
John Gruber: I'll Tell You What's Fair - dave1619
http://daringfireball.net/2010/06/whats_fair
======
lionhearted
I like John Gruber, and I upvoted this article, but this point:

> Look at those 2007 Android designs compared to the original 2007 iPhone. Now
> compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone. Don’t tell me Google’s
> mobile strategy hasn’t changed.

I mean, he's totally right. It did change. But it wasn't to knock off Apple,
it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now.

Apple can say, "We pioneered that!" That's true. But they can't say, "We
pioneered that - how dare they!" Because that's misplaced. Consumer preference
has shifted, and yes, that's due in large part because of Apple's actions.

But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and
these jerks are copying our iPhone" - because consumers don't necessarily want
iPhones. They want well-designed devices which are fun and intuitive to use.
Apple helped reveal that path, but they don't exactly get to plant a flag in
the ground and say that's theirs now, forever, and how dare anyone else build
well-designed devices with intuitive touchscreen interfaces.

Any other company I'd shrug at the misplaced righteous indignation, but Apple
_really_ should know better, since they got into this with Microsoft over
"look and feel" last decade over GUI. The reaction was the same, "How dare
Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!" But that's wrong. Microsoft
gave people what they wanted, which was pretty and and more intuitive
navigation.

It's like - when you introduce a new general standard, you can't really own
it. It's out there. You get a massive head start, but then people will start
using that standard and innovating on it. Traditionally what companies with
the head start do is cut prices to lock in market share and make it impossible
for people to compete, but Apple runs on crazy margins, so they refuse to do
this, get angry at whoever is making something that fills similar needs for a
lower price than them, and then lose their market. And now they're doing it
again.

~~~
credo
I think you might be missing the point.I'm not sure why you think that Gruber
says or condones saying ["We pioneered that - how dare they!"]

Gruber explicitly says that it is fair for Google to compete with Apple and to
copy the iPhone. He is making the point that it is reasonable for Apple to
compete with Google (in ads).

Here is the excerpt

 _> >It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and
copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple,
but it’s not out of bounds._

 _> >What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively
change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone
competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead
just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous
buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing
had changed._

~~~
lionhearted
> I think you might be missing the point.

I got his point, I just think he's wrong.

He says Google shifting from trying to compete from Blackberry/Microsoft to
competing with Apple was basically an act of war, so Apple is justified in
fighting back in the ad market.

I think that's wrong for three reasons - first, Google didn't go after Apple,
they're building things people want. Their devices resemble Apple's more than
Blackberry's because Apple is also doing what people want, whereas Blackberry
isn't.

Second, it wasn't an act of war/betrayal/attack/breach of the Apple/Google
business relationship (which Gruber implies).

Third, Apple are kind of being pricks pulling the rug out from a company after
Google acquires them. They can do that because it's their business, but it's
not justified as some sort of retaliatory measure. It is justified as business
if they want, it's kind of prick-ish, but it's their right to do.

So, I understood, I just thought some of his points were wrong. I agree with
him about not having comments on his site though - except in rare instances
with a carefully built commenting community, comments become just noise and
take away from a site. I like Gruber and have learned some really good stuff
from him. I'm just not with him on this one.

~~~
gaius
That's kinda sorta not true tho' - BlackBerries account for 40% of the
smartphone market. If you were going after the biggest slice of the pie,
they're who you'd target.

~~~
telemachos
I always end up wondering how can a company have so much of the market and so
little of the buzz? (Of course, if you can _maintain_ that level of market
share, it may not matter.)

~~~
yummyfajitas
They sell to corporations. Citigroup and similar companies give their
employees blackberries and generic dell laptops. Their employees are
sufficiently un-excited about it that there is no buzz.

~~~
gaius
I don't think that's true. People say "I love my BlackBerry". Regardless of
where they got it, they form the emotional attachment to the brand. Jay-Z
mentions his BlackBerry in his music. It's a lifestyle object, it says, I am
taking care of business, baby. I am an insider, I have my act together, I make
decisions. People call them CrackBerries because they're addictive.

