Horseshit - Joshua Topolsky responds to MG & Gruber
theverge.com
theverge.com
Josh's description is dead accurate, but those of us who have been paying attention have known this for a long time.
These evangelists maybe cordial to WP or WebOS, because they're no threat, but ICS -- they'll save their best faith-based sermons for it.
I think it's because they've been making this same criticism since Android first came out, and its UI is still laggy and stutters. It's starting to look like that is just a permanent feature of Android, rather than something which should be fixed "soon".
All their criticism boils down to this one thing: that Android doesn't have the same level of quality when it comes to UI interaction. They readily say nice things about the features, but the interaction model is still broken, and they keep pointing it out because its important to them. Its important to lots of people, and thats probably why the iphone is selling so well.
Its obviously not important to people who prefer android, and thats fine. But since its not important to them they don't understand the criticism and ascribe people's love of the iphone to "faith" and "evangelism".
A lot of the criticism Apple followers have of Android is that it feels like a 'good enough' iOS alternative designed primarily to prevent Apple achieving dominance. Having lived through the 80s, many tech enthusiasts are keen to see a competitive industry with a focus on quality, design and innovation. Google facilitating Samsung producing iPhone knock-offs doesn't seem to contribute to that.
Sorry to sound nitpicky, but I was confused by the rest of your post after reading the first sentence.
That's not to say that Apple never makes a good product or Google can do no wrong. They both have their fair share of successes and failures.
Let's be honest about the "faith based" HN approach to declaring Gruber is an evangelist. You just say it, without any evidence or argument and then voila, yousuck up a ton of karma from like minded people.
People who doubt me go search daring fireball threads on HN, it happens almost verbatim in every single one.
Gruber over the last few years has linked to scores if not hundreds of articles documenting the small ways iOS is more polished. He also frequently links to things that could improve iOS, many of which are in other OS's including Android. Reasonable people might describe that as evidence not faith.
Disagree with him? Maybe start your own blog and list scores or hundreds of counterexamples. Surely with all the Android enthusiasts there's many of these already?
Say why he's wrong, don't just spout your conclusion.
Put simply, whenever I see a link to daring fireball on HN, I can say with ~ 2σ confidence that it will a) be about Apple or one of its competitors, b) argue that, whatever the issue, Apple Does It Better, and c) have its arguments picked apart in the comments. This has been such a long term trend that it has become thoroughly predictable.
That's fine, and Gruber's entitled to write whatever he wants about whatever he wants. That doesn't stop us from labeling him an Apple evangelist, and it doesn't mean we're wrong to do so.
Sure you can pull out some metric like "profit derived"(by which Windows Server totally rules the server space over Linux), but ultimately all the predictions by partisan pundits like "Let the iPhone get on Verizon and see Android stagnate completely" have been proven to be partisan BS.
Who are you quoting?
I’m not saying Android is going to be “killed”, or that it will be reduced to a miniscule installed base. Neither are remotely likely.
But I think over the next few quarters, it’s going to become far less relevant.
Where Apple competes, this is what you find:
(1) Almost everywhere the iPhone is on sale it's #1 (and where available probably #2... and when the new numbers come out will it surprise you if it's also #3 where available?).
(2) the iPad is #1 (in a smaller category) by a mile.
(3) the iPod Touch is #1 (in a much smaller category) by a mile.
This is not the fault of Gruber. It's a result of the selection bias applied by Hacker News as a whole. If you read Daring Fireball regularly, and not just the excerpts that make it to HN, you'll see that he frequently chastises Apple for what he believes are missteps. Here's a recent example:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/26/against-skeuomorphism
Most arguments that I read that argue against Gruber and MG's point of view resort to either ad hominem or respond to tone.
Calling Gruber and MG Apple evangelists does not refute their central point.
I like Joshua Topolsky and The Verge a lot. I think they produce the best reviews in the business. Their audio and video casts are funny and informative. JT is probably the most informed Android reviewer. He's probably the most informed gadget reviewer.
JT: "It doesn't get under my skin because I fundamentally disagree that Android 4.0 lacks the polish of iOS."
JT: "I don't disagree with Gruber and MG. The iPhone is an amazing device. ... Not seeing it is not the issue — the issue is not being able to see it any other way."
