I was reading this, thinking, "wow, this guy sure seems to love Apple."
Then I read this: "As a pundit, I'm supposed to explain how the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. But I can't. The iPad really is The Big One: Apple's reconception of personal computing." To which I thought, "translation: 'my fanboyism gets in the way of rational thought.'"
THEN, I hit the bottom of the article, and realized what I was reading. John Gruber of Daring Fireball, Apple's unofficial mouthpiece, writing another fluff piece for Apple.
Pretty defensive response. It's hard to see how you could interpret the evolution of Apple's products since Jobs and OS X and the iPod and the iPhone and now the iPad have taken root as anything but extraordinary. You kind of sound like a hater.
Nah, I think the devices are great. Apple's got a solid OS platform on three different types of devices.
I see how it changes personal computing, in that it turns users into pure consumers of content. I mean, that's it. You can use a few apps to do this or that, but the iPad is primarily about consumption. I don't know that this is a "revolution," but it is certainly a step.
It doesn't change personal computing for me, but I don't passively consume content all that often (being a designer and developer).
So, maybe John Gruber pinned me right on thinking it's a glorified iPod Touch, and I'm not a hater; I just don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I've never found a device that made me breathlessly extol its virtues?
I see how it changes personal computing, in that it turns users into pure consumers of content. I mean, that's it. You can use a few apps to do this or that, but the iPad is primarily about consumption.
Depending on how you count it, it's the 2nd computing platform where "pure consumption" is slick and worry free. The Web may have been the first. (Though popups were no picnic at first.) There is no reason that content creation isn't possible -- Apple's just not doing that right now.
Check out music related apps. There's a lot of possible use of the iPad for content creation there.
I bet that the mobile device landscape will have a lot of parallels to the early web.
Another fluff comment about "apple fanboys". If you want to refute fluff, use substance.
I thought it was less adoration than it was exploration of process -- and context for where the iPad is now.
The conclusion is not really valid though, given the rest of the article, because it is really a big iPod Touch. It's got all of the iterations of the iPhone OS (including app store and 3g) baked in from the start. It's hard to argue they started with some minimal core when it's got a 3 year old OS.
This time Apple "rolled" (what a hipster dufus term btw) much differently.
John Gruber is an interesting writer. He seems to have access to sources and facts that most people don't. He actually is a reasonably decent writer. Yet his conclusions come out of left field, and always in favor of Apple.
The sad thing is I think Gruber would be a good writer for all things not Apple. But his ridiculously strong Apple bias makes it hard to stomach. After reading Gruber, Paul Thurrott seems like a bonafide Microsoft hater.
> He seems to have access to sources and facts that most people don't. He actually is a reasonably decent writer. Yet his conclusions come out of left field, and always in favor of Apple.
This supports the theory that "Jon Gruber" is a pen name for Steve Jobs. Have the two ever been seen in the same room together?
I think the point he's making is that it's silly to make judgements on the long-term viability of the iPad platform based on problems with the first generation device. The iPad doesn't have to sell in huge numbers in the first couple of years. Eventually the platform will develop and mature, and perhaps in five years time or so, it might be powerful enough to replace a traditional computer for most people.
Eventually the platform will develop and mature, and perhaps in five years time or so, it might be powerful enough to replace a traditional computer for most people.
The frustrating thing is that it is powerful enough to be a computer for most people, but for non-technical reasons, Apple insists on keeping it Not A Computer.
probably because Apple realizes that the computer is still too hard for the average joe to use. Macs might be easy, but my mom still has trouble getting the thing to find the printer -- and she's a chemistry professor at a top 20 university.
The thing I got from it, is that he seems to emphasizing that Apple works the same way to almost every other company.
Every company releases a product, and some time later, releases an upgrade with new features. I can't think of a single major product that doesn't, from mobiles, cameras, laptops, walkmans, minidisc, cd walkmans, ghetto blasters, cars, stereos. (this is my mind wandering)
The important point, that Apple adds, is what it doesn't put in. It simplifies the device, to the point that it is a pleasure to use, and very easy to use.
