5 ms·

Don't worry, if Apple acquires them (like they did their last company, Lala) then Gruber will suddenly realize how revolutionary the idea is.

• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• raganwald 16y ago
  Do you have a refutation for the articles's words? Or is this simply an Ad Hominem? Compare and contrast to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370547 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370547, which is just as scornful but also logical.
  • danilocampos 16y ago
    I'm with you, but stand by my claim that if Adam Lisagor had shot an ad for Color, Gruber's tone would be entirely different. Here's another post about a photo-taking application earlier this week: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday
    • raganwald 16y ago
      Interesting, however I would point out that Gruber isn't reviewing the app, he's reviewing the founder's quoted claim that the app is a data collection play. Personally, I disagree with Gruber: Facebook and Foursquare seem to be evidence that people will gladly give up their personal data in exchange for a "social" experience. But whether Gruber is right or wrong is not the point I was responding to, it's whether Gruber would hypothetically like the app if it was hypothetically bought by Apple. This is irrelevant to what he's saying now. Even if he does like everything Apple does and does hate everything Apple doesn't do, appealing to his bias is the textbook definition of an Ad Hominem: An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. If he's wrong, we can attack his argument directly. How can we have a meaningful discussion about what he might say if some hypothetical future acquisition takes place? Worse, what if he's right now and would be wrong if he did change his mind after some hypothetical future acquisition? In that case, dismissing him because of his bias might rob us of a valuable insight.
      • baddox 16y ago
        flyt's comment is not an ad hominem argument, because flyt is not trying to link the validity of the premise (that Color's funding was the result of their data mining potential) to a characteristic of its advocate (Gruber's pattern of Apple apologetics). In fact, the way I read flyt's comment is that flyt actually agrees with Gruber, but is predicting that if Apple were to have something to do with Color, Gruber's cynicism would disappear. Unless I'm misunderstanding flyt, this was in no way an ad hominem argument.
        • ellyagg 16y ago
          Ah, these "that's not ad hominem" comments you read in every single thread that points out ad hominem get so tiresome. It most certainly is ad hominem. The premise of Gruber's post is approximately that, based on the latest information we're learning about it, there's something distasteful about Color or its value proposition to consumers. The original commenter seeks to discredit Gruber's implied argument by suggesting he's an Apple apologist, that his industry analysis is not based on facts at hand but by inherent biases. This is right in the sweet spot of ad hominem. Just read the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on ad hominem to confirm. Regardless, it's certainly poor form and disappointing to see so highly upvoted.
          • metellus 16y ago
            Except he's not trying to discredit Gruber. He's pointing out that Gruber is able to be unbiased because the product isn't owned by Apple.
            • ThomPete 16y ago
              Huh? So when the product is owned by Apple he is unbiased?
              • lotharbot 16y ago
                No. The opposite of this.
    • macrael 16y ago
      Besides the fact that those two apps involve the taking of photos, they couldn't be more different. I don't think Gruber's like of one and dislike of the other can be seen as any kind of hypocrisy. I'm also curious what how his response (or others') would have been changed had Lisagor shot an ad for them. But, as a data point, Gruber hasn't linked to at least one of Lisagor's ads. (The 3D one for jawbone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg)
    • jsb 16y ago
      I disagree. Everyday is a part-time collaboration by 4 people that hasn't taken on funding, let alone $41M worth. And Everyday has a business model that doesn't mine data about you: it's $1.99 on the app store. So, I guess it's like Color in that it uses pictures, except that it's different in just about every other way.
      • bugsy 16y ago
        Very cool app.
  • baddox 16y ago
    flyt's comment is certainly an attack on Gruber, but I wouldn't call it an ad hominem argument since flyt isn't attempting to discredit Gruber's reasoning by proposing a flaw in Gruber's character. In fact, I don't think flyt is claiming that this wasn't the reason for Color's funding. flyt seems to merely be noting that, while Gruber sounds cynical and disapproving in this post, Gruber would probably approve of and attempt to justify the product if Apple were to acquire Color.