JT's argument is that these are not verifiable facts we are discussing. We are discussing opinions. But he also states that Android is polished.
We would all be better off if he wrote an article titled "Android Is Polished" and listed the polish point for point.
Let me point you to the Pyramid of Refutation. http://i.imgur.com/QhGkT.jpg
What's Gruber's central point? To quote Gruber: "You either see it or you don't."
How do you refute that? His central point is that you can't attack my central point, because you can't see it. His central point is that you can't see god, because you don't have enough faith. It's not falsifiable.
Give me falsifiable metrics that could, at least in theory, be refuted and I'd be happy to look at them. But you can't trot out the pyramid of refutation when they've made your central point vacuous.
You know what I've seen an upward trend of? People taking themselves and everything they see entirely too seriously. "Class warfare"? Seriously? This is a phone review.
I've seen this with my own co-workers on a daily basis. What seems like a contentious conversation via email/IM becomes a complete non-issue when discussed by phone or in person. The difference can be striking.
I'd rather an inflammatory strong opinion than a wishy-washy falsely "balanced" piece.
Anecdotally, I honestly do notice a class axis between iPhone and Android (though there are other axes, too). Just like there was a class axis between Facebook and MySpace for a while.
http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html
No one denies that consumer electronics can be status symbols. They can also be counter-status symbols.
And I think what Topolsky is reacting to here is the subtext of division. "You either see it or you don't," implies "I see this and you don't" which implies "I'm better than you." Which is an attitude in general that can exacerbate class differences.
And, as kenjackson has noted elsewhere, there's a distinct sense that some evangelists don't just observe the success of their chosen subject, but cheer them on and -- worse -- enjoy the failure of the others.
I think it's a good thing to expose. It's a better, more useful division that Topolsky is making here, I'd say: between advocates and observers, not between Android fans and iPhone fans.
Snobby Robbers Only Steal iPhones, Refuse To Take Droids Or Blackberries
http://www.cultofmac.com/135564/snobby-robbers-only-steal-ip...
Topolsky's point is that Sigeler's piece isn't just a phone review.
As technology becomes affordable to more income levels, people need to make sure they frame the debate correctly. I often hear people talk about those "too cheap to buy an iPad," not considering that the $300 difference between an iPad and a Kindle Fire represents two weeks of groceries for a family of four. [0]
This is similar to the occasional self-aggrandizement coming from white sports journalists covering black athletes, like the "I pay your salary so you'd better play hard every game!" meme that's halfway to plantation dialogue.
It's all about sports and phones until it isn't anymore.
[0] And let's not even discuss the hypothetical "why are they even buying tablets?!" counterargument, which is fraught with problems.
Honestly, I haven't read enough from MG and Gruber to form a meaningful opinion on their argumentative style, so I'll digress from staking out a position. But I agree with Topolsky in theory, that is that an argumentative appeal to luxury isn't sufficient in itself, considering luxury can be decomposed and explained at a more concrete level.
It's not the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie. It's Apple vs. PC.
Sure the phones are the same price... but we all know that the perception is that the cool kids use Apple these days, and so the cool apps are only on iOS, and if you don't have a Mac you're just not a cool technologist. So that's the class warfare... cool vs blah.
I, for one, think it's ironic that just a decade ago Apple was for the noncoformist and today it's so mainstream it's boring.
I don't understand why people get so caught up in something they literally had nothing to do with other than giving their money away to achieve.
While the products we buy have value, the consumer played no role in that value. You didn't invent it. You didn't make it better. You didn't do anything but buy it.
I guess the fact that people put value where no value exists is a testament to the power of marketing.
They get caught up because they gave away their money. It's a matter of opportunity cost and rationalization at some level. Because these platforms are usually non-cross-compatible, "buying into" a specific platform entails a commitment of irreplaceable capital. When I was a kid, my parents got me a Super NES. Regardless of where you stand on Sega Genesis -vs- SNES, you were sure to defend the system you had, because, well, it's the one you have.
If you've invested years upon years of time and money in a particular pursuit, it seems natural to want to defend it.
1) If the product maintains a good reputation, early adopters will have been seen to have good taste or perception, which is socially valuable.
