What I like about Gruber, even when I disagree with him, is that I think he understands, better than any other outside commentator, how Apple's management team thinks and works. He's not a leading expert on business, or on technology, but I'd call him a leading expert on Steve Jobs' mind.
This understanding is part of why Gruber often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when he disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing from the point of view of Apple Inc., the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?"
(This also explains why I hate Gruber's writing about competiting companies like Microsoft and Google. I don't think he understands how those companies think and work at all, so his commentary on them totally lacks that insight and usefulness.)
I think where this gets annoying is when it becomes impossible to discern when Gruber is just "explaining what Apple is thinking" and when he is putting forth his own opinion. Its tiresome to criticize his Apple apologism and constantly run into the counter-argument that "he isn't really saying that its OK for Apple to engage in X practice, he's just explaining it", because it is often difficult (if not impossible) to discern if that's the case.
I do think Gruber intentionally blurs that line to insulate himself from criticism. And I think that's pretty dishonest and petty-- much like his irritatingly self-satisfied one-off comments aimed at his opponents. (Technology related and otherwise).
> This understanding is part of why he often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when Gruber disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing based on Apple's point of view as a corporation, the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?"
Yet he rarely qualifies that with, "While I don't agree" or something similar. He does sometimes, which leads me to believe that he usually is talking about what he believes.
But that's just the thing... People often act like Gruber is writing about how things should be, but more often he's just writing about how things are (or how he thinks they will be), and why.
--
As a side note... I got my first Mac in 1989. I've been reading the Mac press for over 20 years, and Daring Fireball for about 7 or 8 years. There was a time in the "dark ages" of the 90s when even the most die-hard Apple fans had a "love the product; hate the company" mentality, because it seemed like Apple's management was doing everything they could to screw things up.
Daring Fireball is entirely a product of the Steve Jobs II era, with much more competent management, so it hasn't had quite as much reason to gripe. But Gruber has had some long-standing disagreements with Apple. He bitched for years about how much worse the Finder was in OS X. (I think the only reason he stopped is that he gave up hope that it'll ever be fixed.)
This understanding is part of why Gruber often seems like an Apple apologist. Even when he disagrees with Apple' decisions, he can generally give a good explanation of why the decision was made and why Steve and Tim and company probably think it is the right one. And of course, when he is writing from the point of view of Apple Inc., the primary question is always "What is best for Apple?"
(This also explains why I hate Gruber's writing about competiting companies like Microsoft and Google. I don't think he understands how those companies think and work at all, so his commentary on them totally lacks that insight and usefulness.)