhone users would be for the Android and/or WebOS communities to start shipping apps that make iPhone owners jealous. Google Voice for Android is the best example so far." (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/10/torrez-android http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/10/torrez-android) I think it's a shame that you're attacking him for a counterfactual.

ergo98 16y ago
You went searching through the DF archives to find some damning praise and that's the best you could come up with. In each case you selectively chose what you thought was a compliment (protip: His friction comment was not a compliment), yet if you quoted the whole entry you would see that it's damning praise. A compliment sandwich wrapped around a "it's a second class platform" filling. It's also interesting that the best you could find was from over a half a year ago. Most criticism of Daring Fireball has to do with how it has turned so rabidly one-sided over the past few months. Gruber has somehow taken up the battle as a personal mission, now valiantly defending Apple against the evils of Google or Adobe. While before he did the whole "compliment sandwich around an insult" thing, now he doesn't even bother with that and it's instead just all criticism.
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  I expected you to move the goalposts. "Would he post a praise-filled entry lauding their innovation, heralding this great new functionality? Maybe I'm just being a jerk, but I think he would viciously attack it." He has complimented innovation, and in all those cases he did not "viciously attack it". I'm disappointed that many of the comments on this thread have to do with the version of John Gruber in your head, and are attacking his character instead of his real arguments, as opposed to the arguments he makes in your imagination.