But I've never heard anyone say "I love my Android", people talk about how
clever it is, but the brand doesn't seem to resonate nearly as much, and it's
not as clear what it says as a lifestyle accessory.

~~~
telemachos
First, I love my Eris. Love it, love it, love it. Would sleep with it under
the pillow, if I weren't so worried about its well-being.

Second, in my experience, people react to it with a "So you're a DIY-er, huh?"
That is, people are aware, however vaguely, of the opensource/hacker vibe that
the brand carries. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "what it says as a
lifestyle accesory," but I think it is.

(Btw, you had your +1 at "Jay-Z mentions...")

~~~
bitwize
You live in the Bay area?

Up here in Mass, I tend to see Android devices being carried by unpleasant,
street hoodlum types, which I guess to be a consequence of and reinforce the
"iPhone knockoff" image associated with them.

~~~
zach
I see this got into the negative, so let me upvote and point out that this is
totally expected.

This is exactly how it was with the Danger handsets 5-7 years ago, simply
because they were great for power-texters, had a camera and were way, way
cheaper than BlackBerries. And yes, as a result they were great for conducting
street business -- don't be all shocked if that's true of Loopt as well.

------
zmmmmm
The most interesting thing about all this is simply how personally Jobs and
Gruber both seem to have taken the competition from Google. They genuinely
seem to feel enormously betrayed by it. What this tells me is that both of
them are now starting to acknowledge internally that Android really is an
enormous threat to the iPhone and it is so in ways that they simply can't
compete with. Google is putting out an operating system that is nearly as good
as Apple's, runs on any hardware that anyone wants it to and is completely
free. Apple can't hurt Google by undermining it profits because it doesn't
make the hardware and it gives the software away. It really seems like an
unfair fight. But what I think really hurts is Google invalidates Apple's core
thesis, that control, power and lockdown are necessary for a consumer friendly
operating system. Right as Apple is trying to justify not including Flash by
saying it can't work properly on phones, Google is there adding it into
Android and making them look like fools.

Incidentally Gruber seems to be conveniently overlooking a lot of history
here. Hostilities really started when _Apple_ banned Google Voice from the
iPhone. Prior to that things were pretty friendly, but after that Google
realized it couldn't afford to play friendly with Apple - so they enabled
multitouch in Android and things went downhill from there. Although it's a
completely pointless and silly game to play if you really follow it back I
think there is a very good argument that Apple started this whole falling out.

~~~
Robin_Message
If you think back 25 years, Jobs has been here before with Microsoft, and it
nearly killed his company. After all, Microsoft started out selling software,
including on the Mac, and did a good job of it, and _got_ what Apple was
doing! And then they made their own platform, and the rest, as they say, is
history.

I'd say there is a clear parallel here, and consciously or subconsciously,
that is why it is war -- because it was war last time, and they almost lost.

~~~
cheald
I think there's a very strong argument to be made that Windows nearly killed
Apple because Jobs made the same mistakes he is making today with the iPhone
platform.

Microsoft actively courted hardware manufacturers of all shapes and sizes.
Apple sued anyone who tried to produce compatible hardware without their
blessing.

Microsoft actively courted developers, by providing them with a strong
toolchain and turning them loose on the platform. Apple sacrificed developers
on the altar of user experience.

It's not much different today. Android is "fragmented" across who-knows how
many different hardware sets, which has the dual result of making the platform
less consistent for the benefit of letting consumers pick the hardware that
does what they want at a price point they are comfortable with. Android favors
developers almost to a fault; Apple's abuse of developers in order to preserve
the user experience is legendary. If history is any indicator, Jobs should be
very afraid. Apple has a tremendous first-mover advantage, and there is one
very key difference in that they have the larger software base at the moment,
but with the speed at which the Android platform is evolving and growing, it
isn't difficult at all to imagine that Apple could find the iPhone eating dust
in a few short quarters.

~~~
Robin_Message
And here is where the battle lines are drawn this time:

> Microsoft actively courted hardware manufacturers of all shapes and sizes.
> Apple sued anyone who tried to produce compatible hardware without their
> blessing.

No-one is going to make a compatible iPhone, and Apple is also using patents
to try prevent anyone making anything even comparable. On hardware, Apple is
fighting harder than last time.

> Microsoft actively courted developers, by providing them with a strong
> toolchain and turning them loose on the platform. Apple sacrificed
> developers on the altar of user experience.

