4 ms·

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

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.
        shasta 16y ago
        Converse
        marshray 16y ago
        I love you guys. (You really should do "Who's on first?" sometime. :-)
- jonursenbach 16y ago
  He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color
  - kelnos 16y ago
    "Nice domain name, though." I wonder how much that cost them...
    - chibimagic 16y ago
      $350,000 http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-...
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.

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.
        shasta 16y ago
        Converse
        marshray 16y ago
        I love you guys. (You really should do "Who's on first?" sometime. :-)
jonursenbach 16y ago
He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color
- kelnos 16y ago
  "Nice domain name, though." I wonder how much that cost them...
  - chibimagic 16y ago
    $350,000 http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-...

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.