
Horseshit - Joshua Topolsky responds to MG & Gruber  - divy
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/15/2638611/horseshit
======
kenjackson
As I once wrote here, Gruber and MG are not columnists or even pundits. They
are simply Apple evangelists. They preach a faith-based approach to Apple's
superiority where no amount of evidence can sway them.

Josh's description is dead accurate, but those of us who have been paying
attention have known this for a long time.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3068516>

~~~
pkaler
Let me point you to the Pyramid of Refutation. <http://i.imgur.com/QhGkT.jpg>

Most arguments that I read that argue against Gruber and MG's point of view
resort to either ad hominem or respond to tone.

Calling Gruber and MG Apple evangelists does not refute their central point.

I like Joshua Topolsky and The Verge a lot. I think they produce the best
reviews in the business. Their audio and video casts are funny and
informative. JT is probably the most informed Android reviewer. He's probably
the most informed gadget reviewer.

JT: "It doesn't get under my skin because I fundamentally disagree that
Android 4.0 lacks the polish of iOS."

JT: "I don't disagree with Gruber and MG. The iPhone is an amazing device. ...
Not seeing it is not the issue — the issue is not being able to see it any
other way."

JT's argument is that these are not verifiable facts we are discussing. We are
discussing opinions. But he also states that Android is polished.

We would all be better off if he wrote an article titled "Android Is Polished"
and listed the polish point for point.

~~~
kenjackson
_Calling Gruber and MG Apple evangelists does not refute their central point._

What's Gruber's central point? To quote Gruber: "You either see it or you
don't."

How do you refute that? His central point is that you can't attack my central
point, because you can't see it. His central point is that you can't see god,
because you don't have enough faith. It's not falsifiable.

Give me falsifiable metrics that could, at least in theory, be refuted and I'd
be happy to look at them. But you can't trot out the pyramid of refutation
when they've made your central point vacuous.

~~~
eigenvector
"It's not right. It's not even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

------
daeken
"It gets under my skin because it is a pompous, privileged, insulting, and
myopic viewpoint which reeks of class warfare — and it is indicative of a
growing sentiment I see amongst people in the tech community."

You know what I've seen an upward trend of? People taking themselves and
everything they see _entirely_ too seriously. "Class warfare"? Seriously? This
is a _phone review_.

~~~
joebadmo
I think it's a more cogent and more substantial point than it might seem at
first glance.

Anecdotally, I honestly do notice a class axis between iPhone and Android
(though there are other axes, too). Just like there was a class axis between
Facebook and MySpace for a while.

<http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html>

No one denies that consumer electronics can be status symbols. They can also
be counter-status symbols.

And I think what Topolsky is reacting to here is the subtext of division. "You
either see it or you don't," implies "I see this and you don't" which implies
"I'm better than you." Which is an attitude in general that can exacerbate
class differences.

And, as kenjackson has noted elsewhere, there's a distinct sense that some
evangelists don't just observe the success of their chosen subject, but cheer
them on and -- worse -- enjoy the failure of the others.

I think it's a good thing to expose. It's a better, more useful division that
Topolsky is making here, I'd say: between advocates and observers, not between
Android fans and iPhone fans.

~~~
beatle
In related news:

 _Snobby Robbers Only Steal iPhones, Refuse To Take Droids Or Blackberries_

[http://www.cultofmac.com/135564/snobby-robbers-only-steal-
ip...](http://www.cultofmac.com/135564/snobby-robbers-only-steal-iphones-
refuse-to-take-droids-or-blackberries/)

------
jemka
>Let's not let our preferences (and that's all they are, preferences, not
empirical facts) dictate how we think about and relate to other people.

I don't understand why people get so caught up in something they literally had
nothing to do with other than giving their money away to achieve.

While the products we buy have value, the consumer played no role in that
value. You didn't invent it. You didn't make it better. You didn't do anything
but buy it.

I guess the fact that people put value where no value exists is a testament to
the power of marketing.

~~~
aamar
Here are some rational reasons why consumers might publicly and self-
interestedly advocate for products they have already purchased:

1) If the product maintains a good reputation, early adopters will have been
seen to have good taste or perception, which is socially valuable.

2) If you have developed expertise in a product that grows in popularity, you
have the potential to be a resource to late adopters. Whether that potential
is exercised or not, it represents a certain amount of social, and in some
cases professional, capital.

