Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

Hey everybody! Guess what! John Gruber loves a new Apple product!

(Now let's all take a moment to recover from the shock of hearing this.)

Do you have a point or are you simply taking the obligatory ad-hominem cheap shot at Mr. Gruber? His reviews have, as you might recall, correlated quite well with customer satisfaction ratings and market performance of the products under discussion, and he gives considered reasoning for his viewpoints. If he's wrong about something, let's by all means discuss it.

Gruber likes every Apple product, even the ones that aren't doing well (such as Ping and Safari for Windows), and, moreover, liked every Apple product even when Apple as a whole wasn't doing well. Gruber's opinions of Apple products (always positive) don't correlate particularly well with their products' market performance (usually positive as of late, but varied).

Demonstrably false.

I'm not going to bother digging through his archives to prove this (it wouldn't take much to do, but you're not actually arguing against Gruber as much as your skewed conception of Gruber), but I'm fairly certain that Gruber's reaction to Ping is "confusion" (at best) to "dislike" (at worst), not like.

It's not hard to find cases where Gruber has had a negative reaction to something that Apple has done, or where he's said something negative about an Apple product.

I actually did do research before posting. He was excited about the possibilities of Ping: http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/how_ping_might_grow

That's close enough to "liked Ping" in my book.

Obviously, Gruber doesn't like every little thing about every Apple product. But I'm pretty sure it's not an exaggeration to say that he likes every Apple product.

Agreed. Gruber is consistently ambivalent about Ping.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=...

There's no evidence he's ever used Safari (or iTunes, for that matter) for Windows.

Gruber is also consistently down on Apple for their opaque and arbitrary App Store policies, especially when they hamstring potentially great apps.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gruber/6648080689/in/photostrea...

My beef is not so much with his factual accuracy, as that he buys in hook, line, and sinker with (and actively promotes) Apple's marketing narrative. The things he mentions are those things Apple mentions in their marketing spiel. Hell, he even refers to "retina and non-retina images" on the web, as if the Internet is a mere extension of an Apple product and, like third-party apps, has simply yet to catch up to Apple's vision.

The ad hominems against Gruber (and they are ad hominems) stem from the fact that he shows no ability to think, or write, anything that Apple doesn't deem he should think and write (in regards to Apple). He is, for all intents and purposes, a member of their marketing department, yet he is at least nominally an independent blogger and reviewer.

There's nothing wrong with liking Apple. They make great products. But to so uncritically buy into the hype and narrative, then claim independence of thought and word, rubs many people the wrong way.

> My beef is not so much with his factual accuracy, as that he buys in hook, line, and sinker with (and actively promotes) Apple's marketing narrative.

To the extent that Apple's marketing narrative is factually accurate (which you readily admit), why is accepting it bad?

Our new product, cocaine, is a real life-changer! You'll lose weight, gain confidence, and feel more energetic! Feel awkward at parties, never knowing what to say? Cocaine will have you making deep conversation in no time! We're confident that once you try cocaine, you'll want to do it all the time!

Factual accuracy is not the be-all and end-all of what makes a marketing narrative a good thing on which to base your opinions and what you tell others.

>(which you readily admit)

I did no such thing. I said they make great products.

the fact that he shows no ability to think, or write, anything that Apple doesn't deem he should think and write

This is not true. He shows some ability. Three recent examples:

1) http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/26/against-skeuomor... 2) http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/19/ibooks-author-eu... 3) http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/13/att-4g

Why is it that every single HN story I have read for the past week has this kind of fucking sarcastic hater comment at the top of the thread?

You are absolutely right, every time I open the comments thread now, I'm psychologically prepared to read the sarcasm in front of the line. This became HN-standard now. Do people actually feel different and original by doing this?. Anyway, I wouldn't complain if I didn't like HN, I find great stuff here, but this upvoted sarcasm issue is very predictable.

Exactly what I am thinking. I don't see there is anything offensive in Gruber's blog.