Now, Apple can actually stop you selling your software on their platform, in
an instant - power only to be dreamed of in 1985! Add to that, the ban on
Flash that is forcing developers to do twice the work or only support the
dominant player (Apple.) They did the same with the Mac, no cursor keys and so
on, but this time it's even stricter. No Google Voice, no way to run the same
code on iPhone and Android, no apps that infringe on Apple's ever-moving
goalposts...

Apple has not given up on the strategy they tried with the Mac. Oh no, it's
just that they weren't strict enough and the stupid courts never ruled in
their favour! Now they have a proper level of control, they can make sure the
iPhone wins! BUWAHAHAHAHAAAA!

------
OoTheNigerian
John Gruber's arguments are painfully weak.

 _"It’s not that Google changed course and got into the phone business,
period. It’s that they got into the iPhone’s segment of the phone business.
This is what Android looked like in 2007. Here’s an actual hardware prototype
from then. It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple
would ever be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows
Mobile phone — hardware keyboards and non-touch screens"_

His highly flawed assumptions are

1\. That the hardware was the competition. 2\. Google bought a software
company to compete in hardware 3\. HTC was not making touch screen phones
before. 4\. If you see a successful trend you stick to something unsuccessful
in order not to compete.

He goes on to say

 _"I don’t believe Apple would have unveiled iAds. Maybe I’m wrong, and Apple
would have done it anyway, because it always comes down to money, and there’s
soon going to be an awful lot of money in mobile advertising."_

 _sigh!_

He speaks about the absence of comments on his blog. I think he can do
whatever he wants regarding that.

What surprises me is the amusing weakness of his arguments. This is the first
time I have actually read a full blog post of his (I mainly see bits of his
writing in rebuttals) and I go away wondering how he has been made into a
thought leader of some sort.

~~~
masklinn
> 1\. That the hardware was the competition.

Apple is a hardware company, that's what they see and compete on.

> 2\. Google bought a software company to compete in hardware 3. HTC was not
> making touch screen phones before.

hardware and software go hand in hand. Google implemented a touchscreen core
since the first public Android release and their base design (the N1) is fully
touch-oriented. They clearly set up the Android platform aiming at the segment
the iPhone also occupies, putting the platforms head to head. I don't see how
you an claim otherwise.

~~~
nooneelse
Google made an OS that can support dozens of different hardware user interface
variations. It is the phone makers that keep tailoring it along the lines of
making it touchscreen-centric. Any one of the handset makers could come out
with a keyboard-centric design at any time. The OS is rather agnostic on this.

------
csallen
_> It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple would ever
be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone —
hardware keyboards and non-touch screens. ... What’s goofy is the idea that
Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a
BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor..._

He's dividing phones into two categories here: BlackBerry/Windows Mobile-like
phones and iPhone-like phones. This is a very questionable standpoint. It's
like dividing tablets into Windows-like tablets and iPad-like tablets, and
claiming that they're two separate markets.

On the contrary, tech hardware is constantly evolving. What's possible in 2010
wasn't possible in 2005, and what was possible in 2005 wasn't possible in
1995. In the past, it made sense to go with the benefits of a physical
keyboard at the expense of screen real estate. Today, phones are extremely
powerful, their screens run at high resolutions, carriers are more liberal,
and mobile app developers abound. Google isn't switching markets to suddenly
start competing with the iPhone; they're just keeping up with the times.
Saying that Google should have "kept Android targeted at BlackBerry" is like
saying the US should have focused on producing spears and arrows during the
nuclear arms race.

~~~
sprout
It still makes sense to go with a physical keyboard if you're strapped for
cash. Touchscreens big enough and responsive enough to handle a soft keyboard
do not run cheap.