3) If your product becomes disfavored, it may become unsupported. This means
that you likely have a shorter usable lifetime for the device, fewer support
options (official, 3rd party, and community), and fewer future options for
peripherals and software. Each of these network-value losses means less
personal wealth.

Also, there's some evidence (see e.g.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect>) that people often overvalue
past purchases even beyond the level that rational assessment would indicate.

~~~
jemka
All are examples of why one might defend their preference, which isn't the
issue. I quoted the issue; why one would allow their preference to "dictate
how we think about and relate to other people."

~~~
aamar
I'm not sure I understand--isn't defending a preference one way people relate
to certain other people?

If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually
true or evidenced here. All of these people have professional stakes which are
in play in a heated debate they're having with a very small number of other
people who also have professional stakes. But I'm sure Gruber and Topolsky and
others go home and have lots of relationships with people that do not involve
any of this.

I feel similarly about "think about": as heated as this language is, I don't
know that we can easily characterize what Topolsky thinks about Gruber and
Siegler overall.

~~~
jemka
>isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people?

I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of
treating people differently based on personal preferences.

>If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's
actually true or evidenced here.

Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war"
have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very
example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue,
not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick
one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference
aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without
putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall
lesson.

------
amartya916
I do think Josh Toposkly overreacted. MG's analogy was not great either, it
needed a couple of caveats (see next para). But, Just because a Mercedes is
being compared to a Honda doesn't mean that there's some sort of a class issue
at stake.

Honda is a fantastic engineering company. In terms of drivetrain technology
they are right up there with the very best (for lower capacity engines, I'd
say they are better than Mercedes, but I digress). However, Mercedes
(especially till the early nineties) was about attention to detail, not just
the drivetrain, but each and every part that went in, was famously "over-
engineered". If I may, my interpretation of the analogy:

a. Honda's focus is on the engineering (drivetrain to be specific), they are
willing to do an average (nothing special, but not bad) job for the rest of
the package. That includes average interiors, average ride quality, average
styling etc.

b. Mercedes tries (or did try) to do a stellar job in each of those categories
listed above.

So, if Android is Google's engineering, Google let's Samsung get away with a
plasticky phone (I have used the Galaxy nexus for an hour and a half today).
Yes, even now the feel of the phone in one's hand is not even comparable to
the iPhone 4.

But the analogy falls flat because the Galaxy Nexus is more expensive on
contract than the iPhone. Price matters, the pricing helps Mercedes devote
resources to develop the products the way they do.

Gruber, got this wrong too. His own quote "You either see it or you don’t. If
you don’t, that’s cool, enjoy your Nexus. " is correct, but it's correct on
it's own, not with MGs quote.

~~~
atourgates
I saw the Mercedes / Honda analogy falling flat in a very different place.

If you sit in a $50,000 Mercedes, and can't instantly tell that it's a more
refined and luxurious experience than a $20,000 Honda - why the fuck would you
buy the Mercedes?

~~~
andrewfelix
Exactly. The Mercedes is not $30,000 better than the Honda. You're paying for
status. Why would you do that unless you were making a statement about your
salary, position etc?

~~~
jonknee
I don't think that was the point, I think the point was there is an immediate
and obvious difference between Mercedes and Honda. Everyone can notice it,
even if they aren't experts on cars or design.

> "You either see it or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s cool, enjoy your
> Nexus.

That doesn't happen with a Mercedes and Honda. Not noticing a difference and
not wanting to pay for the difference are totally different things.

~~~
andrewfelix
_"Everyone can notice it, even if they aren't experts on cars or design."_ I'm
not so sure about that. I think Siegler's point was that he believes there's a
select portion of society that can appreciate the difference between the
Mercedes and Honda. That's why Topolsky interprets it(correctly IMO) as a
class thing.

~~~
jonknee
Maybe I'm off, but I think Topolsky interprets it as a class thing because
Mercedes are expensive and many people can't afford them.

Do you think your average Honda owner would upgrade to a Mercedes if the money
was the same? I do.

------
achompas
_tl;dr_ : Gruber is too smart to pull shit like this, which makes his pundit-
like editorializing even more disappointing.

Gruber recently addressed criticisms about his lack of "objectivity" on The
Talk Show [0]. He substituted the word "fair" for "objective," then demolished
a straw man where people want "$FAIR coverage" from him, where $FAIR = "don't
pick on the short kid."

