5 ms·

I used to be a big fan of Gruber, but I'm getting increasingly tired of his "defend Apple at all costs" mentality. When Apple was the underdog, it all seemed t

I used to be a big fan of Gruber, but I'm getting increasingly tired of his "defend Apple at all costs" mentality. When Apple was the underdog, it all seemed to be about not what was possible, but what was fair, and what was right. Now it's a "Well, of course Apple would do that, wouldn't you?" And he then punts on the biggest question of all: What if Microsoft did this with Windows, and, say, tried to require Apple to pay them 30 percent for every purchase made through iTunes on Windows? To that, I say: good luck with that. Not "well I'd certainly write a slam piece about it", not "well, that would definitely require competition regulators", not "that would be a dick move." Just "they couldn't do it anyway, so your hypotheticals mean nothing." The way I put it (crassly) is "When you're Top Dog, you don't need to play like a bitch." Which is what Apple is doing, and honestly, they're turning me off from their products. And that's not about "Oh well, Apple likes to make money, and why shouldn't they be allowed to?" It's about looking like you're above it. Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this.

fleitz 16y ago
I don't believe Costco publishes their vendor agreements so you really have no idea how Costco treats their suppliers. Also, no one complains that Google takes 32% of AdWords.
- jrockway 16y ago
  They don't take 32% of the purchase price for purchases that were made by someone who clicked on an AdWords link, though.
  - fleitz 16y ago
    If you're monetizing your content via adsense then they're taking 32% of your profit. It's been repeated over and over again that this is about content publishers. eg. Selling magazine subscriptions. Apple provides access to a large number are: A) affluent, B) have credit cards in the system C) are conditioned to buy via that medium, to me it's worth 30% to get access to that market. It's like rent on a busy street, if you're selling trinkets with a minimal markup it's probably not worth it. If you're selling high end with lots of markup it's probably worth it. iOS isn't for everyone, it's a luxury brand, not every model is going to work on that platform. Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that.
    - jonknee 16y ago
      They're doing work there though--selling the ads. Apple is taking 30% of your sales when you're doing the work (other than the actual payment processing).
    - jrockway 16y ago
      If you're monetizing your content via adsense then they're taking 32% of your profit. Right, and that's absolutely expected. Apple should feel free to take 30% of anything purchased in-app. What they shouldn't do is force vendors to charge everyone else 30% more for the same product. It would be like Google saying, "if you want to show an ad on your blog, you have to give us 30% of the money you make at your garage sale". It simply makes no sense. Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that. I want one where I can pay $10 for a book on my Kindle and read it on my phone when I don't have the Kindle with me. Paying Apple an extra $3 so that I can read my books on my phone doesn't make much sense to me. But that's why I don't own an iPhone. My phone is a chunk of circuit boards that fits in my pocket, not my life.
- natnat 16y ago
  Google takes all of AdWords, since it's on their own site. They take a 32% cut of AdSense. The thing is, advertisers could use other channels to put ads up on the web. They can advertise with Chitika or whatever and get a bigger cut than they would with Google. They typically don't, because AdSense adds a lot of value by targeting the ads well. On the other hand, if you want to sell software on an iOS device, the only way is through the app store. Apple doesn't need to add any value to protect their 30% cut from competition because they don't allow competitors.
  - ReadyNSet 16y ago
    and google never published that percentage until iAd came around.
  - ecuzzillo 16y ago
    I think the last argument is misframed. If you want to sell software on a tablet device, you can do it through Android, iOS, or probably a couple other ways. Apple's claim, presumably, is that the quality of iOS, the App Store, and of the hardware that runs iOS, adds at least that much value over Android. And, given how much more money people make on iOS apps compared to Android apps, they're probably right. The argument about subscription issues is related but more complicated.
- zach 16y ago
  Well, we do know about Costco dropping Coca-Cola and Apple because Costco wasn't satisfied with the terms they were getting. They came to an agreement with Coke but Apple products are still gone. If you're a retailer willing to drop Coca-Cola, we can pretty much assume you're a strong-willed company. Whether that leads to triumphs of principle over practicality or displays of pettiness is, I'd say, a matter of perspective.