2) If you have developed expertise in a product that grows in popularity, you have the potential to be a resource to late adopters. Whether that potential is exercised or not, it represents a certain amount of social, and in some cases professional, capital.
3) If your product becomes disfavored, it may become unsupported. This means that you likely have a shorter usable lifetime for the device, fewer support options (official, 3rd party, and community), and fewer future options for peripherals and software. Each of these network-value losses means less personal wealth.
Also, there's some evidence (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect) that people often overvalue past purchases even beyond the level that rational assessment would indicate.
Or, they derive entertainment value and therefore add to your list:
4) Same reason that people get caught up with supporting sports teams or athletes (that don't do it simply because they bet on sports teams or do fantasy sports).
If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here. All of these people have professional stakes which are in play in a heated debate they're having with a very small number of other people who also have professional stakes. But I'm sure Gruber and Topolsky and others go home and have lots of relationships with people that do not involve any of this.
I feel similarly about "think about": as heated as this language is, I don't know that we can easily characterize what Topolsky thinks about Gruber and Siegler overall.
I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of treating people differently based on personal preferences.
>If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here.
Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war" have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue, not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall lesson.
Honda is a fantastic engineering company. In terms of drivetrain technology they are right up there with the very best (for lower capacity engines, I'd say they are better than Mercedes, but I digress). However, Mercedes (especially till the early nineties) was about attention to detail, not just the drivetrain, but each and every part that went in, was famously "over-engineered". If I may, my interpretation of the analogy:
a. Honda's focus is on the engineering (drivetrain to be specific), they are willing to do an average (nothing special, but not bad) job for the rest of the package. That includes average interiors, average ride quality, average styling etc.
b. Mercedes tries (or did try) to do a stellar job in each of those categories listed above.
So, if Android is Google's engineering, Google let's Samsung get away with a plasticky phone (I have used the Galaxy nexus for an hour and a half today). Yes, even now the feel of the phone in one's hand is not even comparable to the iPhone 4.
But the analogy falls flat because the Galaxy Nexus is more expensive on contract than the iPhone. Price matters, the pricing helps Mercedes devote resources to develop the products the way they do.
Gruber, got this wrong too. His own quote "You either see it or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s cool, enjoy your Nexus. " is correct, but it's correct on it's own, not with MGs quote.
If you sit in a $50,000 Mercedes, and can't instantly tell that it's a more refined and luxurious experience than a $20,000 Honda - why the fuck would you buy the Mercedes?
> "You either see it or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s cool, enjoy your Nexus.
That doesn't happen with a Mercedes and Honda. Not noticing a difference and not wanting to pay for the difference are totally different things.
Do you think your average Honda owner would upgrade to a Mercedes if the money was the same? I do.
I drive a 20-year old Volvo 740 that sits in the garage all week. I use it to run errands on the weekend. It cost me $1,200.
On the other hand, if I were doing a lot of driving (more than 1,500 mi/week), I'd opt for the nicest car I could afford.
You don't need an iPad if all you're going to do is watch Netflix and read eBooks. Buy the Kindle fire and use that $300 for something important, like your kid's braces.
I buy the right tool for the right job. I'll try not to be too disappointed about what snobs think.
Topolsky's reviews are in depth and well thought out. It would be somewhat frustrating to have someone like Gruber turn around and say "you don't get it" without rationalizing or explaining the point.
Having not used iOS4 or the Galaxy's spin of Android, for all I know Samsung may have produced a Veyron to Apple's Geo Metro and it's a case of Gruber "not being able to see it."
Since no one has corrected this so far, I'll do it: the Galaxy Nexus on sale from Verizon includes 32GB of internal storage, and is offered for the same price as a 32GB iPhone4S. That is, $299 on a new contract.
In fact, the Galaxy Nexus can be cheaper on a new contract than the iPhone4S -- see Amazon offering it for $149 for a limited time.
Gruber recently addressed criticisms about his lack of "objectivity" on The Talk Show [0]. He substituted the word "fair" for "objective," then demolished a straw man where people want "$FAIR coverage" from him, where $FAIR = "don't pick on the short kid."