~~~
jokermatt999
Physical keyboards definitely feel more accurate and nicer to type on. I could
have gone touch only when I got my phone, but I specifically went with the
Droid rather than wait for a Nexus One because I wanted a physical keyboard. I
don't understand how people can use those on screen keyboards all the time.
There's no feedback whatsoever.

~~~
sprout
I can understand it, but I too prefer my Droid's keyboard.

------
noibl
Gruber says nobody is arguing that there's a “How dare Google compete with
Apple?” sentiment. That Apple merely took the gloves off and started taking
the fight more seriously. But aggrieved sentiment is written all over Steve
Jobs's reaction to Android.

'They want to kill the iPhone' -- remember that little gem? How did he know
this? Because Android-based products were looking more and more like iPhones.
But the reason for the convergent evolution of the two platforms is quite
obvious: it's a winning design. It's a ridiculous justification for preemptive
retaliation, on par with 'Saddam tried to kill my daddy'.

The reason Google decided to get involved in smartphones is the same reason
Apple did: the internet. Before the current sheer-slab-of-touchscreen became
the recognised form-factor of an internet-friendly phone, we waited years and
years for Nokia, SE and Motorola and crucially, the carriers, to give us a
device that could freely access the services and content that we knew were all
around us. What did we get? Push email. The pressure was building and by 2005
the industry was ripe for disruption.

Apple's prestige, combined with the exclusive AT&T deal, was what forced the
carriers to abandon their walled-garden ideal and take the internet seriously.
The iPhone was an offer they couldn't refuse. Google could not have done that.
The problem is that having freed us from the carriers' walled gardens, Apple
now wants to take their place.

I think Jobs was being just a little disingenuous when he said Google wants to
kill the iPhone. What he could have more honestly and accurately said is that
Google wants to kill the iPhone OS's chance of achieving a monopoly position.
Why do they want that? For the same reason they got into smartphone design:
the internet.

------
shib71
Normally I just ignore the articles that don't interest me - I assume they're
for someone else. But I'm beginning to find these blog-war posts tiresome.
There is no new information, no novel insight. Just he said, she said. Is this
really the kind of content the HN community is looking for?

~~~
matrix
I agree wholeheartedly. I come here for information, and noise like this stuff
dilutes HN's value just as surely as any non-hacker content like political
articles, "8 Beautiful Pictures of Slugs", or "VB 101".

PG: any chance we could have a temporary (or permanent) ban on John Gruber
posts?

~~~
dreyfiz
Sometimes I think nerds aren't very intelligent at all. They're just
technology fetishists with a large vocabulary who've learned to ape some of
intelligent people's behavior.

+1 for banning DF links, because the comments here when a link to DF is posted
are really depressingly stupid, and they make me suspicious of the quality of
thinking behind everything else that's said on HN. Little else makes the
fundamental defectiveness of the nerd mentality as clear as the reactions to
John Gruber's writing.

This is like being in a room full of Rob Malda. The last time it was this
obvious to me how defective nerd thinking is was Malda's reaction to the iPod:
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."

~~~
petercooper
_The last time it was this obvious to me how defective nerd thinking is was
Malda's reaction to the iPod: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."_

To be fair, that wasn't dissimilar to the response of a lot of people here
regarding the iPad - quite a few of whom have gone on to say they were "wrong"
after actually using one.

The first iPod really _did_ suck. Its sales were slow for ages and it didn't
take off seriously until the color ones hit.

------
bad_user
People forget that devices like the iPaq with Microsoft's Pocket PC on them
had touch-screens long before both the iPhone and Android.

Those people at Google are dicks for competing. It's like they are operating
in capitalism or something.

But what I really hate is hypocrisy. Everyone understood why Google did it
without blog-posts from self-proclaimed spokesmen.

In the case of Apple though, things aren't so clear ... and I would bet that
Apple would've gotten into the advertising business anyway. They just picked a
fight ... and you don't need brains to figure out why. Look around ... picking
a fight is good marketing.

~~~
bruceboughton
Apple didn't invent touchscreens. What they _did_ was master the use of
touchsreens in mobile computing devices.

Apple are masters of quality of execution. That's what matters in making a
device as successful as the iPhone and iPad, not whether you personally
invented a particular component.

Ferrari didn't invent the car...

~~~
bad_user
That wasn't my argument ...

I don't see customers blaming Lamborghini (a tractor manufacturer) for getting
in Ferrari's turf. Neither of them invented the car, so why should anyone have
any opinion?

I also couldn't see Ferrari entering the tractor manufacturing business, but
if it did happen it would have happened only because tractor manufacturing was
a very lucrative market, picking a fight with Lamborghini being only about
marketing.

