3 ms·

That's hyperbole. Daring Fireball, Asymco and Arment are advocates for Apple, no doubt. That doesn't prevent them from being able to provide an interesting pers

That's hyperbole. Daring Fireball, Asymco and Arment are advocates for Apple, no doubt. That doesn't prevent them from being able to provide an interesting perspective from one side of the argument. There are plenty of Android advocates out there making the opposing case, and they also get linked on HN. Also, if you're talking about Ryan Paul of Arstechnica, then I certainly wouldn't regard him as neutral. He's an advocate for open source software. I disagree with his stance on many subjects. Doesn't stop me reading his articles though.

blinkingled 16y ago
Key difference here is that Ryan Paul doesn't go on a hyperbole, make numbers up, show poor logic and clear bias in advocating against what he doesn't subscribe to. That is why you don't stop reading his articles. It is because DF/Arment/Asymco do outrageously illogical, facts-be-damned, bigotry-without-fail that I stopped reading their articles. If even once they offered a balanced view point I will reconsider. To make it clear - If for example Paul went and started telling people on a daily basis that don't use Windows as it gives too much hardware choice, kills puppies, gives your data to NSA, Windows will never succeed and what not - that is totally different than what he does currently - covers open source and may be hints at "you should try this" which is way more reasonable. As far as I know he hasn't done the former.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- MrScruff 16y ago
  An alternative view would be that DF etc wear their bias on their sleeve, leaving the viewer in no doubt that they are reading a partisan view on the subject. They're the Keith Olbermann of tech punditry. Entertaining and occasionally informative if you take it all with a pinch of salt. Ryan Paul is much less obvious about it, sure, but nevertheless continually presents his area of interest in a positive light. Typically he'll put open source software under very little scrutiny compared to the regular trashing handed out by the Apple & MS writers on Arstechnica.

blinkingled 16y ago

Key difference here is that Ryan Paul doesn't go on a hyperbole, make numbers up, show poor logic and clear bias in advocating against what he doesn't subscribe to. That is why you don't stop reading his articles. It is because DF/Arment/Asymco do outrageously illogical, facts-be-damned, bigotry-without-fail that I stopped reading their articles. If even once they offered a balanced view point I will reconsider. To make it clear - If for example Paul went and started telling people on a daily basis that don't use Windows as it gives too much hardware choice, kills puppies, gives your data to NSA, Windows will never succeed and what not - that is totally different than what he does currently - covers open source and may be hints at "you should try this" which is way more reasonable. As far as I know he hasn't done the former.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
MrScruff 16y ago
An alternative view would be that DF etc wear their bias on their sleeve, leaving the viewer in no doubt that they are reading a partisan view on the subject. They're the Keith Olbermann of tech punditry. Entertaining and occasionally informative if you take it all with a pinch of salt. Ryan Paul is much less obvious about it, sure, but nevertheless continually presents his area of interest in a positive light. Typically he'll put open source software under very little scrutiny compared to the regular trashing handed out by the Apple & MS writers on Arstechnica.