Here's the problem: "objective" doesn't mean "fair." Like Dictionary.com, [1]
I use "objective" as in "report the whole story, and stop spinning everything
to accommodate your world view." This is what Fox News does, and I've started
noticing that Gruber does the same thing.

Consider that his "linked list" articles take two forms: positive links on
Apple performance [2], or negative links on Apple's competitors with snarky
commentary [3]. Take the Galaxy Nexus: if someone wants one, they just don't
get it! [4]

Or...they're like my brother, a graphic designer who wants to do more with his
phone. Or they're a coder like me, worried about a future where closed systems
dominate. Or they're like my friend, who hates the elitist Apple attitude--the
one where people who don't buy Apple products "just don't get it." Or they
want a cheap feature phone, and don't have the $99 for a iPhone 4 right now.

Gruber is too smart to make generalizations like this. Hell, he likes David
Foster Wallace -- whose books aren't exactly high-school reading -- and posted
this a few weeks ago:

 _That’s why Wallace’s work serves as a beacon, a yardstick, for my own._

As incisive as his writing could be, DFW almost always eschewed cynicism in
favor of humanism and emotional sincerity. In a way, Gruber's recent stuff
provides the _opposite_ : an unyielding pro-Apple view, a scoop of cynicism
and disdain for Apple's competitors, and a black-or-white view of the mobile
scene that doesn't reflect reality.

Seeing this from someone as smart as Gruber is really a disappointment.

[0] <http://5by5.tv/talkshow/71>

[1] <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective>

[2] <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/13/nielsen>

[3] [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/verizon-
google-w...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/05/verizon-google-
wallet)

[4] <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/14/siegler>

~~~
petrichor
tl;dr - gruber knows exactly what he is doing, which is generating page views.
the market for information is greatly surpassed by the market for confirmation

clearly he is a reasonably intelligent guy who puts a lot of thought into his
writing. whether or not he really believes everything he posts, i don't know
and don't care.

the thing is these type of posts serve a very specific purpose: to activate
the apple fan's and generate page clicks.

we live in a world where the way to drive traffic in the tech blogosphere is
to post rumors, and predictions about apple (and to some extent, other big
tech cos). readers then seek out stories that confirm their pre-existing views
--the market for information is greatly surpassed by the market for
confirmation (see: fox news). and this works both ways, i imagine that
gruber/seigler are getting lots of page views from people are angered by the
whole apple fanboy thing, and want to have the satisfying feeling of knowing
that gruber/seigler are just two more unthinking fanboys.

~~~
achompas
I had a bit about the irony of Gruber quoting PG's "Trolling" essay, but took
it out. It really seems like Gruber trolls for views and ad money at this
point.

~~~
imrehg
He doesn't get my ad money, I stopped clicking any link to daringfireball a
long time ago....

~~~
LeonidasXIV
I don't think you'll missing anything. I just go there when I like to read a
bit of the holier-than-thou attitude of Apple fanboys. Reminds me of the
earlier Ruby / Git attitude which has, fortunately stopped. I couldn't stand
these weenies.

------
realize
MG's point is completely valid. The world is divided into two groups: those
for whom the little details like UI responsiveness are supremely important,
and those who don't notice it or don't care so much.

I'd also note that gadget sites like The Verge are incentivised to make
Android _seem_ interesting and competitive, even when it doesn't live up,
because their business model is based on churning out large numbers of
announcements and reviews. If they acknowledge that the devices are second-
rate then why would their readers care to click their pages?

~~~
bradleyland
Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda".
There's a strong, implicit class implication there.

If you took price out of the equation and just looked at the two products, the
comparison may be apt, but Josh is staring the price matter in the face and
calling foul. I can't say I blame him. I drive a luxury brand car, but I
cringe a little bit when people ask me what I drive because I'm concious of
the fact that people associate brand, value, and quality.

A better analogy might have been artwork. Some people will look at the Mona
Lisa and see a painting of a plain woman. Others look at it and see one of the
greatest paintings ever created. But like Josh points out, the world is not
black & white. Some will see the quality of the Mona Lisa, but will not care.
They may like other styles better. They may prefer work from an entirely
generation.

Josh is opposed creating class warfare out of device functionality. In my
view, MG's assessment of iOS as "more polished" is true, and I happen to place
a high value on that polish, but I understand that I trade other aspects of
the device in order to obtain that polish. Others won't make that same choice.
Others won't see the polish at all. That doesn't make those people better or
worse than me. It only makes them different.