- calloc 16y ago
  But Costco does publicise how much markup they put on their products as a maximum: _Costco's maximum markup on merchandise is 14 percent, and "a lot of products don't come close to 14 percent," Sinegal said. By comparison, supermarkets commonly mark up merchandise by 25 percent and department stores by about 50 percent._ http://www.gazette.com/articles/costco-33279-springs-store.html http://www.gazette.com/articles/costco-33279-springs-store.h... Costco is extremely cut-throat, there have been several articles about Costco and how if they aren't receiving the lowest price for a product they just won't have it on the shelves, the Coke dispute was pretty big [1]. Overall I find that Costco is pretty transparent when it comes to the products they offer, and how much they charge for them. So far Costco has been a great value for me as a consumer! [1]: http://www.wbur.org/npr/120590548/price-fight-coke-isnt-it-at-costco http://www.wbur.org/npr/120590548/price-fight-coke-isnt-it-a...
siglesias 16y ago
Ad hominem. You should address logical flaws and false statements. And he was critical of Apple in two of the four points, so your premise is false. Edit: This discussion is also something of a strawman, attacking none of the important arguments made in the article. The point about what Gruber would say if Microsoft had done this is simply a preemption of an ad hominem attack against himself and it's quite unfortunate that he chose to address it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's fairness in charging 30%, which is what we should all be talking about because it's a very important topic. Very sorry to see this community of rationalists fall for a refutation of something that's irrelevant to the main discussion.
- sutro 16y ago
  Does anyone know of a browser plugin that will automatically eliminate from view any Hacker News comment containing the phrase "ad hominem?" Ad-Hom Block Pro or some such?
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Well said. I die a little inside, every time I read those words (and the inevitable dissection that veers away from the actual content of the discussion, and towards the process of deciding who's 'right'). Debating is good and fine - but (imo) sometimes, concentrating on the minutia isn't as worthwhile as expressing an idea. Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'.
    - Travis 16y ago
      Funny running into you on this thread, after our earlier discussion. I want to thank you for identifying for me what it is about online discussions that turn me off. You really hit the nail on the head with: "Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'."
      - lwhi 16y ago
        I've (tragically) spent far too many hours trying to convince various developers that tables aren't good for layout - my motives are sincere - but I admit, it's a conversation that's more than enough to turn anyone off :) I meant what I said about emailing if you'd like some tips about CSS - I had few 'a-ha' moments that really made my life easier.
asr 16y ago
Definitely agree. Plus defending every single part of Apple's policies makes him set up straw men and false dichotomies like nobody's business. Take his summation: "iOS isn’t and never was an open computer system. It’s a closed, controlled console system..." The implication being that iOS users have no right to complain because they signed up for a "closed" system. Systems are never just "open" or "closed." Apple's move here is making the system more closed.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ra88it 16y ago
Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this. Is the following statement (from the article) false? As for ruthless profiteering, consider that Amazon, with their e-book publishing, originally took the fat end of a 70-30 revenue split with authors.
- apike 16y ago
  This was true until iBooks came out. Keep in mind that a 70% cut for the publisher for books is better than most authors traditionally get. Meanwhile, record labels' cuts are usually more than 90%.
  - ra88it 16y ago
    Right, I realize they reversed the cut after iBooks came out. But so now it's 30%, just like Apple.
    - apike 16y ago
      Even now, to get Amazon's cut down to 30% you need to agree to a list of restrictions about pricing and availability that are favourable to Amazon.
martythemaniak 16y ago
I found it pretty hilarious when Gruber quoted Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Gruber owes his good fortunes to being the premier Apple shill, and no amount of logic, reasoning, facts or ethics is going to change that. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/23/dhh-it-dept http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/23/dhh-it-dept