It's a real shame, but what I think is really lame is they get upvoted so much that the worthwhile, interesting, and constructive comments get relegated to second and third position.

I've taken to deliberately going to the second and third comments in a thread before I decide to continue reading or not. I'd read much less if I didn't.

I wouldn't mind that so much but Microsoft/Windows observer (sometimes insider) Paul Thurotts' http://winsupersite.com is hellbanned on HN.

Can't have a Microsoft enthusiast site even be seen or the submitted on the site right? Who knows, it might get some upvotes on the new page and not enough flags from the haters to kill it, it's better to squelch his articles and not take any chances of them hurting the anti-MSFT, pro Apple and Google sentiment on here, right? Bring on the anti-MS articles though, they're surely welcome on the front page.

Thurott is more Microsoft-centric than Gruber, who does write about other things, and generally just not as polished a writer or open to criticizing his “side”. I think you get a certain pass on HN if you write long pieces about typography and other web miscellany, particularly if you're above average as a writer

Sure, that might explain why Thurott's articles don't make the front page and Gruber's do, but does it explain why they're completely hellbanned from HN from even appearing on the new page where people can actually see them and vote on it if they find it interesting?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408883

Does anyone know how and why Gruber became an authoritative voice for Apple community?

I think it's probably because he just kept trying so hard. There are other apple blogs, but nobody is quite as fanatical as gruber is. Also, despite the crazy amount of apple stuff he finds to post about, he actually does have a filter for crap - he doesn't bother with most of the more wild rumours or non-news like obscure patents apple filed for 5 years ago.

He's a blatant apple fanboy, but unlike most others he's not a stupid fanboy.

Exactly. If I read a review of an Apple product there, I know I'm going to be reading a positive one, but it's the clear details he goes into, the fact that they're reasonably well-written, and the interesting and relevant observations he makes along the way that I enjoy reading (and that I believe is noticeably lacking in many other sources of writing online, especially relating to technology).

The real reason that is there is a fanatical fanbase, especially among sites like HN, who not only make sure his posts get top billing but also flag posts by Windows enthusiasts and insiders like Paul Thurrott are flagged to death, so much so that that http://winsupersite.com is hellbanned from HN.

Haven't notice an actual big Microsoft announcement get far less votes than Gruber's snide and often factually wrong take on it? It's the community of fanboys and worshippers he has created.

It's probably not because this community tends to like one of those bloggers over the other, but rather because this community simply tends to be more interested in Apple products than Microsoft products. Since this site is designed to demonstrate the interests of its users, uninteresting articles will appear to be "blacklisted."

It doesn't just appear to be "blacklisted", it's really blacklisted. Copy pasting from my own comment from another post in this article since it's relevant here too:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408883

"He's a blatant apple fanboy, but unlike most others he's not a stupid fanboy."

Very nice. I think tikhonj's comment from below applies better here instead.

Are you using "fanboy" to mean something other than "a male who is a fan?" Usually, "fanboy" is used pejoratively to refer to someone that claims fandom without thinking critically, or refuses to recognize flaws. On occasion, Gruber has arguably been guilty of that, but this article sounds perfectly fair and reasonable.

This article is reasonable because the new iPad actually is good. Gruber is the very definition of a fanboy.

I think it is called being an Opportunist Fanboi.

Maybe there is a new word in here someplace - because there is certainly a career to be made out of it, although he could just be the modern Cringly/Dvorak.

FanOpp?

EDIT: I love being downvoted for an honest and direct reply to a question.

How is he an opportunist?

Cringely's not a fanboy. He's the quirky camp follower that spins a good yarn. Or a Zelig. Seriously, who does he not know? I love reading his stuff. Crazy ideas. Crazy insights, like that BBC TV connections guy. Always fun.