~~~
jonhendry
"Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs
Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there."

Except that you can get a cheap used Mercedes for less than a new Honda, if
you can't afford a new Benz and value the workmanship (or brand) enough to
take the risk. And Honda made the NSX. There are Acura models priced in the
same ballpark as lower-end new Mercedes.

Honda had a Formula 1 racing team until 2008. It was sold off, and was
eventually bought by Mercedes Benz.

So the 'class' question is muddled, to say the least. Unless you think the NSX
is the car of the proletariat and a 1990 Mercedes with 100,000 miles is the
vehicle of the 1%.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
I'm not sure if you're being humorous but if not then this over-analysis of
the analogy doesn't really serve any useful purpose.

For all intents and purposes Mercedes=quality+luxury while
Honda=cheapy+functional and this was the primary meaning behind the analogy
utilized in Siegler's article.

~~~
jonhendry
I'd say Honda = affordable and dependable, not especially luxurious or loaded
with features, but not necessarily cheap either. There are Honda models that
start near $30k, and other models that start around $20k but have
configurations over $30k.

I'd think Kia or Hyundai would would be seen as the "cheap" brand.

And the Honda company certainly doesn't shy away from serving the luxury
market with their Acura brand.

In any case, the comparison of Mercedes vs. Honda was about fit and finish and
creature comforts, not price. It works just as well when comparing a loaded,
well-kept $9000 used Mercedes to a brand-new $15,000 Civic.

------
davidw
I read the cited quote, "Unfortunately, the system still lacks much of the
fine polish that iOS users enjoy. The majority of Android users will probably
think such criticism is bullshit, but that has always been the case. I imagine
it’s probably hard for a Mercedes owner to describe to a Honda owner how
attention to detail makes their driving experience better when both machines
get them from point A to point B. As a Honda owner myself, I’m not sure I
would buy it — I’d have to experience it to understand it, I imagine. And most
Android lovers are not going to spend enough time with iOS to fully appreciate
the differences."

And realized it sounded best when read with the Comic Book Guy voice, and
anything that sounds appropriate with that voice _is_ a bit snooty.

~~~
angersock
I'm going back and re-reading some of the rest of the DF blog with that
voiceover... brilliant.

------
andrewfelix
_"You either see it or you don't."_ was surprisingly bad, even by Gruber's
standards. It's not an argument. It's dismissive and incredibly conceited.
What does he even mean when he says that? I honestly don't think he knew while
writing it, and I doubt he can rationalize it.

It's actually a great opportunity to expose Gruber's arrogance.

~~~
jaylevitt
Of course Gruber is dismissive; he's always dismissive. (Yet I read him every
day.) He thinks he's objective because he criticizes both Apple and Google's
missteps; he's wrong because he smartly and analytically criticizes Apple,
while he sticks his tongue out at Google.

John Gruber will be a great blogger when he grows up.

~~~
hundingi
I've been reading the guy since about 2004 I think and I feel he's become more
combative and biased over the past few years. Or maybe he just wasn't very
motivated to go after the opposition when it was Microsoft. From what I
understand of the guy I guess he might have felt that pointing out Ms's many
missteps a few years ago was like shooting fish in a barrel, why take them
seriously, hell the vibe I get from him nowadays regarding Microsoft is one of
encouragement.

Still, the guy is damn insightful, you can't take that away from him. If you
wish to understand Apple you have to read him, which is why I still do,
despite his flaws.

------
dr_
"For starters, it assumes a childish, simplistic, and pedantic worldview:
expensive things or those that are ascribed more value by a segment of the
population are inherently "better" than other things. Obviously everyone wants
and needs the more expensive thing if they have an opportunity to get it. The
Mercedes really is better than the Honda."

