This quote sums up my issue with Gruber. Everything for him revolves around being a fan of a product (in his case Apple products). I just want great products. Might be iPhone today, Android tomorrow, and Windows Phone next year.
Edit: Also, don't forget this classic — Apple Needs a Nikon (http://daringfireball.net/2007/11/apple_needs_a_nikon)
Salient quote from Stephen Fry: "So you can guess that I certainly do think design is important. But it doesn’t have to come from Apple. In fact, I wish to goodness it came from everywhere."
Well heck, so do I, but I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of either.
Actually I try not to be a "fan" of anything. Describing yourself as a fan of something seems to be a way of making the rather dull act of liking something into part of your identity.
What I'm trying to say is that I think your preferences will always be a large part of who you are, like it or not.
That said, I'm a fan of Apple because I admire their work. I'm enamored with the substance of their products, and I could care less how ownership affects my image [Edit: more honestly, I try not to care]. (I actually think declaring myself a fan of Apple is a detriment to my image, especially in this forum. C'est la vie.)
How did you pull that from this article? He basically says, "I like things that are fully-baked," not, "I like Apple products."
I have been a "Mac Fanboy" for about 15 years, and it has always been about execution. I have no loyalty to Apple, but insomuch as they make better products than anyone else, I will unabashedly say that the competition is crap. If another company stepped up and made better products, I would start using those (and competition is great for the consumer).
Which is basically what you just said, except that you (as many people do) treat Apple as somehow special. I don't fully understand it, but I think that Jobs' often smug attitude turns people off to the entire company and their offerings. They see Apple as elitist-in-a-bad-way, and even if they are popular now they are somehow a fad. Which is fine, but in that case it would be more correct to say "I dislike elitist CEOs," than "(HP|Dell|Compaq)/(Windows|Linux)/(Android|Wince) is just as good as Mac/MacOS/iPhone." Because really, they're not and never have been (software compatibility complicates the Windows/MacOS comparison).
Cheaper maybe, but never just as good. (You can often spot the weaker competition by their extensive "feature" lists.)
And if you've been a "Mac Fanboy" for the past 15 years, you haven't been a fan of quality. Until a couple of revs into OSX the Mac OS had been garbage. Mac OS Classic became a dog (it was great in '84).
If in '84 to the mid-90s you were an Apple/Amiga user. And then switched to Windows. And then switched back to Apple around 2002 then you may have a claim. If you didn't get the iPhone until the 3G came out, that's a good sign. If you never bought into the PowerPC being WAY faster than the x86 processors that's a good sign.
But in my experience, Apple "fans" are surprisingly not all that discerning when it comes to Apple products.
And let me be clear... the iPad is the best tablet on the market. The iPhone will be the best phone on the market again, starting next month (I give the nod the Evo right now). Altough I'll take Win7 as best desktop OS, and Google has the best web browser.
It's about looking objectively at each solution and technology. Not these weird claims that no one else does anything of merit, but Apple. The bozo bit gets set right when you say that, because there are several obvious examples of other companies doing good work.
I won't say that Apple's products are perfect - the pinnacle of what can be done - just currently the best.
Wow, thats cold... I'm the zealot? There is some personal inertia in switching desktop platforms...
You seem to be espousing a desire for good products that is similar to the viewpoint Gruber states in this post and others, but you say that his viewpoint isn't genuine. Do you believe that he's been duped by Apple into thinking their products are good, but that you're more immune to that? This needs elaboration.
I also think that in the paragraph you quoted earlier from Gruber, he was assuming that the Android and iPhone fans are fans because they identify with statements like the two he provided, rather than that they would identify with those statements because of their status as iPhone or Android fans.
It's not clear to "most of us" (who is "most of us" anyways? Hackers? I don't think so. MacHeads, probably.).
