"iPhony" (Gruber post quoting NYTimes about a future "Apple Phone") [2002]

Not to mention that when the topic is "whacked-out product ideas some people speculate Apple is making", the most reasonable assumption has been vaporware.

And yes, the most reasonable assumption has not always been borne out - Apple has released items like some wild rumors now and again. On the other hand, Google announced Gmail on an April 1st, but I hope nobody is waiting for a call-back on eir application to work at the Google moon base.

I think it's fair to note the difference between quoting analyst predictions and quoting their analysis of past financial statements.

Not that they can't also cock-up a financial analysis, but they tend to do much better at that than understanding technology or predicting product success; particularly as relates to Apple.

Interesting to note that he quotes a 3 year old statement from Palm CEO that went wrong and has probably forgotten his own position on the iPhone a few years before that.

Given that he said that in 2002 and the first iPhone came out in 2007, one could argue that he was right at the time. The first-gen iPhone experience (especially with the release version of the OS) was sluggish enough that one could argue that it was still close to impossible.

"Impossible" was probably a bad wprd choice, though, since technology has ways of proving us wrong. :)

Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to poke fun of Gruber now, but back in 2002 Macs, "beefy" two-processor desktop machines, were barely running OS X. I mean, the new Mac OS X mentioned in the post was Jaguar. Do you remember the awesome speed of that bad boy?

Yes, but that's only because 2007's iPhones literally had the processing power of 2002's computers, and they were pretty slow at running a stripped down OS X. Not to mention that OS X got significantly faster between 2002 and 2007. On the same hardware, 10.5 (what the iPhone's OS is a branch of) would be a good bit faster than the version 10.1 that was available when Gruber wrote his article.

And let's not forget that the article was written back in the days before flash-based iPods, so the only way to get storage on it was via hard-drive. I mean, we're talking back in the day before iPods had USB connectors, and 2 years before the iPod Photo

Not sure I agree there. He's an unapologetic Apple fan, but he certainly gives them criticism when they need it. See, for example, the 30 or 40 posts about App Store approval problems.

"but he's also a completely reliable Apple apologist"

You really should read him more regularly then, since that absolutely isn’t the case. He likes Apple’s stuff, that doesn’t make him an apologist.

This was written in _2002_! At that time all the speculation was obviously bullshit.

"Look to the recent kerfuffle regarding AT&T's network for another great example."

What did everyone say when the AT&T deal was first announced? "Oh no! Their network is awful!". Two years later… still awful, except now they’re trying to blame it on the iPhone. I have an iPhone, no AT&T where I live. Never had a problem and that seems to be a consistent experience for a lot of people. Purely anecdotal, so take it with a pinch of salt.

One final note: you really shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who likes Apple’s stuff is some kind of apologist/fan-boy. That is a fantasy invented by journalists and wannabe critics. It’s reductive and boooooring.

>Look to the recent kerfuffle regarding AT&T's network for another great example.

Does anyone who isn't being paid money by AT&T actually think their network problems are because iPhones are poorly made? It nearly defies logic. The service is bad because the iPhones use crappy parts, which is also why the service sucks for non-iPhone smartphones?

Jury is still out on that one.

There's a good chance the so-called "Google Phone" is just going to be another unlocked device Google sells to developers (the third such device), not some kind of game-changing phone retail strategy.

In defense of the OP, one of Gruber's favorite pastimes is his so-called "claim chowder". This involves excerpting and/or linking to a columnist's vehement -- and, as it turns out, spectacularly wrong -- past arguments about the existence/success/profitability of (usually) an Apple product.