Here's the problem: "objective" doesn't mean "fair." Like Dictionary.com, [1] I use "objective" as in "report the whole story, and stop spinning everything to accommodate your world view." This is what Fox News does, and I've started noticing that Gruber does the same thing.
Consider that his "linked list" articles take two forms: positive links on Apple performance [2], or negative links on Apple's competitors with snarky commentary [3]. Take the Galaxy Nexus: if someone wants one, they just don't get it! [4]
Or...they're like my brother, a graphic designer who wants to do more with his phone. Or they're a coder like me, worried about a future where closed systems dominate. Or they're like my friend, who hates the elitist Apple attitude--the one where people who don't buy Apple products "just don't get it." Or they want a cheap feature phone, and don't have the $99 for a iPhone 4 right now.
Gruber is too smart to make generalizations like this. Hell, he likes David Foster Wallace -- whose books aren't exactly high-school reading -- and posted this a few weeks ago:
That’s why Wallace’s work serves as a beacon, a yardstick, for my own.
As incisive as his writing could be, DFW almost always eschewed cynicism in favor of humanism and emotional sincerity. In a way, Gruber's recent stuff provides the opposite: an unyielding pro-Apple view, a scoop of cynicism and disdain for Apple's competitors, and a black-or-white view of the mobile scene that doesn't reflect reality.
Seeing this from someone as smart as Gruber is really a disappointment.
[0] http://5by5.tv/talkshow/71
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
[2] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/13/nielsen
[3] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/verizon-google-w...
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/14/hollington
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/13/ios-5-photo-stre....
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/browse-vs-search
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/linen-underneath
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/01/apple-carrier-iq
{mistakenly put in the wrong box earlier}
I've read DF enough to know that Gruber points out small Apple missteps far more often than he points out Android victories (often; never).
[1] Here I get absolutely bewildered by what you're saying, given that the first device with ICS was released today, and I know this precisely because I read it on Daring Fireball yesterday, wherein Gruber writes: "I spent a few minutes playing with Topolsky’s Galaxy Nexus in the On The Verge green room; some of the text editing improvements in Android 4.0 alone make it quite obviously the best Android phone in the world".
Forgive me though--it's finals time, and I only caught this through HN (and not my RSS feed).
Now do a google image search for "iPhone 4S lines" -- just pick the first few hits (here's the first one: http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/10/iphone-4s-lines.html) -- and count the ratio of men and women. I'll save you the trouble and tell you up front there are a lot of men in those lines. But Gruber literally wouldn't think of commenting on that, because to him, people line up for the iPhone because it's wonderful, and they line for an Android phone because they're abnormal in some way, and that's simply how he processes the information. Whether or not its a conscious strategy is mostly irrelevant to me as the reader: if my choices are dishonest or incompetent, I'm going to look elsewhere. Which is a shame because he's a good writer.
Two of his main themes are that the following bits of conventional wisdom (which you can get on any of dozens of "tech journalist" websites) are incorrect:
(1) Android is winning.
(2) Android is as good as iOS (or better or nearly as good).
If a journalist covers mobile devices in a given category at a significant rate, I'd expect their stories on that category of device to have a similar positive-negative ratio as the actual wins the category has achieved. I wouldn't trust a guy who had 90% negative articles when the win rate in the eyes of a typical user is more like 50%. I also wouldn't trust someone who posted 99% about the losses when the typical user sees about 90% losses.
I don't have enough data on Gruber to know exactly how far off the mark he is, but I do know enough not to trust that he is anything like objective. Now, if his blog was titled, "Apple news and Android criticisms," fine. You can post 100% criticisms if that's the domain you're claiming to cover. But I've never seen such a disclaimer from Gruber so I can't give him a pass on that one either.
Put another way, I'll admit I can't tell you exactly how many positive articles Gruber should have written by now. I could probably calculate that number if I cared enough, but I don't. What I can tell you is that he is well south of where he should be on this topic, IF he cares about providing me with information with which I can update my beliefs about the quality of Android OS.