Yeah, we get it, Apple is god, Apple is the greatest, Apple can't fail, Apple is soooo great and fantastic. Apple is simply the best ever, there is nothing like it. Everything Apple does is absolutely perfect and magnificient. They'll never fail because they rule so much.
Oh, come on.. this site is becoming an Apple news site more and more.. does it have to be another apple praising blog post?
I really wish to see more non-apple news on the site. It's ok to have a (read: one) news link when apple releases new hardware. Last weeks have been links from everyones oppinion on Steve's thoughts or Apples actions, almost philosophical posts about where/when/why/if apple is great, yada yada yada...
Unless I totally misunderstand how this site works, then the story is on the first page because a bunch of people voted for it. That's the idea, to expose stories people might be interested in. One thing you _can't_ say here is that no one is interested in the topic.
If you don't want to read "another damn Apple story" then _don't click on the link_...
The key point is that the site is named "Hacker News" and not "Apple news". Of course i understand how the site works, but if you can't see the total disproportion of apple news vs. the rest of it world, then i don't know.
In general, if Steve Jobs farts, there will be more then one link on the "New" page from which 1-2 are getting to the frontpage.
The point is, that when Sony releases a new notebook or MP3 player of mobile phone, no story will be here. If it's from Apple, several stories will be here + Stories about the stories and blog posts with one persons feelings about the story.
I already figured that the most people on Hacker News use Macs (from the photo thread of peoples workplaces many had Macs).
When i compare the numbers of how much Apple is mentioned versus the rest... look for yourself (taken from google search results):
Apple: 8070
Steve Jobs: 1030
iPhone: 5880
iPad: 2730
Microsoft: 4280
Steve Ballmer: 150
Bill Gates: 347
Microsoft Courier: 181
Nexus One: 326
Motorola Droid: 271
Vaio: 313
Xperia: 5
Now look at the market: Most Computers are PCs with Windows, most phones are not iPhones. You don't see the disproportion, do you?
Also, if you take this story. This is not news, this is just one guy praising Apple, why is this posted here!? Is this some blog aggregator? This is just not news.
As someone who has worked in and out of the news business for over 30 years I can tell you that news is what people are interested in. Hacker News is news that hackers are interested in. If it's getting posted by hackers and getting upvoted by hackers then ...
If you are seeing a lot of Apple posts then maybe, just maybe, it's because there are events and commentary about Apple that the readership of this site are interested in. If Sony (or whatever) isn't getting enough upvotes then maybe, just maybe, no one really cares about that story.
For what it's worth, there are plenty of stories on HN that I'm not especially interested in. Rather than adding irrelevant discussion to a topic I'm not interested in, I simply don't read those articles. I move on and find stories that I _am_ interested in. If there's not enough news to catch my interest, or more possibly to the point, too much news that disagree's with my outlook, then I decide this site isn't for me and go looking for greener pastures...
In fairness, the day the iPad came out, 16 out of the 30 were Apple related. Most of the articles were rubbish, I really can't understand why people would upvote tbem. As somebody who at best doesn't care about Apple, and at worst despises what they are doing to computing (from a freedom point of view, that they're doing it with shiny things isn't hugely relevant to me), Apple news is all noise to me.
When so much of the stuff here is noise, it becomes pretty hard to just not click on an article I'm not interested in. There are no articles that I am interested in, but I still have assignments that I'd rather be procrastinating, you know?
I would agree with the GP. There is a disproportionate amount of Apple news here. I mean I know that's because people here find it interesting... I guess I'm feeling more and more disillusioned with this place in general. But when Apple actually do something, more stories are about Apple than not (it's not that big a deal when Apple release a product, is it? Lots of companies release products every day). And when Apple aren't releasing a product, there is still perpetually two to five articles on the front page that are Apple related when there is no Apple related news at all. Bah. I don't like it anyway. I understand where the GP is coming from.
Then I read this: "As a pundit, I'm supposed to explain how the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. But I can't. The iPad really is The Big One: Apple's reconception of personal computing." To which I thought, "translation: 'my fanboyism gets in the way of rational thought.'"
THEN, I hit the bottom of the article, and realized what I was reading. John Gruber of Daring Fireball, Apple's unofficial mouthpiece, writing another fluff piece for Apple.
This is how Apple fanboys roll.