I agree 100%. I think the reality is probably closer to this.
In the past, Hank probably agreed with John more than he disagreed, so it was easy for him to resolve any internal conflict; there was little of it. This was during a time when Apple primarily made desktop/laptop computers with a standard desktop operating system -- as opposed to operating systems like iPhone OS -- that was sufficiently Unix-like to please most geeks with a bend toward the Unix mindset.
The conflict comes in the fact that the Unix mindset allied with the hacker mindset. Some would argue they're one and the same. Apple's new direction (iPhone OS) cuts the hacker off from the Unix-y underpinnings of the device. To take it a step further, you can't easily run native software you developed yourself on a variety of devices. So there's a cognitive dissonance developing within many Mac users. Their Mac-self wants to continue to enjoy the use of tools from the one company who seems to share the same values as them (well-built products, Unix-y ideas), but their geek-self is struggling with the loss of access to the parts that satisfy the hacker inside.
I can identify with Hank, because despite finding no logical flaw with Gruber's arguments, I disagree with him. There is an indisputable subjective component to selecting tools. Gruber's inner-hacker is also offended by Apple's stance of the walled garden, but he recognizes that this offense is separate and unrelated to whether or not the product is a "good product", and he realizes that most of the world aren't hackers. This leads him to generally positive-leaning comments. At least in the context of potential market success. To put it simply, most people don't care that they can't get to a shell prompt on their iPad. They're perfectly happy browsing their iTunes library, watching YouTube, and reading web pages.
I wish I had a good wrap-up/ending, but I just kind of hammered that out on the fly. Maybe I'll use it as the basis for a blog post.
I agree wholeheartedly with the inner conflict aspect, but I wonder about Gruber's inner hacker as it applies to the App Store.
From his projects page, it seems that Gruber works on small command-line tools and extensions to other people's software. I'm not trying to impugn his coding credentials; his writing doesn't hinge on how far he's made it past HELLO WORLD. But none of the software he writes would be the sort of thing that would make it on to the App Store even if Apple fired their reviewers and opened the floodgates.
He takes the "Apple does X because it's in their best interests to do X" stance because his livelihood doesn't hinge on whether the App Store is open, closed, or purple.
I suspect we'd have a very different Daring Fireball if he finished his dream mail app "Letters" and tried to release it on the App Store. Would it be rejected because it "duplicates existing functionality?" Or because someone can use it to e-mail the Kama Sutra? Or some other arbitrary rule Apple has yet to invent? Or would he not even bother, for fear of wasting time developing software that he couldn't sell?
Despite John being one of the two people behind Markdown (a pretty significant programming contribution), I see what you mean about him being in a "I don't have a horse in this race" position. However, I think that allows him to objectify a little bit more than others... I can almost feel the rumble of the laughter in the audience. Let me provide some examples.
John doesn't like the way the App Store functions in its current state, but he understands why Apple operates it the way they do. As evidence that he doesn't like it, I'll offer some excerpts:
Jason Snell: "All Apple needs to do is add a new feature, buried several menu items down in the Settings app, that mirrors the one found on Android devices: an option that lets you install Apps from 'unknown sources.'"
John Gruber response: "Personally, I’d welcome such a move, but I don’t think it would have the effect Snell envisions."
A lot of what John Gruber says could be interpreted as back-handed agreement, were you not to trust him. But the body of his writing suggest that he's genuine.
John Nack: "The effect on product development and innovation can be chilling. Yes, it’s easy to point to 200,000 apps on the App Store; it’s harder to note all those that aren’t there — serious apps that will be created only if developers know they’ll get a truly fair shot to innovate and compete."
John Gruber: "I agree with much of this piece by John Nack today, regarding what everyone — developers, users, and even Apple itself — is missing out on because of Apple’s tight control and management of the App Store"
Fraser Speirs: "Apple’s current practice of rejecting certain applications at the final hurdle — submission to the App Store — is disastrous for investor confidence."
John Gruber: "Exactly right. If you only find out at the end of the development process that your app has been rejected — not for a technical problem that you can address but because Apple deems the entire concept to be out of bounds — then who is going to put serious time and talent into an iPhone app?"
John Gruber conclusion: "Either way, something is seriously wrong."
John Gruber: "I don’t know that Apple is right. As I said above, de Icaza’s perspective — that these decisions and risks should be up to individual developers to make — is utterly sensible. Siracusa is exactly right that this is a wager from Apple. Apple is betting its entire mobile future that their developer platform is better than everyone else’s."