- ugh 16y ago
  Does he? He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple? (All of this seems very much beside the point, though. Discussions about Daring Fireball have become so predictable. Nobody seems to be even interested in talking about the arguments, everyone wants to throw dirt around.)
  - b0sk 16y ago
    It's an indirect effect. Majority of his readers are Apple fans and need a constant reminder why their platform is better than others. ( Think about it in terms of being a sports fan. You'll rarely subscribe to a beat writer who tries to uncover scandals in your team and tries to find faults ). He earns money from software and services which run in Apple-based platforms. ( Pixelmator, for example ). If he constantly undermines Apple, will Pixelmator be happy? He has to give an air of legitimacy by pointing out Apple's faults once in a while and competitors' good products now and then. His primary audience is Apple fans. and he writes for them.
  - chollida1 16y ago
    > He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple? Well, he has stated on many occasions that he has "sources" inside of Apple where he gets alot of his information from. If he started to be overly critical of Apple and his sources suddenly dried up then his writing would suffer, his readership would go down and his ad revenue would decease. So I'd say it's pretty easy to make the case that he would indeed earn less if he was overly critical of Apple.
mbrubeck 16y ago
What I like about Gruber, even when I disagree with him, is that I think he understands, better than any other outside commentator, how Apple's management team thinks and works. He's not a leading expert on business, or on technology, but I'd call him a leading expert on Steve Jobs' mind. This understanding is part of why Gruber often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when he disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing from the point of view of Apple Inc., the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?" (This also explains why I hate Gruber's writing about competiting companies like Microsoft and Google. I don't think he understands how those companies think and work at all, so his commentary on them totally lacks that insight and usefulness.)
- jonknee 16y ago
  > This understanding is part of why he often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when Gruber disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing based on Apple's point of view as a corporation, the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?" Yet he rarely qualifies that with, "While I don't agree" or something similar. He does sometimes, which leads me to believe that he usually is talking about what he believes.
  - mbrubeck 16y ago
    But that's just the thing... People often act like Gruber is writing about how things should be, but more often he's just writing about how things are (or how he thinks they will be), and why. -- As a side note... I got my first Mac in 1989. I've been reading the Mac press for over 20 years, and Daring Fireball for about 7 or 8 years. There was a time in the "dark ages" of the 90s when even the most die-hard Apple fans had a "love the product; hate the company" mentality, because it seemed like Apple's management was doing everything they could to screw things up. Daring Fireball is entirely a product of the Steve Jobs II era, with much more competent management, so it hasn't had quite as much reason to gripe. But Gruber has had some long-standing disagreements with Apple. He bitched for years about how much worse the Finder was in OS X. (I think the only reason he stopped is that he gave up hope that it'll ever be fixed.)
jad 16y ago
"well, that would definitely require competition regulators" No offense, but the idea that the government needs to step in is a nonsensical argument that is getting repeated with increasing frequency whenever Apple does something controversial. There is not a single market in which Apple competes where they have a monopoly (caveat: tablet computers right now, but that market is revving up to be hyper competitive in the very near future, and who would want the government intervening there at this nascent stage). A monopoly is required for antitrust investigations. Do you know who Apple's "competition regulators" are? Google, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, Palm/HP, et al.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sedev 16y ago
Your comment essentially assumes "someone who disagrees with me so much, couldn't possibly be sincere!" Please don't do that, that's bad discourse. Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this. No, you don't - because you're a developer, not someone who has to argue with them in the areas where they do do petty shit like this.

