

"iPhony" (Gruber post quoting NYTimes about a future "Apple Phone") [2002] - barredo
http://daringfireball.net/2002/08/iphony

======
runjake
Keep in mind this was written in 2002, when it pretty much WAS impossible to
develop the iPhone as we know it, and as Gruber describes. Phones were basic
bulky creations with antenna nubs. Smartphone OSes at the time were PalmOS and
a version of PocketPC with phone capabilities retrofitted on.

I don't really get the point of this submission. Is it to poke fun at Gruber's
observations?

~~~
Semiapies
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.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
Yes. Analysts come up with crazy ideas for products Apple is "building" all
the time. Ultimately, they get like 95% accuracy, simply because they've
thrown so much against the wall that they're bound to hit.

Or they mention it, and say "it's gonna come this Tuesday" every Tuesday for
half a decade. They were talking about the iPhone since 2002, and it came out
in 2007. They're talking about this tablet like it's coming in Jan. 2010, but
they've said "next month" two or three times a year since 2005.

------
eli
_Shrug_

He said the article was based on speculation... and it _was_ based on
speculation. It was a weak article. It just happened to turn out to be
correct.

------
ilamont
2002: "Industry analysts know nothing about Apple, and given their record in
the tech industry in the last few years, it’s a wonder anyone quotes them at
all."

2009: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/11/10/apple-nokia-
ipho...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/11/10/apple-nokia-iphone)

~~~
roc
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.

------
fromedome
A classic!

My favorite part: "unless the cell phone were actually running Mac OS X, which
definitely is impossible"

Technically, the iPhone does not run Mac OS X, but still -- seems like John
was ruling out any flavor of OS X, which, obviously, the iPhone runs.

~~~
lurch_mojoff
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?

------
megaduck
Gruber's a smart guy, but he's also a completely reliable Apple apologist. If
the Apple position is that there's no iPhone, then Gruber shows why the idea
is stupid. If Apple suddenly reveals an iPhone, Gruber shows why it was
inevitable. Look to the recent kerfuffle regarding AT&T's network for another
great example.

Daring Fireball can be a fun read, but it has the same relationship to Apple
that Fox News has to the Republican party.

~~~
mr_eel
"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.

~~~
megaduck
Whoah, there. I'm not criticizing Gruber for being an Apple fan. Heck, _I'm_
an Apple fan. They make some of the best hardware and software going, period.

All I'm saying is that Gruber tends to instinctively side with Apple in any
dispute, and defend them passionately. Nokia and AT&T are recent examples, but
he's been this way for about a decade now, as shown by this article. Daring
Fireball tends to toe the party line, and it's got to get pretty bad before he
breaks ranks.

------
dannyr
Reminds me of this PC Magazine piece dissing Arrington's article about a
Google Phone.

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2356075,00.asp>

~~~
eli
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.

------
jawngee
Oh no! A blogger was wrong! _Call the press!_

~~~
frankus
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.