In other words, Gruber's writing is entertainment, not evidence. The post you were originally commenting on, as I read it, was based on the assumption that Gruber's writing ought to aspire to be evidence, and thus lamenting the fact that it's not useful for most people. Personally I don't believe in the idea of "ought," but I think that asking for a quota is a sort of intentional missing of the point that the previous person was trying to make.
clearly he is a reasonably intelligent guy who puts a lot of thought into his writing. whether or not he really believes everything he posts, i don't know and don't care.
the thing is these type of posts serve a very specific purpose: to activate the apple fan's and generate page clicks.
we live in a world where the way to drive traffic in the tech blogosphere is to post rumors, and predictions about apple (and to some extent, other big tech cos). readers then seek out stories that confirm their pre-existing views--the market for information is greatly surpassed by the market for confirmation (see: fox news). and this works both ways, i imagine that gruber/seigler are getting lots of page views from people are angered by the whole apple fanboy thing, and want to have the satisfying feeling of knowing that gruber/seigler are just two more unthinking fanboys.
I really want to believe that people like Gruber (who I, at least used to, have a great deal of respect for) are above it, but watching things change over the past few years does make me wonder…
I'd also note that gadget sites like The Verge are incentivised to make Android seem interesting and competitive, even when it doesn't live up, because their business model is based on churning out large numbers of announcements and reviews. If they acknowledge that the devices are second-rate then why would their readers care to click their pages?
If you took price out of the equation and just looked at the two products, the comparison may be apt, but Josh is staring the price matter in the face and calling foul. I can't say I blame him. I drive a luxury brand car, but I cringe a little bit when people ask me what I drive because I'm concious of the fact that people associate brand, value, and quality.
A better analogy might have been artwork. Some people will look at the Mona Lisa and see a painting of a plain woman. Others look at it and see one of the greatest paintings ever created. But like Josh points out, the world is not black & white. Some will see the quality of the Mona Lisa, but will not care. They may like other styles better. They may prefer work from an entirely generation.
Josh is opposed creating class warfare out of device functionality. In my view, MG's assessment of iOS as "more polished" is true, and I happen to place a high value on that polish, but I understand that I trade other aspects of the device in order to obtain that polish. Others won't make that same choice. Others won't see the polish at all. That doesn't make those people better or worse than me. It only makes them different.
Never use a car analogy. Never.
Cars are too intimate. This is especially endemic to American culture. Too many people identify with their car. You may intend to contrast the horsepower of one car to another, but the reader will inevitable contrast the values most dear to them. "A coupe versus a saloon! HOW DARE YOU!?!?!"
As far as the Mercedes-Honda analogy I think it is very appropriate. It's not that Mercedes are more expensive, it's that they are made with much more attention to detail, and higher quality fit and finish.
Besides, isn't the Galaxy Nexus more expensive?? I don't get the class warfare accusation.
MG's post has nothing to do with "device functionality". Your last paragraph basically summarises MG's argument, so I guess you agree with him, and just don't like the analogy. I think Josh is making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
Except that you can get a cheap used Mercedes for less than a new Honda, if you can't afford a new Benz and value the workmanship (or brand) enough to take the risk. And Honda made the NSX. There are Acura models priced in the same ballpark as lower-end new Mercedes.
Honda had a Formula 1 racing team until 2008. It was sold off, and was eventually bought by Mercedes Benz.
So the 'class' question is muddled, to say the least. Unless you think the NSX is the car of the proletariat and a 1990 Mercedes with 100,000 miles is the vehicle of the 1%.
For all intents and purposes Mercedes=quality+luxury while Honda=cheapy+functional and this was the primary meaning behind the analogy utilized in Siegler's article.
I'd think Kia or Hyundai would would be seen as the "cheap" brand.
And the Honda company certainly doesn't shy away from serving the luxury market with their Acura brand.
In any case, the comparison of Mercedes vs. Honda was about fit and finish and creature comforts, not price. It works just as well when comparing a loaded, well-kept $9000 used Mercedes to a brand-new $15,000 Civic.
I think as it currently stands, it IS interesting and competitve. I don't want to begin a flame war. Merely saying the Galaxy Nexus vs. iPhone 4S matchup is pretty damn close. It really boils down to which philosophy you agree with. But don't call them "second-rate", because they are not.
I agree that the Galaxy Nexus is a very good phone. But there are a LOT of completely rubbish phones that also get too much attention.
