I got his point, I just think he's wrong.

He says Google shifting from trying to compete from Blackberry/Microsoft to competing with Apple was basically an act of war, so Apple is justified in fighting back in the ad market.

I think that's wrong for three reasons - first, Google didn't go after Apple, they're building things people want. Their devices resemble Apple's more than Blackberry's because Apple is also doing what people want, whereas Blackberry isn't.

Second, it wasn't an act of war/betrayal/attack/breach of the Apple/Google business relationship (which Gruber implies).

Third, Apple are kind of being pricks pulling the rug out from a company after Google acquires them. They can do that because it's their business, but it's not justified as some sort of retaliatory measure. It is justified as business if they want, it's kind of prick-ish, but it's their right to do.

So, I understood, I just thought some of his points were wrong. I agree with him about not having comments on his site though - except in rare instances with a carefully built commenting community, comments become just noise and take away from a site. I like Gruber and have learned some really good stuff from him. I'm just not with him on this one.

But I've never heard anyone say "I love my Android", people talk about how clever it is, but the brand doesn't seem to resonate nearly as much, and it's not as clear what it says as a lifestyle accessory.

Second, in my experience, people react to it with a "So you're a DIY-er, huh?" That is, people are aware, however vaguely, of the opensource/hacker vibe that the brand carries. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "what it says as a lifestyle accesory," but I think it is.

(Btw, you had your +1 at "Jay-Z mentions...")

Up here in Mass, I tend to see Android devices being carried by unpleasant, street hoodlum types, which I guess to be a consequence of and reinforce the "iPhone knockoff" image associated with them.

This is exactly how it was with the Danger handsets 5-7 years ago, simply because they were great for power-texters, had a camera and were way, way cheaper than BlackBerries. And yes, as a result they were great for conducting street business -- don't be all shocked if that's true of Loopt as well.

I love my Nexus One. I love the Android platform. I wouldn't say "I love my Android", because it doesn't make any more sense than saying "I love my Windows" (whereas a Mac user would easily say "I love my Mac", as the hardware and software are a deal package).

The "Droid" brand is starting to change that, though. People are referring to all manner of Android phones as "Droids". It's a name that is being used to refer to both the platform and the hardware. I could easily see it gaining the same kind of brand mindshare that the iPhone and Blackberry brands have.

That's because you don't buy an "Android". I've heard tons of people say "I love my Droid" or "I love my Nexus One".

The buzz I meant was media buzz. Among users, I think Blackberry has plenty. Their users are fanatical. (Stephen Fry had an article on this a bit back, as I recall.)

(Don't run for where the ball is, run for where the ball is going to be. Or however that saying goes.)

Strikes me as a generic sports/life tip: anticipate and be there first.

Edit: Gauius's reply suggests I'm probably dead wrong about the movie. Never knew where the quote came from. Thanks.

I've been doing some BB development lately using a Storm II. Compared to the iPhone 3GS, it's a flying turd. I wonder if these BlackBerry lovers just haven't tried an iPhone or Android device.

Maybe I would think differently if I was testing on a keyboard device like a Bold, but I can't imagine it would change my opinion that much.

There's a lot of people out there who love physical keyboards and who must type with their thumbs!

Android was Google seeing a rich opportunity to take uncertain ground from Apple and now it's a dance to find a stable boundary line. One smart, if risky, way to get another couple moves to extend that line is to attack them somewhere else. Even Google has limited attention. Best, for Apple, is that this attack strengthens their smartphone position. It sounds really clever to me.

EDIT: I don't normally respond to downvotes, but I find it odd that at least three people have disagreed without anyone explaining how this very factual comment is wrong. If there's something factually or logically wrong in my comment, we would all be better off if you'd explain the truth rather than (or as well as) downvote.

Let's compare to Apple, who doesn't have a majority share in any competitive market besides portable music players and digital music distribution. The actual share of revenues from these businesses is a small and shrinking fraction of Apple's income. The portable music player business is collapsing in the face of evolving consumer smart phones and mobile internet devices like the iPod Touch, and the digital music distribution is an insignificant part of Apple's revenue. All the areas in which Apple is making all their profits are either nascent markets like consumer tablets and mobile internet devices, or Apple is a relatively small player. To imply that Apple can use their position in these markets it doesn't dominate to unfairly move into other established markets needs a bit more supportive evidence than that.

Apple also has disproportionate influence even in markets where it is not a monopoly.

As for Apple's skill in managing media exposure and marketing, that's certainly not an area in which they can hope to have any kind of monopoly.

Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.

There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it?

What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here?

I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.

This has always puzzled me. Why would they NOT do it? Apple does not control smartphone market - they control iPhone market, a subset of smartphone market. They have made the product, the supporting infrastructure for it, how are they obliged to allow competition in there?

For example, some time ago I bought a Canon printer. There was a booklet packed with it, telling me what inks can be used with it - all were of Canon brand. Now, I know there are some third parties selling inks for Canon printers, and without a doubt they would like to be featured in those booklets, preferably with the notice that their ink is of comparable quality while costing far less. But Canon is not including them - is that a dick move too?

Yes, you can happily use X ink in your Canon printer. And you can run X adds in your iPhone apps. But those inks would not be sold in Canon stores. And the same way, Apple can choose not to distribute those apps in their Appstore.

Last time I checked, neither iPhone platform, nor Appstore were public domain :)

Have you not noticed the widespread uproar about the price gouging on ink supplies? Your example of what's an appropriate business move is a textbook case illustrating the opposite.

The fact that you're more pro-Apple than Gruber on this should be a sign that you're out in the left-field. You'll need better arguments than inkjet manufactures do it too and the iPhone isn't public domain if you want to be convincing. Unless your argument is that not only can corporations do whatever they want but we have to like it too.

And if you are not doing research before purchase, there are only two options: either the product/sum you are going to spend is not that important to you, or you are about to get a valuable lesson.

Any way, I'm not trying to campaign for Apple, Google or Gruber here - I am trying to point out that this is how the market works. If you would rather have it differently, join/start a political party.

Gruber is drawing an arbitrary distinction here that never really existed. RIM and Microsoft have been in the process of adapting in the very same way: Look at the BlackBerry Storm or Windows Phone 7. Are RIM and MS suddenly changing markets? No, they're just evolving to meet consumer demand, same as Google did.

And I don't think Gruber is making a coherent point here. Why even argue about who started it? That just comes across as whining and a ultimately a semantic argument. Of course companies will compete - let's talk about the implementations, what is best for consumers, and which is best for developers.