Of course Gruber isn't going to say, "I think Apple is the best even when they're not." He couches his fanaticism in "good taste". And it just so happens that everything Apple does has good taste, and everything anyone else does, does not. Unless they subsequently get bought by Apple.
I don't know if Gruber has been duped, but when I see someone who believes a single company is universally good and their competitors universally bad, I get suspicious. Of course taste is taste. Someone might say that Coby is the pinnacle of consumer gadgets. No one makes better quality than Coby. You'd immediately flip the bozo bit on them, although maybe you'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I just find so little that Gruber says has any objective truth in it, which is why it is hard for me to respect him.
And lets be clear. On my personal blog, I can easily find a lot of really good products from a variety of places. I don't think Gruber has that capacity. For example, could you imagine Gruber saying a positive word about an MS product. For him a product is an MS product above everything else. Quality of the product is a secondary aspect of it. This is why Apple products all get passes. Their first Apple products, and then their quality comes next. And then he justifies the quality of Apple products.
"I also think that in the paragraph you quoted earlier from Gruber, he was assuming that the Android and iPhone fans are fans because they identify with statements like the two he provided, rather than that they would identify with those statements because of their status as iPhone or Android fans."
What does being a fan have to do with having an opinion? Again, his polarization of the world through his lens makes him susceptible to this form of thinking (whether using my or your interpretation).
At the end of the day Gruber is simply not informative, and its due to his fanatical fanboyism. I can pretty much write a Gruber post. I'll take a current Apple controversy. I'll tell you why Apple is right/better, and the competitor is worse. I'll take liberties with logic or common sense, but I'll drop nuggets of insider knowledge (and those are actually useful, and keep his blog from being a total waste).
But then again, I'm sure he's making a lot more money with his blog than I am with this random posting on HN.
Ah, so you're suspicious of Google then? Good, so am I.
Are they perfect? No. Are the companies that made them flawless? No. But I can appreciate a product/company, yet not have my identity tied up with the product. I use an Apple product, but I'm not defined by that use any more than I'm defined by the fact that I use Sylvania light bulbs or Colgate toothpaste.
By the standards of the dictionary I have before me, then, you meet the minimum requirements for the word "fan" to be applied to you. It doesn't mention anything about wrapping your identity up in the target of your interest/admiration, nor does it mention anything about needing to believe that the target is flawless.
But that's good news, right? You don't need to get your hackles up when you hear the word "fan" anymore.
It should be obvious if you think about it, though: Would someone need to deny that Willie Mays ever made an error in order to be his fan?
Yet Gruber does.
I'm glad you take solace in being a fan. Feel free to refer to me as an Android/WP7/iPhone/Nokia/Palm fan when it comes to mobile phones. Seems like a pretty worthless statement (I used to think I was just a Laker fan, but by your definition, apparently I'm even a Clippers fan!), but if it makes you feel better about Gruber and his characterizations and perspective, feel free to do so.
Yet Gruber does.
That's just disingenuous.
He's clear to point out (a) that there are fans for each and (b) that they will read the paragraph VERY differently. Yet, both of us are fans of both. It seems that according to your definition we have a bit of a contradiction. Gruber never hints at the possiblity of a third way to read the paragraph -- or even the fact that each individual would read that paragraph and draw different conclusions based on a variety of factors -- being a "fan" not necessarily being the dominant one.
If I read a paragraph, for example, that takes an issue from each gender's perspective, I know that they're painting with broad strokes and that they probably know about hermaphrodites but just didn't mention it.
I don't think someone needs to acknowledge chimeras every time they write something that assumes a person has one set of DNA.
Sure, it's fun to be Pedantic Man - the superhero whose power is that of being willfully obtuse - but I can read that paragraph and still think he's captured the two aspects of myself that are actively debating about the relative merits of the two platforms. And most people do develop brand loyalties. You and I are somewhat exceptional. I'll be the chimera; you be the hermaphrodite.
I get the sense that you'll say anything to prop up your hate, though. Go on ahead without me.