"The world is divided into two groups, those that think little details like enterprise integration are supremely import and those who don't notice or don't care so much"
The argument holds no water. I can draw a line in the sand however I'd like to make any product seem better, and anyone who disagrees is just in that other group.
This whole "argument" is inane. People have preferences, and the rational ones will act in accordance to those preferences if they have the means. Getting huffy because someone dares to disagree with your preferences is asinine.
For people who prefer the iPhone the UI-responsiveness isn't some arbitrary line in the sand, it is what they judge to be important (one of the things). And MG's whole point is that some people don't find this important and will probably love the Galaxy Nexus, and that is fine. Josh is the one getting huffy.
The same is true for your views on iOS and Android. Here, let me throw it back at you.
"iOS users just don't notice the small details. Things like built im turn by turn navigation. Being able to fully dictate all text throughout all applications. The ability to return purchases on the market place. Full disk level encryption.
You either see it or you don't. For a lot of users, details and features like these don't matter. You might be happy with your Toyota, but I prefer the full featured BMW."
See how easy it is? Perhaps you'll also see how obnoxious these types of posts are when it's turned around.
The first two points are true - if people didn't disagree on the importance of freedom then much of 20th century history would be very different.
Decisions as simple as "What phone will I buy" are an insanely complicated calculus of thousands of micro-decisions and trade offs.
People like MG like to pretend that they have themselves all figured out, and THE reason that the iPhone is superior for him is "the little things," or they buy Android because "its an open platform."
Its all bunk, they bought it because, hey the phone does what they need it to, and for some damn reason that particular configuration of options happened to strike a chord with them.
So isn't that a defence of MG's article? It was even titled "An iPhone Lover's Take on the Galaxy Nexus". The point was describing his impressions of the nexus from the perspective of someone who does* care about the things that the iphone does well.
Of course its a combination of lots of things. And for people who like the iphone, they are happy with the combination of tradeoffs that it makes. UI responsiveness and battery life being two of the important ones for the iphone.
This is not a comparison of equals, but a comparison of Luxury vs. Standard. That's no longer about preferences, that's about one being better.
he's right that some people notice the little things in their UIs and some don't. he's wrong in implying that the apple users are the ones who notice. I'd argue that apple fanboys like MG Seigler and John Gruber, who never seem to have any complaints about iOS, must fall squarely into the group of people who aren't able to notice the little details.
And if you read either of those authors regularly, you'd know that they often do criticise things in iOS and Apple in general.
I read Daring Fireball fairly regularly, his criticisms are in different areas to the topic of this discussion. I don't read MG Seigler, i can't comment there.
That isn't what he said. The general angle of MG and Gruber is that iOS is universally superior to Android.
I remember trying out the iPhone and being shocked at how terrible -- almost childish -- the notification system was. On Android it was graceful and well thought out. The same goes for application integration, where on Android it was well thought out from day one, while on iOS you have silos of applications.
There are a thousand and one ways that Android is more refined and has the "little details" that are superior to iOS. None of these ever matter to Gruber or MG. But where iOS has a nicer bounce after a scroll, well that's critically important.
If we want to go with car analogies, iOS would more correctly be a pimped up Honda Civic. The owner is sure it's a refined, idealized car, but they are the ones who don't realize what they're missing.
And it's not just the "nicer bounce after a scroll", its the whole UI interaction. The thing that iPhone fans like about their products is how the interface disappears and you don't need to think about it. The touch interaction model makes the user think that they are directly interacting with the content itself, rather than through the intermediate of a controller, and that this content is actually physical, rather than a representation on the screen. It's an illusion, but it is a compelling one. Examples: * The right bounce after a scroll, and the right inertia when you flick to scroll through a list; * Dragging your finger to pan around a map or large web page; * Icons and buttons changing their appearance instantly to show that they've been pressed.
It's little things that give immediate feedback to the user that create this illusion, and it doesn't take much to break it and remind you that you're using a device. What MG and Gruber keep pointing out is that Android keeps breaking this illusion, for example with stuttery scrolling or laggy/inappropriate feedback when you push buttons.