It's especially evident that he's conflicted here. He doesn't necessarily agree, but he understands Apple's position.
-------------
There are a myriad of other places where he's been critical, yet understanding of the forces driving Apple. What's concerning is that recently, John has been reconciling this conflict -- seemingly as much for himself as for his audience -- by pushing the Web Apps as an alternative approach. I'd love to provide a link to support that, but it's more of a tone than a specific rant.
Based on the nine occurrences of "Web App" on Daring Fireball right now, as well as the injection of some links supporting criticism of the lack of a robust Web App IDE, I'd suspect that a thoroughly vetted rant is in the works.
Wonderful list of quotes. I read DF a lot, often gritting my teeth, and this is an accurate summary of his points regarding the App Store.
I agree on John's recent insistence that web apps are the solution to App Store woes. But that feels like a cop-out. Apple hasn't fixed the three problems Gruber identified in October 2008 from his article on "The Fear", which are:
(1) App Ideas Are Rejected Only After the Apps Are Actually Built; (2) There Exist Secret Unpublished Rules Regarding What Is Allowed; and (3) When Apps Are Rejected for Violating the Unpublished Rules, Apple Refuses to State Just What These Rules Are
They've gotten a little better on point 3. When My Frame was rejected, the developer did get a phone call and an e-mail from Steve jobs saying that they now refuse an entire category of apps. It's not much better, as Apple didn't give any justification for why they sent this rejection. Are they planning their own desktop environment? Do they think the app competes with the built-in photo frame functionality of the iPad? Who knows?
It depresses me that Gruber doesn't see the "build your software as a web app" angle as a cop-out. Instead of fixing these reasonable problems with the App Store that it would be in Apple's best interests to fix, Apple ignores them and highlights an entirely other method of delivering content to users.
I imagine a restaurant with chicken and fish on the menu. The chicken will randomly come out poisoned, but the fish always comes out fine. When someone complains about being sickened by the chicken, the owner says, "just order the fish."
Agree with the gist of this, but it's not just the geeks that are getting fed up with Apple. Apple's core "black t-shirt wearing design hipsters" user base are very annoyed with the Adobe/Flash situation which is causing them even more cognitive dissonance.
Can you provide a wee scintilla of evidence that the constituency upset about Apple's position on Flash overlaps meaningfully with Apple's "core user base", either for the Mac or the iPhone? I would very much like to see it, and I don't.
Apple have several core user bases, "creatives" have always been one of them - i'm not implying it's the main one in this age of plenty they're enjoying at the moment but it's seriously influential. The old cliche of hipster Mac users came about for a reason. Adobe makes many of the products these people rely on to make a living, so seeing Mum & Dad fighting is always going to be hard.
My main point is that Apple are pissing off large chunks of previously loyal customers and betting the farm on the mass market - definitely a good move if they remain king of the hill but also an opportunity for shrewd businesses to service those disillusioned communities. Ditto Gruber's blog.
In the past, Hank probably agreed with John more than he disagreed, so it was easy for him to resolve any internal conflict; there was little of it. This was during a time when Apple primarily made desktop/laptop computers with a standard desktop operating system -- as opposed to operating systems like iPhone OS -- that was sufficiently Unix-like to please most geeks with a bend toward the Unix mindset.
The conflict comes in the fact that the Unix mindset allied with the hacker mindset. Some would argue they're one and the same. Apple's new direction (iPhone OS) cuts the hacker off from the Unix-y underpinnings of the device. To take it a step further, you can't easily run native software you developed yourself on a variety of devices. So there's a cognitive dissonance developing within many Mac users. Their Mac-self wants to continue to enjoy the use of tools from the one company who seems to share the same values as them (well-built products, Unix-y ideas), but their geek-self is struggling with the loss of access to the parts that satisfy the hacker inside.
I can identify with Hank, because despite finding no logical flaw with Gruber's arguments, I disagree with him. There is an indisputable subjective component to selecting tools. Gruber's inner-hacker is also offended by Apple's stance of the walled garden, but he recognizes that this offense is separate and unrelated to whether or not the product is a "good product", and he realizes that most of the world aren't hackers. This leads him to generally positive-leaning comments. At least in the context of potential market success. To put it simply, most people don't care that they can't get to a shell prompt on their iPad. They're perfectly happy browsing their iTunes library, watching YouTube, and reading web pages.
I wish I had a good wrap-up/ending, but I just kind of hammered that out on the fly. Maybe I'll use it as the basis for a blog post.