The minute that I saw "Gruber" and "intelligent" in the same sentence was the minute I knew that this post was full of shit. If someone is so blinded by the reality distortion field that they can't see that Gruber is nothing more than a 3rd party PR person who trades insider info on Apple for pushing out propaganda on a regular basis, then I just can't take them seriously.
For the last several years about the only "inside information" he's received is a week's advance use of loaner laptops/iphones so that he can write a review column. (Same thing that Pogue, Mossberg, and other prominent columnists get, and he's subject to the same embargo as they are.)
All gruber really has beyond his extensive network of colleagues in the industry are his presentation skills, his writing skills, his love of Apple, and his appreciation of things well made.
And, to refer to Jean-Louis Gassée as "someone ..so blinded.." would suggest that you have little understanding of the history of the industry, and who Gassée is.
Take 5 minutes to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e - you'll come away more informed. He's one of the major figures in the history of computing.
Gruber is partisan, obviously, but it doesn't detract from the intellectual rigor of his repudiations. His latest one was spot on - the NYT columnist that Jean-Louis was referring to had stated that in the Jobs era, stock prices would routinely go up after a product announcement, and in the Cook era, things are not so bright. Gruber took the 20-30 minutes to go check that fact (something the NYT clearly didn't bother to do) - and discovered that, in fact, it was a mixed bag - and the stock dropped as often as it went up.
Not sure what "propaganda" you see in that.
Edit: didn't mean to sound snarky, but it's really terrible to trash an entire article based on a single sentence.
Well, if you count lying, writing wrong facts and trying to bash everybody but Apple as professional reporter of facts then yes, he is.
Just an example, I can pick just any of their articles, they are full of that:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2013/03/09/googles-android-pow...
If you can't see the wrong facts and the lies in just that post I can't do more.
I honestly don't see any, but that's because the piece is an unreadable screed of childish invective that doesn't involve many facts. Not because Dilger is lying.
Well, perhaps you also think that Appleinsider is a good site
You are the one who called Dilger a liar but you have not identified any lies he has told. The burden is on you to provide evidence for your accusation.
Merely linking to one of his pieces and saying 'he's a liar' does not prove anything.
Just because you dislike his opinions does not make him a liar.
You can believe what you want, facts will remain, problem with Digler are not his ridiculous opinions.
Dismissing this person's opinion simply because they don't agree with an unsubstantiated attack on Gruber makes no sense.