Also what really matters is ... why the fuck do people waist time on such
arguments and why am I not working instead of arguing with you?

~~~
recoiledsnake
The difference is that Apple is banning Admob(bought by Google) from the
iPhone apps just because it's owned by Google. The TOS state that no other
company that develops a mobile OS can sell ads based on analytics. That's like
Ferrari banning GPSes made by Lamborghini from being used in Ferrari cars just
because they are made by another car manufacturer.

~~~
bad_user
Well, yeah ... as I said it's just marketing.

Marketing is used to increase the visibility of a product or to hide its
flaws.

In this particular case the elephant in the room is that Apple built something
that looks and smells like a platform, but it's just a tightly controlled
product line, probably with the intention of earning a monopoly on smartphones
(both on hardware and on software).

And what better way to do it than ... getting people's attention on a holy war
to purge the world of evil-doers like Google and Adobe, both of which have the
capacity to reduce the iOS to a mere platform that can be replaced / be
subject to anti-trust laws.

~~~
drivebyacct
I love how Apple 'markets' applications from the App Store they don't like.

You're defining marketing to include the definition of the word 'ban'. It's
rather silly IMO.

~~~
bad_user
Why is every reply misinterpreting what I said?

Apple's actions taken against evil/incompetent Google/Adobe is just a
marketing ploy meant to distract critics from its real problems and to
increase its loyal following ... it's been done before by others, successfully
even.

In contrast Google is quite transparent in their marketing scheme ... they
want world domination/monopoly of their cash-cows, and being the forward-
looking people that they are, they are eliminating/preventing intermediaries
from coming between them and their customers.

THE BIG QUESTION when it comes to us (outside developers or customers) is
"WHAT's IN IT FOR ME?".

Who do you benefit most? In my case it's Google as they are more open and
willing to crack old monopolies that also get in my way (as a dev).

Other talks about who is right, who provoked whom, or how awesome or right
Jobs or Larry or Sergey are (or how they shoot thunderbolts up their arse) ...
are simply irrelevant, and the fact that I have to read such stupid articles
(unfortunately I feel compelled for some reason) ... keeps me from learning
new things or from working.

And it's not like I can avoid it ... these kind of articles are taking over as
they provoke passionate (and silly) discussions (yes, marketers know that).

~~~
astrange
> In my case it's Google as they are more open and willing to crack old
> monopolies that also get in my way (as a dev).

Well, Apple quite successfully introduced an app store that didn't require
carrier approval for everything. You wouldn't have been able to get past that
in the first place. Or did Google announce something like that in Android
first? I can't remember now, but I doubt it.

------
philk
So we have an blog post that spends the first 700 words saying "Google started
it" and then the latter 700 justifying why there aren't comments.

I'm not sure how this is interesting. Companies compete, and that's a good
thing. Rambling about who started what is irrelevant.

~~~
mortenjorck
You know, Gruber has implied that he's an HN reader in the past... I think his
blog does have a comments section; it just has an orange stripe at the top.

------
Greyface
Actually that's still bullshit from Gruber. Google may have made a touchscreen
OS but they still deferred to Apple in many ways, most notably by not
including 'pinch to zoom' and other UI that Apple claimed was theirs alone.
Google stood by and watched as Palm jumped into direct competition with Apple
and included that, lawsuits be dammed.

Apple broke the peace when they rejected Google Voice from the AppStore last
summer (and retroactively removed and banned all the third party Google Voice
clients already sold through the store). That was the first dickish shot of
war--an act of unfair competition by Apple and AT&T--not this iAds business or
Google making a phone OS

------
alexandros
By the same token, apple entered the cut-n-paste enabled, multi-tasking
smartphone market. There is a word for slicing and dicing definitions until
they come out just right for your predetermined conclusion: Casuistry. It is
usually seen in religious debates, although we may not be very far from one
with this article.

------
betageek
I think this misses a big point about the issue - Apple's "App" strategy is
changing the way people access information from using web browsers towards
using tightly controlled proprietary Apple approved apps (iTunes was just the
start.) Google are in the information access business and are moving to
protect that business because the iOS ecology threatens it's dominance.

The hardware issue is a red herring, it's all about who controls the
information<->user interface.