I've experienced plenty of lag on iOS devices. I've had buttons not respond, apps crash, and behaviours that left you wondering what you're supposed to do. As has everyone else who lacks the delusion spell. iOS is just an imperfect OS like every other, and adding hysterical narrative gushing about its profound perfection is, honestly, embarrassing for everyone.
For example, take a look at cross-application cooperation and integration. It is good that iOS 5 added Twitter integration, but to an Android user the Twitter-specific integration makes iOS devices look crippled (in this area). With appropriate applications installed, even the more than three-year-old G1 is integrated with Twitter, Facebook, Picasa and whatever else you want. And these integration details matter because they are what allow Android users to create sophisticated, dynamic cross-application workflows.
Claiming that one side has a subtle superiority that only the right people can appreciate when the reality is more balanced is what is offensive.
And realized it sounded best when read with the Comic Book Guy voice, and anything that sounds appropriate with that voice is a bit snooty.
It's actually a great opportunity to expose Gruber's arrogance.
John Gruber will be a great blogger when he grows up.
You read him every day. Achievement unlocked.
Still, the guy is damn insightful, you can't take that away from him. If you wish to understand Apple you have to read him, which is why I still do, despite his flaws.
Hold your horses - isn't the Galaxy Nexus the same price as the 32GB iPhone 4S? How does the expensive argument come into play here?
My main problem is that just as the intangibles matter on the iOS side they also matter on the Android side, but the Android ones don't seem to get any merit. The fact that I'm free to use my device how I want, write an app for a friend, give it to them for their birthday, share it by email. The fact that the Android ecosystem lets me choose the kind of device I want, how much I want to pay for it, how it should look and feel and behave. Those things are in many ways intangible because many of them are just potential things that I don't actually do but the ability to do them is important to me. So sure, "you either see it or you don't" is a fine statement, but it goes both ways: you either value your freedom or you don't.
"Open" means open for the carriers to do what they want, not for you to do what you want.
I don't believe there are any carriers any more that stop the user installing from non-market sources. Many offer ways to unlock the boot loader so you can completely control the device. You can always buy a Nexus device. These are all forms of openness (although I would tend to call it "freedom" since that more accurately describes it).
> it's just not true
As I point out above, it's very true. What I think iOS advocates point out is that it's not practical: no regular consumer uses these things in practice (although the Amazon Appstore might be an example). What matters in practice is how the device comes out of the box because 99% of people just use it like that. I acknowledge this, which is why I say it's an intangible feature of Android. You only value it and benefit from it indirectly. I guess my only point is, if the Sieglers and Gruber's of the world want to claim intangible things as assets for iOS then they should be acknowledged for Android too.
For instance, nothing like Apple's in-app purchase crackdown could have happened on Android. The big players (Amazon, B&N, Netflix, Hulu, ...) would have just taken their apps out of the Android Market, clearly communicated to their customers where the apps were now and moved on.
Similarly, as I understand it, it was the Android hacking / ROM development community that discovered Carrier IQ in the first place, specifically because they are taking apart the software on their phones and trying to understand every bit of it. Personally, I find the contrast with the iOS jailbreaking community quite instructive. Once they knew there was something to look for, they found the Carrier IQ traces in iOS quickly enough. Nevertheless, without the initial pointer, they didn't notice anything..
I saw a special the other day on CNBC called BMW: A Driving Obsession and it really opened my eyes as to the incredible attention to detail that a car maker like BMW has when building a car. Just check out how much effort they spend just on getting the little sounds the car makes just right at 16:00 and 20:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O... If that's how much time they spend on just the sounds, it's not difficult to imagine how much effort they put into everything else. Heck, at 29:03 one of the BMW designers even says they use Apple products as inspiration.
Now, if you agree that iOS is that much more polished than Android, I think this is a pretty accurate metaphor and any class distinction Topolsky inferred from Siegler's Gruber's comments are of his own creation. I doubt Gruber and Siegler would ever admit to it even if it were the case so I guess we'll never know.
What I've actually grown to hate about Hacker News over the years is this particular "holier-than-thou" attitude like yours. It just seems like there are so many people on here that are offended by the slightest amount of conflict or controversy that they'd be much better-off living in a plastic bubble than in the real world.