Early PC Mag, Dvorak had a great column. Geeky insight, pretty good BS detector. Now he's just a crank with a libertarian vibe. Haven't read him in years. I actually met him once, early web days. Great guy. Learned he was a serious amateur civil war historian. Liking Dvorak (the guy) as much as I do, I stuck with him for a long time, hoping he'd get back to having fun. Oh well.

All three are of the same ilk in my book. Having been a very early follower of cringley, and previous married to Dvorak's niece - I do feel I have some context here...

Personally - I find them all to be the same; Opportunistic writers (Yes, they all have skill - I was not disputing this fact) who have found a niche in hte market where they can fill it.

I think ANY successful technology writer must be a fan boi to certain extent -- If all they ever did was shit on everything, then why read them?

I think that fan boi, as a term, is just a modern (hipster, even) way of saying that we have a product evangelist.

I do think that both cringley and dvorak were very much in this role early on - maybe they were much better writers, though, in their prime.

Consistency and dedication. Then he decided to be a full time blogger and sold weekly sponsorship slots. Selling out and charging enough to make for a very nice salary.

For the longest time I thought he and Walt Mossberg were Apple spokesmen.

He does original thinking. This includes analysis and synthesis. Additionally, he practices good journalism. He is one of the few people that I read routinely --- I don't read him because he is about Apple, but because of his original thinking. He isn't a fan boy, as many people like to belittle him; he discusses good design, and points out when others practice it, such as the latest Windows mobile (metro? Or something).

>He does original thinking. This includes analysis and synthesis. Additionally, he practices good journalism.

Really? Lets look at a recent example of such exemplary commentary:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/03/12/xyboard

That's just one example, his constant hate of and sneering at not just anything Android but anything Google is what is exemplary and shows that he is a fanboy that like to play his fanbase for fun and profit, and his readers just lap it up.

Sure he has disdain for the bad design that is Android, but he objectively has described why that is so over the years. That he dislikes Android, which clearly has a different design approach to Apple and Microsoft, doesn't make him a fan boy of Apple. If he didn't acknowledge the good design coming out of Microsoft these days, then you could argue that he blindly favors Apple. Perhaps you also refer to the drama that has developed from the competition between Google and Apple, and his criticisms of this, and of "don't be evil," etc; design and company culture can't be separated, and so it makes sense for him to approach that topic too. Just consider hiring practices at Google --- do applicants get evaluated for algorithmic abilities alone, or is there something more? Culture is important.

Writing what people want to hear is a business model - half the stuff on HN these days was written for HN. Writing skills and the ability to connect some dots is all you need.

Basically for the same reasons conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh and liberals read Frank Rich.

There's a place for objective journalism but it's not the only way. What Gruber does is more of a specialized type of journalism. If you've already made up your mind you don't necessarily want to waste time with the other points of view. For example if you really like basketball you would probably prefer to read a blog that focuses on basketball instead of a blog that's comparing basketball to other sports in an objective way. It would really be a waste of your time since you've already decided you like basketball.

When it comes to relatively unimportant things like technology, sports, food, video games, your favorite brand of soda, etc there's a lot less value in objective journalism. I prefer specialized journalism in that context. I'm more interested in the opinions and thoughts of someone who shares my viewpoint because they are more likely to focus on the details that are important to me. We're also likely starting from a common point so not every tiny detail has to be explained verbosely. We all kind of 'get it' so there's no need to rehash it. His comparison of the iPhone 3GS->4 for example is something an Apple user going to understand immediately. He doesn't have to write 300 words describing the contrast using examples of a bunch of products I've never used because he has a reasonable expectation that I probably haven't used them. So why bother?

I don't quite understand why people are so hung up on objective journalism in this context. This isn't reporting on the Watergate scandal or something. It's a consumer product. It's Coke vs. Pepsi. I don't think Gruber needs to aspire to be Edward R. Murrow here. He can proudly write for the home-team if he wants to. Another blog that is anti/pro/objective/etc is only a click away. He certainly doesn't tout himself as being the authoritative beacon of objective journalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com