------
cageface
Gruber gets it exactly backwards here. Google is pushing Android exactly
_because_ it needs to mitigate the impact of moves like Apple's iAds. Google
goal is protecting its search business from a potentially hostile monopoly,
not killing Apple's phone business. Would it be smart of Google to sit on the
sidelines while Apple becomes totally dominant in the mobile computing market
and to trust Apple to leave all the money it could then make from advertising
on the table?

It's interesting how profoundly the backgrounds of the company founders affect
corporate strategy. Steve is fundamentally a salesman and thinks in terms of
products. Google's heads are engineers and think first about platforms and
protocols. Last time these two philosophies clashed Apple leaped out ahead but
eventually lost to a cheaper, commodifiable platform. I expect this time will
be no different.

------
ZeroGravitas
Gruber thinks competing with the iPhone is "a dick move"? That seems an odd
opinion, yet boldly stated as if it was normal.

And in particular by using large capacitive touchscreens with soft keyboards?
That's just the way the world was going, you'd be as right to argue that they
shouldn't use Wi-Fi or USB or Windowed UI or mice because Apple did them
first.

(edit: just to be clear, I'm aware that Apple did none of these things first,
but popularised and/or polished them to greater or lesser extents)

~~~
alxp
>Gruber thinks competing with the iPhone is "a dick move"? That seems an odd
opinion, yet boldly stated as if it was normal.

Well they entered the phone business licensing their software for zero
dollars. It's a fairly common thing that software companies do - Sun dumped a
ton of money into OpenOffice just to be a pain in the ass to Microsoft,
Microsoft keeps trying to do search and maps for god knows what reason when it
isn't making them money.

If the software industry were more mature they wouldn't rise to the press's
baiting about "killing" each other and just put resources into their core
products and make those great.

~~~
bad_user
> _Sun dumped a ton of money into OpenOffice just to be a pain in the ass to
> Microsoft_

No, that was a defensive move to prevent Microsoft from completely taking over
the software industry which would've made them irrelevant. You also forgot
about Java, which original was targeted at consumers as a way to have multi-
platform apps that will make the OS irrelevant.

------
SandB0x
He sounds like GLaDOS from Portal, when she realises you've broken free and
are now a genuine threat.

 _It was a fun test, and we're all impressed at how much you won. The test is
over. Come back_

 _This is your fault. It didn't have to be like this._

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Portal_(game)>

------
falien
Google's initial efforts were directed very much at RIM. RIM's guiding
strategy never had anything to do with form factor. It was always to provide
the killer experience for email, with special attention to corporate email.
Android took a shot at RIM by focusing on gmail integration and a great email
experience (including frequent polling to get the same effect as push email)
to the detriment of other areas of the user experience. It didn't have a focus
on corporate, but they also knew that more and more people were using
traditionally personal email services for business purposes (and they did know
immediately that it was necessary and were working on exchange support). While
they still had room to improve the email experience, they provided what many
considered the best mobile email experience from the G1 onward. They then
continued to improve everything else in the direction of the industry bests,
which yes included UI inspiration from iphone.

Also, the idea that early hardware used for developing software is any
indication of the ultimate direction is ridiculous. Touch interface is one of
the last things you're going to tack onto an operating system. Even if it is a
core part of your user interface, you need to get all the underlying parts you
never want the user to know about working first, and that is just alot easier
with hard interfaces.

------
halo
There's a big difference between competing with another business in a market
on a level playing field (e.g. Android vs iPhone) and essentially deciding to
ban another company in a sector from competing with you (e.g. Admob vs iAd). I
think the prior is fair game, whereas the latter is anticompetitive (even as
retribution for daring to compete on a level playing field).

------
rodh257
“We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business."

They aren't selling the operating system are they? therefore really the
business is advertising, as it has always been with Google, and Apple has just
entered that business.

~~~
ugh
That’s distinction is not really all that important in this context. Google
wants to shape the future of the mobile web in order to sell ads – but in that
process they could easily crush Apple. That’s why Apple fights back.

------
mbrubeck
So Apple stops playing nice with Google because Android is competing in the
same playing field as iOS...

Then I guess it's kind of insulting to Microsoft's mobile division that Apple
is now playing nice with Bing. :)

------
mcav
The part about comments? Right on. Don't let the abscess of humanity troll
against everything they dislike on _your own_ website. Anyone who thinks you
must have comments to be legitimate is under a false sense of entitlement.

Seriously. Just _write_. Comments in general are a distraction to
productivity; comments on blogs are no exception.