Hold your horses - isn't the Galaxy Nexus the same price as the 32GB iPhone
4S? How does the expensive argument come into play here?

~~~
andrewfelix
I mentioned this in a reply to another post, but I think Siegler's point was
that he believes there's a select portion of society that can appreciate the
difference between the Mercedes and Honda (price aside). That's why Topolsky
interprets it(correctly IMO) as a class thing. The riff raff according to
Seigler and Gruber _'don't get it'_ < insert snooty tone.

------
zmmmmm
I'm routinely offended by things MG Siegler says about Android but I actually
found his article refreshingly open about his biases (not that he ever really
hides them). In this piece he's at least very open that he's talking about
perception and the war over "tangible" issues is pretty much over (in that
both platforms are sufficiently good).

My main problem is that just as the intangibles matter on the iOS side they
also matter on the Android side, but the Android ones don't seem to get any
merit. The fact that I'm free to use my device how I want, write an app for a
friend, give it to them for their birthday, share it by email. The fact that
the Android ecosystem lets _me_ choose the kind of device I want, how much I
want to pay for it, how it should look and feel and behave. Those things are
in many ways intangible because many of them are just potential things that I
don't actually do but the ability to do them is important to me. So sure, "you
either see it or you don't" is a fine statement, but it goes both ways: you
either value your freedom or you don't.

~~~
realize
That response repeats the party line about Android being "open", but part of
the narrative that MG and Gruber keep pointing out is that it's just not true.
The carriers lock things down and fill your phone up with unwanted junk far
more than Apple does.

"Open" means open for the carriers to do what they want, not for you to do
what you want.

~~~
zmmmmm
> The carriers lock things down

I don't believe there are any carriers any more that stop the user installing
from non-market sources. Many offer ways to unlock the boot loader so you can
completely control the device. You can always buy a Nexus device. These are
all forms of openness (although I would tend to call it "freedom" since that
more accurately describes it).

> it's just not true

As I point out above, it's very true. What I think iOS advocates point out is
that it's not practical: no regular consumer uses these things in practice
(although the Amazon Appstore might be an example). What matters in practice
is how the device comes out of the box because 99% of people just use it like
that. I acknowledge this, which is why I say it's an intangible feature of
Android. You only value it and benefit from it indirectly. I guess my only
point is, if the Sieglers and Gruber's of the world want to claim intangible
things as assets for iOS then they should be acknowledged for Android too.

~~~
fpgeek
Even if 99% of consumers use Android devices just as they come out of the box,
the existence of escape hatches is still an important check against carriers,
manufacturers and even Google.

For instance, nothing like Apple's in-app purchase crackdown could have
happened on Android. The big players (Amazon, B&N, Netflix, Hulu, ...) would
have just taken their apps out of the Android Market, clearly communicated to
their customers where the apps were now and moved on.

Similarly, as I understand it, it was the Android hacking / ROM development
community that discovered Carrier IQ in the first place, specifically because
they are taking apart the software on their phones and trying to understand
every bit of it. Personally, I find the contrast with the iOS jailbreaking
community quite instructive. Once they knew there was something to look for,
they found the Carrier IQ traces in iOS quickly enough. Nevertheless, without
the initial pointer, they didn't notice anything..

------
podman
I think Topolsky's analysis of MG Siegler's and Gruber's comments are absurd.
Sure, I don't know exactly what they were thinking when they wrote what they
wrote, but it's hard to imagine that Siegler and Gruber would implicitly or
explicitly make it about class.

I saw a special the other day on CNBC called BMW: A Driving Obsession and it
really opened my eyes as to the incredible attention to detail that a car
maker like BMW has when building a car. Just check out how much effort they
spend just on getting the little sounds the car makes just right at 16:00 and
20:55
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OPSCh3Ys_B8)
If that's how much time they spend on just the sounds, it's not difficult to
imagine how much effort they put into everything else. Heck, at 29:03 one of
the BMW designers even says they use Apple products as inspiration.

Now, if you agree that iOS is that much more polished than Android, I think
this is a pretty accurate metaphor and any class distinction Topolsky inferred
from Siegler's Gruber's comments are of his own creation. I doubt Gruber and
Siegler would ever admit to it even if it were the case so I guess we'll never
know.

------
revscat
This is Hacker News. Can we please eschew blog posts like these? Yes, it gets
the blood boiling in a satisfying manner. But it is also shallow, plays on
predispositions, and always -- always -- leads to more heat than light.

~~~
EtienneJohnred
OMG, THIS IS HACKER NEWS!!!111

What I've actually grown to hate about Hacker News over the years is this
particular "holier-than-thou" attitude like yours. It just seems like there
are so many people on here that are offended by the slightest amount of
conflict or controversy that they'd be much better-off living in a plastic
bubble than in the real world.