    • raganwald 16y ago
      That had occurred to me, and I was going to suggest that it is semantically equivalent to claiming that John's mother wears army boots. Possibly true, possibly false, but irrelevant and off-topic. However, I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that somebody would suggest that insulting the author in a thread purportedly discussing the author's words is an indirect way of discrediting the words. I could be wrong, in which case I would suggest that such a comment is not contributing to the discussion.
      • baddox 16y ago
        If a comment is not contributing to the discussion, then down-vote it. A non-contributing comment is not the same thing as an ad hominem argument. Also, an attack on someone's character is not the same as an ad hominem argument.
        • deleted 16y ago
          [deleted]
        • bugsy 16y ago
          The entirety subthread about "is it ad hominem or not" is useless meta noise that has nothing at all to do with the main post. Folks, please just say no before creating such a subthread, or responding in one. The original very brief comment was related to the main topic and was a fine, if possibly cynical remark. It represented a view that had not been expressed. It was conversational in nature, such as someone might observe during any reasonable discussion of this topic. It did not need several pages of deconstruction. Comment deconstruction and analysis belongs in an academic literary journal, not here. Thanks.
  • mcantelon 16y ago
    The credibility of a source is relevant. If the National Enquirer posts commentary on a matter, you're likely to take it less seriously than commentary from The Economist.
    • raganwald 16y ago
      Why? If they write something obviously false, then I can refute it directly. The time I question someone's reputation is when they appeal to authority themselves. For example, if I were to write "I've been in business for twenty years, take it from me that where startups are concerned, _____," then it's perfectly appropriate to point out that I haven't worked in silicon valley. After all, my reputation is part of my argument, so questioning it is questioning my argument. Other than that, if I say something about business, arguing that I boast of being a Socialist says nothing about whether my words about business are useful. If you "take them with a grain of salt," you are the one who may be missing out. This principle is not new to HN. Paul Graham wrote about it explicitly in his essay "How to Disagree:" http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Have a look at what he has to say about DH0, Name calling, and DH1, Ad hominem. You may not like the National Enquirer, but if they were to write about a startup, it should be possible to disagree with their suppositions without resorting to questioning the piece solely because they published it.
    • Rantenki 16y ago
      Actually, I am just plain less likely to read it, but I agree with your premise.
• jad 16y ago
  As of about 6:50 PM EDT, this ad hominem attack on the article's author has almost as many upvotes (56) as every other top-level comment on this thread combined (67). Sad.
  • baddox 16y ago
    As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem.
    • raganwald 16y ago
      It all depends. Sometimes these attacks on the character or reputation of the argument are indirect ad hominem arguments. Consider a fictitious debate between a Christian and a Muslim politician about whether or not to strip Americans of even more civil liberties. The Christian candidate listens to the Muslim candidate make a point, then says loudly and clearly, "Folks, he's a Muslim!" He doesn't say "And therefore he's wrong," but nevertheless it is rhetorical device for discrediting his opponent and getting the audience to ignore his point. Wikipedia calls this Ad hominem abuse: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem
      • baddox 16y ago
        It sounds like you are suggesting that flyt thinks that Color's funding has nothing to do with the potential for user data mining, and thus disagrees with Gruber and much of the Hacker News community. I think you are wrong.
    • 16y ago
• jgruber 16y ago
  Funny, I can't seem to find the article where I said much of anything about Lala, post- or pre-acquisition by Apple, let alone the one where I claimed they were "revolutionary". Please let me know the URL for that piece.
  • statictype 16y ago
    Could you link to your HN profile from Daring Fireball (or something equivalent)? I'm having doubts about whether you're actually John Gruber or not, if only because you would have used 'gruber' instead of jgruber (gruber is still available from what I can see). Would be nice to have it cleared up once and for all. And if you're not John Gruber of Daring Fireball, then please remove the lies on your profile page.
• mambodog 16y ago
  Useless and irrelevant comments such as this one, along with it's many replies, contribute to signal-to-noise degradation of the discussion section of many popular HN posts. Maybe collapsible comment threads would help to mitigate this.
  • pavel_lishin 16y ago
    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjhafgjncjpodihkd https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjh...
  • gumbo 16y ago
    I agree with you. Those comments thread should be collapsible. And we need a way to see only new comments.