The author's analysis is top-notch because he actually understands what the newest incarnation of Apple is about, unlike most of the people who write about Apple.
Cringely opined some years ago that tech companies evolve through three categories (or stages of development): technology driven, sales driven, and marketing driven.
There's an assumption in this ontology: that growth and evolution of a tech company is predicated on new technology.
The new (post-1997, Jobs II) Apple breaks this rule. Apple is design driven, at a level that makes more sense to folks with a Fine Art degree than a CS background. (The reason for their success? Lots of folks with an aesthetic background like this stuff and will pay extra for it.) They're seeking a better user experience, vertically integrated at all levels with their web ecosystem.
Gruber -- who's been tracking apple for something like 20 years -- gets this. J. Random Gizmo columnist doesn't.
That said, I don't think his analysis is that great in this particular article, that's why I quoted the word analysis in my original post. Like I said, this feels like pure speculation backed by intuition on the author's part. His analysis doesn't use any sort of sales numbers or statistics to show where the market is heading and why Apply would take certain decisions.
Yes, it feels like that. Since he explicitly says as much in the article. Few other Apple pundits are so self-aware.
Edit: it's also already a failed site. Its name pretends to a comprehensiveness that is belied by the meager three dates on which he's posted, the latest of which is in September, 2009. Gruber posts something almost daily-surely he's been wrong about something since September?
2. don't see any hate speech