fleitz 16y ago

I don't believe Costco publishes their vendor agreements so you really have no idea how Costco treats their suppliers. Also, no one complains that Google takes 32% of AdWords.

jrockway 16y ago
They don't take 32% of the purchase price for purchases that were made by someone who clicked on an AdWords link, though.
- fleitz 16y ago
  If you're monetizing your content via adsense then they're taking 32% of your profit. It's been repeated over and over again that this is about content publishers. eg. Selling magazine subscriptions. Apple provides access to a large number are: A) affluent, B) have credit cards in the system C) are conditioned to buy via that medium, to me it's worth 30% to get access to that market. It's like rent on a busy street, if you're selling trinkets with a minimal markup it's probably not worth it. If you're selling high end with lots of markup it's probably worth it. iOS isn't for everyone, it's a luxury brand, not every model is going to work on that platform. Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    They're doing work there though--selling the ads. Apple is taking 30% of your sales when you're doing the work (other than the actual payment processing).
  - jrockway 16y ago
    If you're monetizing your content via adsense then they're taking 32% of your profit. Right, and that's absolutely expected. Apple should feel free to take 30% of anything purchased in-app. What they shouldn't do is force vendors to charge everyone else 30% more for the same product. It would be like Google saying, "if you want to show an ad on your blog, you have to give us 30% of the money you make at your garage sale". It simply makes no sense. Want a marketplace where no one buys anything, there are confusing payment options, and your product is next to 10 task killer apps, well then there's a Marketplace for that. I want one where I can pay $10 for a book on my Kindle and read it on my phone when I don't have the Kindle with me. Paying Apple an extra $3 so that I can read my books on my phone doesn't make much sense to me. But that's why I don't own an iPhone. My phone is a chunk of circuit boards that fits in my pocket, not my life.
natnat 16y ago
Google takes all of AdWords, since it's on their own site. They take a 32% cut of AdSense. The thing is, advertisers could use other channels to put ads up on the web. They can advertise with Chitika or whatever and get a bigger cut than they would with Google. They typically don't, because AdSense adds a lot of value by targeting the ads well. On the other hand, if you want to sell software on an iOS device, the only way is through the app store. Apple doesn't need to add any value to protect their 30% cut from competition because they don't allow competitors.
- ReadyNSet 16y ago
  and google never published that percentage until iAd came around.
- ecuzzillo 16y ago
  I think the last argument is misframed. If you want to sell software on a tablet device, you can do it through Android, iOS, or probably a couple other ways. Apple's claim, presumably, is that the quality of iOS, the App Store, and of the hardware that runs iOS, adds at least that much value over Android. And, given how much more money people make on iOS apps compared to Android apps, they're probably right. The argument about subscription issues is related but more complicated.
zach 16y ago
Well, we do know about Costco dropping Coca-Cola and Apple because Costco wasn't satisfied with the terms they were getting. They came to an agreement with Coke but Apple products are still gone. If you're a retailer willing to drop Coca-Cola, we can pretty much assume you're a strong-willed company. Whether that leads to triumphs of principle over practicality or displays of pettiness is, I'd say, a matter of perspective.
calloc 16y ago
But Costco does publicise how much markup they put on their products as a maximum: _Costco's maximum markup on merchandise is 14 percent, and "a lot of products don't come close to 14 percent," Sinegal said. By comparison, supermarkets commonly mark up merchandise by 25 percent and department stores by about 50 percent._ http://www.gazette.com/articles/costco-33279-springs-store.html http://www.gazette.com/articles/costco-33279-springs-store.h... Costco is extremely cut-throat, there have been several articles about Costco and how if they aren't receiving the lowest price for a product they just won't have it on the shelves, the Coke dispute was pretty big [1]. Overall I find that Costco is pretty transparent when it comes to the products they offer, and how much they charge for them. So far Costco has been a great value for me as a consumer! [1]: http://www.wbur.org/npr/120590548/price-fight-coke-isnt-it-at-costco http://www.wbur.org/npr/120590548/price-fight-coke-isnt-it-a...

siglesias 16y ago

Ad hominem. You should address logical flaws and false statements. And he was critical of Apple in two of the four points, so your premise is false. Edit: This discussion is also something of a strawman, attacking none of the important arguments made in the article. The point about what Gruber would say if Microsoft had done this is simply a preemption of an ad hominem attack against himself and it's quite unfortunate that he chose to address it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's fairness in charging 30%, which is what we should all be talking about because it's a very important topic. Very sorry to see this community of rationalists fall for a refutation of something that's irrelevant to the main discussion.

sutro 16y ago
Does anyone know of a browser plugin that will automatically eliminate from view any Hacker News comment containing the phrase "ad hominem?" Ad-Hom Block Pro or some such?
- lwhi 16y ago
  Well said. I die a little inside, every time I read those words (and the inevitable dissection that veers away from the actual content of the discussion, and towards the process of deciding who's 'right'). Debating is good and fine - but (imo) sometimes, concentrating on the minutia isn't as worthwhile as expressing an idea. Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'.
  - Travis 16y ago
    Funny running into you on this thread, after our earlier discussion. I want to thank you for identifying for me what it is about online discussions that turn me off. You really hit the nail on the head with: "Discussion can exist without this constant battle to score 'points'."
    - lwhi 16y ago
      I've (tragically) spent far too many hours trying to convince various developers that tables aren't good for layout - my motives are sincere - but I admit, it's a conversation that's more than enough to turn anyone off :) I meant what I said about emailing if you'd like some tips about CSS - I had few 'a-ha' moments that really made my life easier.

asr 16y ago

Definitely agree. Plus defending every single part of Apple's policies makes him set up straw men and false dichotomies like nobody's business. Take his summation: "iOS isn’t and never was an open computer system. It’s a closed, controlled console system..." The implication being that iOS users have no right to complain because they signed up for a "closed" system. Systems are never just "open" or "closed." Apple's move here is making the system more closed.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ra88it 16y ago

Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this. Is the following statement (from the article) false? As for ruthless profiteering, consider that Amazon, with their e-book publishing, originally took the fat end of a 70-30 revenue split with authors.