~~~
shadowsun7
With one caveat: blogs with the stated intention of creating community/being a
community gathering point _has_ to have comments. I run a blog that helps
independent writers publish their work online. I tried Gruber's advice, once -
and it backfired, badly.

So, in a nutshell: soapboxes are good, but not when you want to create
community.

~~~
leviathant
Comments on a blog do not a community make. I run a news site about a band,
and I've never allowed comments. However, the site is closely affiliated with
an entirely separate message board, which our staff are regular contributors
to.

I see it in kind of the same way Gruber sees it, but without nearly as much
hubris and ego. To me, it's my website, and I prefer it to be an editorial
publication. I select who writes for the site, because I want a higher quality
end result.

That said, some sites benefit from public comment. I remember being ticked off
when News.com got bought out by CNet because they eventually turned off
comments, and often times the comments helped balance out the ridiculous spin
in the articles posted to the site.

~~~
shadowsun7
> Comments on a blog do not a community make.

Agreed. Perhaps a better generalizing statement to make would be: community
cannot exist where there is no channel for user feedback. You have a forum, I
have comments. Both are mediums for reader expression.

------
jtbigwoo
> My goal is for not a single wasted word to appear anywhere on any page of
> the site.

This is the funniest sentence in the history of the web.

~~~
Psyonic
Gruber at his best!

------
rythie
Google made a smart phone OS based on desktop OS, so did Apple. They were both
aimed at the do anything smartphone market. Blackberry and Windows Mobile were
in that market already.

It doesn't really matter what the early Android prototypes looked like, since
Google doesn't do that bit, the free market does.

------
Batsu
Nothing like a post on Daring Fireball to keep the iPhone/Android loyalty war
on the front page of HN.

Does any of this really matter?

------
cubicle67
How about we just add another link at the top of the HN page, just to the
right of Submit, that contains an rss feed of daringfireball?

~~~
seabee
Only if you believe DN links are less worthy of front-page status than
anything else on the homepage.

------
doron
From the end user perspective (at least this end user) The competition to
widen access to ads and and further to create rich ads is something i hope
both companies will not see much success in.

At present, Browsing via mobile is relatively slow, if you dont have unlimited
data plans, then it follows that you will pay for Ad traffic, rich media ad
traffic will make this problem worse.

The killer feature for me is no advertising, and I am willing to pay for apps
to avoid them, An adblocker on the native phone browser is a killer feature
for me. One that at least in theory is easier to get on the android platform
then on the iphone.

------
Jun8
It's wrong to start Apple's foray into mobile with the iPhone. They partnered
with Motorola on a phone before that and have absorbed a lot of knowledge.

------
robryan
I doubt it's a bad move with android as John says it may be. They could have
avoided the phone market, let Apple progress with less competition and stayed
close partners. Then Apple would have had all the power and could pretty much
create their own ad platform at their choosing.

Kinda like how Zynga is at the mercy of Facebook despite making them
profitable through there heavy advertising on the platform.

------
Tichy
So Google is evil because they added a touch screen to their phones? Only
Apple has the right to make phones without keyboards?

~~~
ugh
Sorry, but where does Gruber say that they are evil? All he says is that they
started competing with Apple in a – uhm, to quote him – dickish way and that
therefore, it is perfectly alright when Apple then also competes dickishly.

He does not claim that being a dick when competing is wrong or evil. To quote
him: “It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and
copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple,
but it’s not out of bounds.”

~~~
Tichy
Ah, I stopped reading before that line. But then, I guess I don't see the
whole point of the discussion.

------
tel
I don't get why he attached his "comments off" opinions at the end of this
piece, but I feel like Gruber's opinion there is just as interesting as the
first half the piece. It's been a long standing opinion of his, sure, but he
got down and stated it clearly in this post.

------
tzury
Give me a break!

From my point of view - a man who might write mobile app someday - all these
fuss and arguments are totally wasted energy and karmatically ugly.

Apple is running their monarchy, and I should choose, as it becomes relevant,
whether to set up an embassy at that territory or not (in a form of app at
appstore).