~~~
libraryatnight
I'd argue we're fine with controversy and conflict where it's warranted, but
phone wars are easy to get into and are about as interesting and useful as
arguing about game consoles.

~~~
viraptor
It's a fine tradition it seems... Atari vs Commodore, Amiga vs PC, Sega vs
Gameboy, Mac vs PC, PS vs Saturn, Dreamcast vs PS2, and so on... These days
it's iOS vs Android.

In some bizarre way, if these are the "controversies" we're having, then we're
doing quite well in general ;)

------
droob
The fact that MG chose a Mercedes and not, say, a stretch Hummer, is important
-- a Mercedes is (mostly) expensive because it's made with care and precision,
not because it's an abstract status symbol.

~~~
Shivetya
I think its more to do with the fact that he is trying to convince himself he
paid as much as he did because it was for quality. As in, the same reason
people call them smart phones, because who in their right mind thinks paying
that much to own and use a phone is intelligent...

------
w1ntermute
On a related note, I was rather disappointed by the second episode of _On The
Verge_. Bringing an Apple sycophant like Gruber on the show doesn't seem to
have any practical value, as far as I can tell. From the production values,
it's clear that they put a lot of effort into putting together a professional,
cable-quality program. Kind of sad to see all that work go to waste.

~~~
realize
"Practical value"? How does any of this stuff have any "practical value"?
Gruber has one of the most popular tech-related sites on the internet, and a
huge readership that overlaps with The Verge's. Seems relevant to me.

------
cwilson
I'm sorry, but Joshua Topolsky is turning this into class warfare on his own.
I can understand how one might make the jump to class warfare when comparing a
Honda and Mercedes in a different context, but in this case the reviewer was
talking about the quality and attention to detail put into the car (which of
course means it costs more, they put more time and effort into creating it).

When I read MG's statement out loud, it made perfect sense to me. When I read
Topolsky's immediate jump to class warfare, my gut reaction was that HE was
the one who sounded absurd and should be embarrassed.

I do not disagree that Gruber and MG are most definitely flying Apple flags,
but I think this article is a complete overreaction.

------
loso
I like tech and I really don't care who it comes from. I love Windows 7 but
routinely use Ubuntu in a VM. I think the Mac Air and the IPad are some of the
most revolutionary products in my lifetime. C# is my favorite language but
always find myself using Python first. I like to read a lot of tech reviews
and I understand that each reviewer has their own set of biases. I used to
find myself getting upset with commentary from MG & Gruber. Even Scoble for
that matter. And yes honestly, their style of writing came off to me as almost
a bit classist some of the time.

Now, I just don't care. I realize that I was getting upset by their writing
because they are such good writers. Its the same way that the democrats get
mad at Rush Limbaugh. You may know that he said something wrong and on the
border of crackpot but he is just so damn good at doing it. If someone else
said it, you would write them off as a lunatic. His style is partly meant to
convince but it is also partly meant to incite as well.

So yes, MG and Gruber are bias and when it comes to tech reviews I just don't
trust them. Whether it is pro Apple or anti another product. And in the case
of Scoble, his silicon valley tunnel vision turns me off. But I will still
read their articles because they are good at what they do. And if I start to
get a "WTF?!" moment then I will just calm down and realize that it is part of
the entertainment package that comes along with reading them.

P.S. If you're a sports fan, Grubers sports tweets are way more maddening than
his Apple lust.

------
danko
People like to put their mouth where their money is more than they like to put
their money where their mouth is. Tech partisanship is largely because of this
-- if you dropped a serious chuck of both your time and money on a product,
and there's a competing product, you want to defend your critical thinking
skills by asserting that the product you bought is better than the other. The
more insecure about it you are, the harder you defend.

Also, if you're in the media, it always pays to stir the pot. Always.

------
robenkleene
tl;dr: Believes poor attention to detail is imagined, doesn't properly set
HTML list. That's the poor attention to detail we're talking about.

Which sounds snarky, but if you are going to be a blogger publishing on the
web and want other people to take the time to read your stuff, to not properly
use (or understand?) the basic building blocks of your craft is disrespectful
to your audience.

------
bascule
I could understand where this guy was coming from better if this article had a
less condescending tone. Instead this just sounds like he's whining that MG
and Gruber are Apple hipsters that think they're better than everyone who owns
a non-Apple device. He then proceeds to evoke "class warfare" without about as
much relevance to the actual subject matter as Fox News.

------
sunkencity
On one side, apple evil, on the other side google evil. No wonder people are
getting so worked up when they choose sides.

