Lol. Bill O'Reilly often points out some minor gripe he has with a conservative and uses that to tout how unbiased and moderate his views are. And his viewers lap it up. What you said about Gruber is the same thing.
Which is not to say that I do (or anyone should) simply dismiss his arguments because of that. He is a fanboy, in fact, he's the closest thing to a leader they have. If he told his readers to march on Washington, there'd be a million Priuses (or is it Prii?) with Apple bumper stickers clogging the expressways in every state. I'm truly impressed that he's made such a career out of it, but if you don't think that the fact that most of his income is derived from blogging about how great Apple is taints his views, you're simply and obviously wrong.
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you were Microsoft, and you made a series of ads, planning the first two and possibly a third to be with Jerry Seinfeld (pending reception of the first two) and the rest with lesser celebrities or none at all. Would you not still hype them up for a couple months beforehand? I mean, you just hired possibly the biggest celebrity in TV history to do your TV ads. You wouldn't be issuing press releases, even if it were just for the first two weeks of a year-long campaign? I would.
So then, suppose they get a highly mixed reception and you continue on with your original plan of switching to the other ones. People start asking you why. What do you tell them?
They answered through their PR department because that's who questions to Microsoft (or any large corporation) go to. The PR department. That's the point of a PR department, to be the liaison between the company and the press.
CPB group's job is not to talk to reporters on Microsoft's behalf, and it would be unusual if they were the ones issuing press releases and statements on Microsoft's behalf.
You used "fanboy" like a negative term when you referred to Gruber. The name has negative connotations. Here you dismiss him again by calling him a "fanboy leader" and generalizing against Apple users and Gruber readers. People read his stuff not because he constantly supports Mac, but because he's a good writer, he finds good links, and he tends to be pretty honest about how he feels. I read him before I was a Mac user, and it was the things that he pointed out that made me certain that I wanted a Mac. I don't think that's fanboyish of him, though: he honestly pointed out interesting stuff, and he never acts with a bias towards Apple, beyond the bias of them working well for him. If Apple does a bad job, he points it out.
I'm not digging your style, I must say. Comparing my point to Bill O'Reilly's style is pretty distorted. My point - that if a lot of smart people are also big Apple people, that Apple may actually be making the best products - is hardly irrational. I don't know why you've got a problem against Apple, or why you like tinting every lens in favor of Microsoft, but it's not pleasant and most of your posts have things in them that seem sneering towards things I genuinely like. Apparently your big web site is also a blog that got famous for being offensive, so that's no big surprise, but at the same time you'll forgive me from finding it a bit immature of you.
You think Microsoft only had three ads planned? You think they dropped only a single ad? Citation? And if they DID overadvertise Seinfeld for only a few ads, I'd say that was a bad move on Microsoft's part.
I'm not dismissing him. But he makes his living by writing a blog that Apple fans read. No offense, but if you believe he is unbiased despite that, you're naive.
I don't have any particular love for Microsoft or loathing for Apple. I really don't care. I don't like the fanboy mindset that's pervaded the tech media, where Apple can do no wrong and Microsoft no right. I see Apple fans routinely criticize Microsoft for the DRM in Vista (which affects the 8 people who have a Vista PC with BluRay hooked up to an HDTV but not through an HDMI connection that supports HDCP) but not Apple (who has done more to promote and benefit from DRM than anyone by a factor of 1,000) and I call bullshit on it. If that's offensive or immature, then I'm OK with that.
My blog is neither famous nor big. I don't make any money at all from promoting Microsoft. Gruber, on the other hand, makes money from being an Apple fanatic. And of course, that doesn't mean that he can't form a coherent argument, but it does mean that you need to take whatever he says about Microsoft with a grain of salt.
I do think Microsoft dropped at most 1 Seinfeld ad. My citation would be Microsoft's and Crispin Porter + Bogusky's statements to the press. Not to mention the fact that he took Microsoft's response to the press coming through their PR agency (whose main job it is to respond to press on their behalf) to be any sort of proof of anything.
Where's your citations, other than baseless illogical heresay on fanboy blogs?
I think that there's a difference between a bias and outright fanboyism. I've met Apple fanboys: they're not fun. They take the thing that I love about Apple users (the generally rational mindset) and make it look dumb. Gruber's not one of those people. Does he like Mac? Of course. But I think he likes it because they genuinely please him, not because he's getting paid to like them.
You're allowed to call bullshit on Apple fans who act like hypocrites. Apple fans who attack DRM without calling attention to iTunes are being stupid. At the same time, ignoring the fact that Apple's got more DRM-free music than any other store, last I checked, is ignoring the fact that Apple is TRYING to allow for open systems insofar as it doesn't ruin a business deal. But DRM isn't the issue here, and I don't see why that's being brought up.
Your initial stance against Gruber's reaction was a sneering one, though. I mean, those Seinfeld ads really didn't push much for Vista. They were well-made shots, but you've been saying repeatedly that they're possibly going to revolutionize advertising and make history. I think that's illogical just as you seem to think disliking those ads were illogical.
When I read blogs, I take their arguments at face value. If I'm reading an argument from Apple itself, if that argument makes sense then I'll agree with it until other proof comes up. Similarly, if somebody who's usually big on Apple turns around and starts praising Linux or Windows, I don't think they're more credible because it's such a big change. Unless their reasoning is good, I'll still call BS.
I didn't see the part in their statement where they said they had only dropped a single ad. I don't recall seeing that anywhere. If you've got a link to that, or even the site you found it on, then tell me and I'll give it a look. But I still hold that their having only two ads seems pretty lackluster and looks like they're panicking, even though I acknowledge the fact that there might be more reasoning behind them. I think that the terrible phase two that we're seeing continues that trend.
What would you like me to cite? Anything you think I said that isn't rationally thought-out I'll try to clarify. I will point out, though, that your responding to my accusations by using yet more weasel words really doesn't make you seem particularly more believable.
There you go. Got anything to the contrary that isn't baseless hearsay like "Microsoft's questions from the press were replied to by their public relations agency, ergo they are panicking"?
Surely you must admit now that Gruber's logic there was deeply flawed.
Gotcha. I hadn't seen either of those two stories. Thanks for the links!
And yeah. Flawed logic following those two stories. I still think Microsoft's campaign is questionable at best, but at least it looks like they're still proceeding as per plan.
Which is not to say that I do (or anyone should) simply dismiss his arguments because of that. He is a fanboy, in fact, he's the closest thing to a leader they have. If he told his readers to march on Washington, there'd be a million Priuses (or is it Prii?) with Apple bumper stickers clogging the expressways in every state. I'm truly impressed that he's made such a career out of it, but if you don't think that the fact that most of his income is derived from blogging about how great Apple is taints his views, you're simply and obviously wrong.
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you were Microsoft, and you made a series of ads, planning the first two and possibly a third to be with Jerry Seinfeld (pending reception of the first two) and the rest with lesser celebrities or none at all. Would you not still hype them up for a couple months beforehand? I mean, you just hired possibly the biggest celebrity in TV history to do your TV ads. You wouldn't be issuing press releases, even if it were just for the first two weeks of a year-long campaign? I would.
So then, suppose they get a highly mixed reception and you continue on with your original plan of switching to the other ones. People start asking you why. What do you tell them?
They answered through their PR department because that's who questions to Microsoft (or any large corporation) go to. The PR department. That's the point of a PR department, to be the liaison between the company and the press.
CPB group's job is not to talk to reporters on Microsoft's behalf, and it would be unusual if they were the ones issuing press releases and statements on Microsoft's behalf.