If the business interests would justify it, I'll be in, if not, out, simple
dimple.

Why do we have to read about all these emotions and fights every single day,
why? Isn't coding/hacking itself dramatic enough that we have to bring in
strange boosters?

------
Kilimanjaro
You all are being too emotional about this. Corporations don't act that way.

You eat my lunch, I eat yours, and kick you in the balls.

------
joubert
What people in this thread seem to ignore is John's argument is that Google
made a _dick move_ in the context of the two companies having shared a tight
buddy buddy relationship and a mutually beneficial strategy. _that_ is why it
was a backstabbing and is generating the retaliation.

------
sshconnection
DARING FIREBALL : STEVE JOBS :: FOX NEWS : SARAH PALIN

------
napierzaza
I dislike Gruber more than I did because he's one of those guys who ascribes a
huge corporation emotions. Eric Schmidt left the Apple board because if they
are competing it would be a conflict of interest and a legal problem between
the companies and their investors. Get over it, these are business decisions.
Gruber has been saying what he thinks Apple might like to hear for a while.
Too bad Apple is a huge company and not a teenage girl

------
confuzatron
John Gruber totally rips off Steve Jobs' LaF, but that's okay because he's not
competing with Jobs.

Seriously though, it's interesting how people tend to come to emulate their
role models in this way. You can see the Jobsian 'tone' used by a lot of
people who agree with him. It's a very 'no bullshit', 'here's the bottom line'
style that can sound dismissive and, dare I say it, a little arrogant.

~~~
noibl
Even the way he describes his site design in comparison to others' sounds like
he sees himself as the Apple of punditry:

'I don’t care what’s out of place. I care about what’s best.'

'My goal is for not a single wasted word to appear anywhere on any page of the
site.'

And the best bit:

'...demands from entitled people who see that I’ve built something very nice
that draws much attention, and who believe they have a right to share in it.
They don’t.'

------
drivebyacct
This article is easily defeated by a simple observation. Locking out a
competitor from your platform is hardly competition. Maybe "artificial
competition". Stealing/copying/borrowing features is the age old cycle of
innovation and competition in the tech industry.

Pointing fingers about stealing ideas is ridiculously silly, no wonder Gruber
is wasting his precious word count on it. But to defend Apple's draconian
policies as good in the eyes of competition is simply too much for me to hear
without the bullshit-ometer going off.

------
drivebyacct
Apple locking Google out is the same thing as Android competing with iOS. Yup.
What's new?

One side is competing with the other. The other side is locking them out of
the platform on an application (Google Voice) and an advertising level.

What if Google said they weren't going to allow Apple apps on Android or allow
iAds on Android (not that I think either would ever happen in a million
years).

I simply can't fathom the double think that Gruber uses to excuse Apple's
actions while pointing fingers at Google.

~~~
nooneelse
> I simply can't fathom the double think that Gruber uses to excuse Apple's
> actions while pointing fingers at Google.

I wonder what it must be like living with the knowledge that your ongoing fame
is so dependent on friendly leaks and peaks from a patron known for ire-based
reversals of largesse. His career keeps him prone to something like Stockholm
syndrome.

At this point, how many months or years away from this dependency would he
need, before we could start trusting that he is giving us independent opinions
that are truly from him; not things that are, as likely as not, what he needs
to believe.

~~~
commandar
> I wonder what it must be like living with the knowledge that your ongoing
> fame is so dependent on friendly leaks and peaks from a patron known for
> ire-based reversals of largesse. His career keeps him prone to something
> like Stockholm syndrome.

Just as an example: I think a lot of people forget that a couple of years ago,
Apple was very friendly with Gizmodo. That started to sour when Gizmodo ran
some pieces speculating on Jobs' health, and has only deteriorated since -
Gizmodo was cut out of prelaunch iPad access entirely and we all know the
iPhone 4 saga by now.

Apple is very comfortable with being the ones to taketh away.

------
yanw
Google being influenced by the iPhone and developing Android accordingly into
a very viable contender is fair play, they provide competition which is good
for consumers but for Apple to basically lock them out of iPhone app
advertising eliminating competition from a big player is bad for
consumers/developers.

------
s1rech
I think people are not making enough fun of the "be a man, allow comments"
claim.

