That reads like an autistic kid or maybe OCD adult with a 'special interest' in trains explaining why a train crashed: "Company A always bumped the letter of the model number when releasing a new engine. Company B designated upgrades to their brakes by doubling the current model number. You can hardly blame Company C for upgrading the engine without upgrading the brakes when in the past Company C has always kept the numeric form of the engine model number + brake model number mutually co-prime."
I just want to know where "just works" went. Why should a consumer have to worry about contracts between corporations when all they want to do is use their phone to catch a bus, just like they have been doing for years?
To be fair: it's never worked like that. If you spent the 90's on anything but windows (or the 70's on anything but IBM), you saw the same nonsense. The best you get are brief moments of purity, where the growth of a new platform or environment is so fast that it makes more sense for all the parties to collaborate instead of compete. So in the first 4 years of the "post-iPhone smartphone" world it was nice, just like it was in the early days of the internet.
It's a maturing market now, and not so nice. We have to wait for the next disruption now.
I get that the real world doesn't work like that, but I feel like that is the reality that I was sold by their marketing. It is incredibly disappointing that they cannot see it realized.
I think Apple came to the conclusion that the iPhone is entrenched and will sell tens of millions regardless of not having new design, features like NFC or great maps. The "just works" mantra is easy to get lost when the iPhone is now a cash cow(like how Windows stagnated after Windows 95 till before Windows XP). I guess the focus is now on iTV or whatever else that's being cooked up while milking the cash cows for what they're worth.
Reminds me of Avis' slogan: We try harder because we're number two.
He's extremely popular but also manipulates truths to tell fabrications and outright lies. I think anyone who behaves in such a manner is actively harming society by discouraging intelligent discourse. This type of behavior is seeping into many facets of life both big (politics) and small (mobile phones). He's basically FoxNews for Apple.
LOL, I agree. I subscribed to his RSS feed a while ago, and I flick through his headlines with amusement. He seems to get very offended if people diss Apple, and then happily reblogs similar nonsense aimed at Android or Windows 8 - classic partisan confirmation bias.
Occasionally he also posts something which is not "apple politics" which is interesting, so for now he stays on my list of subscriptions.
Did you read the entire article? I thought it made sense.
Google is adding features to it's own mobile OS maps app while withholding those features from it's competitor. Google offered to include the features in exchange for ads and customer data, two things Apple has always tried to minimize. Apple historically defaults to accepting the pain of adopting new technology too early as opposed to too late.
I was referring to the `they had to switch now rather than in 6 months due to a version number dance they are mystically locked into for no explained reason`.
Gruber is using a weird empiricism to defend everything Apple does. `They were locked into it because that is the pattern!` For instance, why couldn't they have released the new maps with the upcoming iPad mini release, buying a little more time?
Historically doing something one way doesn't mean you have to rush out a turd just to keep up a meaningless pattern. You also don't have to step over every crack in the sidewalk to avoid bad joo joo.
Gruber uses these little patterns in version numbers, release dates, etc. to make predictions about Apple releases and drive traffic to his blog. He has gotten so obsessed with them that he has flipped the entire utility of them and now uses them quasi-prescriptively in proclamations of what Apple has to do or had to do.
Patterns in numbers are just something he mentions on the side. I don't really read him for the predictions, but he's pretty good in that department. The headline is obnoxious, but the content is spot on.