apike 16y ago
This was true until iBooks came out. Keep in mind that a 70% cut for the publisher for books is better than most authors traditionally get. Meanwhile, record labels' cuts are usually more than 90%.
- ra88it 16y ago
  Right, I realize they reversed the cut after iBooks came out. But so now it's 30%, just like Apple.
  - apike 16y ago
    Even now, to get Amazon's cut down to 30% you need to agree to a list of restrictions about pricing and availability that are favourable to Amazon.

martythemaniak 16y ago

I found it pretty hilarious when Gruber quoted Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Gruber owes his good fortunes to being the premier Apple shill, and no amount of logic, reasoning, facts or ethics is going to change that. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/23/dhh-it-dept http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/23/dhh-it-dept

ugh 16y ago
Does he? He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple? (All of this seems very much beside the point, though. Discussions about Daring Fireball have become so predictable. Nobody seems to be even interested in talking about the arguments, everyone wants to throw dirt around.)
- b0sk 16y ago
  It's an indirect effect. Majority of his readers are Apple fans and need a constant reminder why their platform is better than others. ( Think about it in terms of being a sports fan. You'll rarely subscribe to a beat writer who tries to uncover scandals in your team and tries to find faults ). He earns money from software and services which run in Apple-based platforms. ( Pixelmator, for example ). If he constantly undermines Apple, will Pixelmator be happy? He has to give an air of legitimacy by pointing out Apple's faults once in a while and competitors' good products now and then. His primary audience is Apple fans. and he writes for them.
- chollida1 16y ago
  > He earns money from ads, do you think he would earn less should he write critically about Apple? Well, he has stated on many occasions that he has "sources" inside of Apple where he gets alot of his information from. If he started to be overly critical of Apple and his sources suddenly dried up then his writing would suffer, his readership would go down and his ad revenue would decease. So I'd say it's pretty easy to make the case that he would indeed earn less if he was overly critical of Apple.

mbrubeck 16y ago

What I like about Gruber, even when I disagree with him, is that I think he understands, better than any other outside commentator, how Apple's management team thinks and works. He's not a leading expert on business, or on technology, but I'd call him a leading expert on Steve Jobs' mind. This understanding is part of why Gruber often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when he disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing from the point of view of Apple Inc., the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?" (This also explains why I hate Gruber's writing about competiting companies like Microsoft and Google. I don't think he understands how those companies think and work at all, so his commentary on them totally lacks that insight and usefulness.)

jonknee 16y ago
> This understanding is part of why he often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when Gruber disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing based on Apple's point of view as a corporation, the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?" Yet he rarely qualifies that with, "While I don't agree" or something similar. He does sometimes, which leads me to believe that he usually is talking about what he believes.
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  But that's just the thing... People often act like Gruber is writing about how things should be, but more often he's just writing about how things are (or how he thinks they will be), and why. -- As a side note... I got my first Mac in 1989. I've been reading the Mac press for over 20 years, and Daring Fireball for about 7 or 8 years. There was a time in the "dark ages" of the 90s when even the most die-hard Apple fans had a "love the product; hate the company" mentality, because it seemed like Apple's management was doing everything they could to screw things up. Daring Fireball is entirely a product of the Steve Jobs II era, with much more competent management, so it hasn't had quite as much reason to gripe. But Gruber has had some long-standing disagreements with Apple. He bitched for years about how much worse the Finder was in OS X. (I think the only reason he stopped is that he gave up hope that it'll ever be fixed.)

jad 16y ago

"well, that would definitely require competition regulators" No offense, but the idea that the government needs to step in is a nonsensical argument that is getting repeated with increasing frequency whenever Apple does something controversial. There is not a single market in which Apple competes where they have a monopoly (caveat: tablet computers right now, but that market is revving up to be hyper competitive in the very near future, and who would want the government intervening there at this nascent stage). A monopoly is required for antitrust investigations. Do you know who Apple's "competition regulators" are? Google, Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, Palm/HP, et al.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

sedev 16y ago

Your comment essentially assumes "someone who disagrees with me so much, couldn't possibly be sincere!" Please don't do that, that's bad discourse. Brands like Costco and Amazon make a huge chunk of change, but you don't see them getting into petty stuff like this. No, you don't - because you're a developer, not someone who has to argue with them in the areas where they do do petty shit like this.