In some bizarre way, if these are the "controversies" we're having, then we're doing quite well in general ;)
When I read MG's statement out loud, it made perfect sense to me. When I read Topolsky's immediate jump to class warfare, my gut reaction was that HE was the one who sounded absurd and should be embarrassed.
I do not disagree that Gruber and MG are most definitely flying Apple flags, but I think this article is a complete overreaction.
Now, I just don't care. I realize that I was getting upset by their writing because they are such good writers. Its the same way that the democrats get mad at Rush Limbaugh. You may know that he said something wrong and on the border of crackpot but he is just so damn good at doing it. If someone else said it, you would write them off as a lunatic. His style is partly meant to convince but it is also partly meant to incite as well.
So yes, MG and Gruber are bias and when it comes to tech reviews I just don't trust them. Whether it is pro Apple or anti another product. And in the case of Scoble, his silicon valley tunnel vision turns me off. But I will still read their articles because they are good at what they do. And if I start to get a "WTF?!" moment then I will just calm down and realize that it is part of the entertainment package that comes along with reading them.
P.S. If you're a sports fan, Grubers sports tweets are way more maddening than his Apple lust.
Also, if you're in the media, it always pays to stir the pot. Always.
Which sounds snarky, but if you are going to be a blogger publishing on the web and want other people to take the time to read your stuff, to not properly use (or understand?) the basic building blocks of your craft is disrespectful to your audience.
One one side, apple not evil but a capitalist corporation, on the other side, google not evil but a capitalist corporation.
I can't think of a good argument why either company is "evil".
Just because people parrot the same line again and again doesn't mean it makes sense.
Another thing would be removing all crapware that comes with a new windows computer, or having to buy a "clean" windows just to get rid of that. Another big evil is Microsofts requirement that all netbooks can have max 2G of ram. That's clearly not in anybody elses interest but Microsoft.
Interests are not aligned. Annoyment ensured.
Then there are real evils of course, like using slave or child labour, destroying the environment and funding wars by using natural resources like Coltan.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/banned_by_a...
I think that the reason for people percieving apple as evil is because apple restricts the user, and forces the user to accept their terms.
The reason for google being evil would be that they track everything and everybody, they have access to your (g)mail, they know what you search for, they know where you are when you search for what and when. It's not that they actually might be doing something with that data, but just by having that data, they have a force do to evil. A lesser evil is serving you ads for .NET CMS jobs when you are looking at gmail ;) CLEARLY that counts as evil.
Apple makes a product and service and clearly lays out what its for. Consumers can choose to buy into that or not. Apple isn't "forcing" anyone to accept their terms, people choose to accept them in return for certain products and services from Apple. If you don't want to, don't buy an iphone!
"just by having that data, they have a force to do evil" -- sorry, but having a force to do evil is not in itself evil. EVERYONE has a force to do evil, I could go and chop up some bunnies for fun right now, but I choose not to, therefore I'm not evil.
How is serving you ads evil? I really don't get that argument. Yes it's annoying, and sometimes distracting, but again, the price I choose to pay for products and services. No one is forcing you to use gmail, even by default; there are plenty of other options.
- squashing alternatives to built-in iOS apps
- the attempt to ban iOS development in non-Apple-approved languages
- the in-app purchase nonsense [apparently designed to prop up iBooks, among other things])
are only possible in the first place because of the side-loading ban. Making that one change (without changing the APIs, the App Store, approval policies, etc.) would go a long way towards fixing the aspects of the iOS platform that are problematic from the perspective of user freedom.
The thing is, many people do not even know about, much less understand the ramifications of buying from Apple. And I find it sad that someone who does is still willing to castrate his own freedom for no gain whatsoever.
The only people that read either of your words are just us nerds of a feather fretting over which miracle of technology is more perfectly refined.
So give us all a break.
But I clicked dammit, and that means you got paid, and get positive reinforcement to engineer more drama.
It's MG and Gruber. Nobody (and I mean nobody) who values straight commentary listens to these guys.
Of course they're Apple shills. It's what got them notoriety and made their reputation. They're not going to turn on the hand that feeds them.
Oh, it was said by people you don't agree with, on a polarized topic, and responded to with class. Shades of gray indeed.