5 ms·
I think that there's a difference between a bias and outright fanboyism. I've met Apple fanboys: they're not fun. They take the thing that I love about Apple us
by unalone 18y ago
I think that there's a difference between a bias and outright fanboyism. I've met Apple fanboys: they're not fun. They take the thing that I love about Apple users (the generally rational mindset) and make it look dumb. Gruber's not one of those people. Does he like Mac? Of course. But I think he likes it because they genuinely please him, not because he's getting paid to like them.
You're allowed to call bullshit on Apple fans who act like hypocrites. Apple fans who attack DRM without calling attention to iTunes are being stupid. At the same time, ignoring the fact that Apple's got more DRM-free music than any other store, last I checked, is ignoring the fact that Apple is TRYING to allow for open systems insofar as it doesn't ruin a business deal. But DRM isn't the issue here, and I don't see why that's being brought up.
Your initial stance against Gruber's reaction was a sneering one, though. I mean, those Seinfeld ads really didn't push much for Vista. They were well-made shots, but you've been saying repeatedly that they're possibly going to revolutionize advertising and make history. I think that's illogical just as you seem to think disliking those ads were illogical.
When I read blogs, I take their arguments at face value. If I'm reading an argument from Apple itself, if that argument makes sense then I'll agree with it until other proof comes up. Similarly, if somebody who's usually big on Apple turns around and starts praising Linux or Windows, I don't think they're more credible because it's such a big change. Unless their reasoning is good, I'll still call BS.
I didn't see the part in their statement where they said they had only dropped a single ad. I don't recall seeing that anywhere. If you've got a link to that, or even the site you found it on, then tell me and I'll give it a look. But I still hold that their having only two ads seems pretty lackluster and looks like they're panicking, even though I acknowledge the fact that there might be more reasoning behind them. I think that the terrible phase two that we're seeing continues that trend.
What would you like me to cite? Anything you think I said that isn't rationally thought-out I'll try to clarify. I will point out, though, that your responding to my accusations by using yet more weasel words really doesn't make you seem particularly more believable.
- mattmaroon 18y agoI read on TechCrunch (and scores of other places) that Microsoft said that this has been their plan all along. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/17/its-over-for-seinfeld-but-crispin-porter-keeps-microsoft-business/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/17/its-over-for-seinfeld-b... Gizmodo says that CP+B confirms there was one produced that hasn't aired, but may later, along with others yet to be produced: http://gizmodo.com/5051682/microsoft-ads-featuring-bill-gates-and-jerry-seinfeld-not-canceled http://gizmodo.com/5051682/microsoft-ads-featuring-bill-gate... There you go. Got anything to the contrary that isn't baseless hearsay like "Microsoft's questions from the press were replied to by their public relations agency, ergo they are panicking"? Surely you must admit now that Gruber's logic there was deeply flawed.
- unalone 18y agoGotcha. I hadn't seen either of those two stories. Thanks for the links! And yeah. Flawed logic following those two stories. I still think Microsoft's campaign is questionable at best, but at least it looks like they're still proceeding as per plan.