~~~
realize
Or, more reasonably:

One one side, apple not evil but a capitalist corporation, on the other side,
google not evil but a capitalist corporation.

I can't think of a good argument why either company is "evil".

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Some would argue that 'capitalist corporation'='evil'. Having the same rights
as an individual (and in some cases more) corporations often exhibit traits
that, if observed in an individual, would result in that individual being
diagnosed as a psychopath.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)>

~~~
realize
"Evil" isn't really a useful term, it can be taken too many different ways.
How exactly would you define "evil"? And how does that definition relate to
capitalist corporations?

~~~
sunkencity
<http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22evil%22>

~~~
realize
How does that answer my question? I know how to type something in Google, but
that doesn't narrow down the definition being discussed here.

~~~
jrockway
I've decided to start flagging posts that merely link to LMGTFY. Even on /b/
that would be considered stupid.

~~~
sunkencity
It's my last line of defense when someone brings out the quotes and asks me to
define good and evil. It doesn't take that much imagination to at least
understand the idea that some people consider some huge corporations evil.

~~~
jrockway
I hear people say "evil corproation" a lot, but I'm not quite sure what they
mean. Do they mean, "don't care about individual customers, because there is
no economic value"? Do they mean, "break into people's houses at night and
wreck up the place"? Do they mean, "release an open-source phone software
stack"?

Just because people parrot the same line again and again doesn't mean it makes
sense.

~~~
sunkencity
I take it to mean that the one expressing that sentiment doesn't have the same
interests as the corporation mentioned in a shared matter, like open/closed
platforms, like freedom (maybe wanna rip that DVD you own so you can view it
on the iPad because it's even not available for iPad), or maybe you don't want
to be tracked by facebook and googles supercookies (via like buttons and,
google adsense/analytics).

Another thing would be removing all crapware that comes with a new windows
computer, or having to buy a "clean" windows just to get rid of that. Another
big evil is Microsofts requirement that all netbooks can have max 2G of ram.
That's clearly not in anybody elses interest but Microsoft.

Interests are not aligned. Annoyment ensured.

Then there are _real_ evils of course, like using slave or child labour,
destroying the environment and funding wars by using natural resources like
Coltan.

[http://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/banned_by_a...](http://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/banned_by_apple_new_iphone_app_exposing_the_dark_side_of_electronics)

------
aresant
There's no "class warfare" here Josh.

The only people that read either of your words are just us nerds of a feather
fretting over which miracle of technology is more perfectly refined.

So give us all a break.

But I clicked dammit, and that means you got paid, and get positive
reinforcement to engineer more drama.

------
jroseattle
Joshua, dude -- relax.

It's MG and Gruber. Nobody (and I mean nobody) who values straight commentary
listens to these guys.

Of course they're Apple shills. It's what got them notoriety and made their
reputation. They're not going to turn on the hand that feeds them.

------
cmcewen
To sum it up:

[http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-
asymm...](http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymmetric-
insight/)

~~~
buff-a
Ha! All those people who don't understand this are ignorant fools!

------
rglover
I'm all for opinionated content and debating on topics, but this essentially
boils down to a nerdy slap fight over fucking _cell phones_. Class warfare,
eh?

------
realize
MG responds... <http://parislemon.com/post/14286785030/horseshit>

------
5teev
When Gruber says, "You either see it or you don't,"he means, "If this is
important to you, you will notice and value it," not, "If you don't see this,
you are an unsophisticated yokel who should stick to pay-phones." JT hears
Gruber with a tone of dismissiveness that just isn't there.

~~~
jrockway
Gruber has spent his whole life writing articles with the tone of your second
interpretation. Why did he suddenly change styles today?

~~~
5teev
Seriously, "his whole life"?

------
abbott
wow, who cares.

~~~
uptown
exactly

------
showdog
National Enquirer, meet Hacker News.

~~~
evmar
Truly. The saddest thing about these posts is that some segment of the HN
population thinks they are worth reading.

~~~
realize
And yet you not only clicked on the post, you read at least some of the
comments and contributed yourself. Hmm.

------
CubicleNinjas
Details do matter. On this we can all agree. So why is this quote so hard to
understand?

Oh, it was said by people you don't agree with, on a polarized topic, and
responded to with class. Shades of gray indeed.

