[tjogin]

That's simply not true either. John Gruber and other Apple pundits often disagree vehemently with Apple's strategy and their offers.

Remember when Steve Jobs presented the first third-party developer solution for iPhone: web apps?

"If all you have to offer is a shit sandwich, just say it. Don’t tell us how lucky we are and that it’s going to taste delicious." - John Gruber

http://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote

[jerome_bent]

You're confusing a strategy (i.e. provide a way for developers to make apps within Apple's rules) to a tactic (i.e. only make web apps, not native apps). It's worth noting that Gruber would later defend Apple's decision to initially offer only web app development because, according to Gruber, obviously the tools for native apps were just not ready and the AppStore was still in development.

By Gruber's own admission, he wants Apple to succeed. Everything else is secondary.

[tjogin]

You're splitting hairs. Or rather, drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. And how could anyone in their right mind not defend Apple's choice to at the time not offer tools that didn't exist then? That doesn't make you biased, it makes you reasonable.

He has also admitted that he wants Google and Android to succeed. That doesn't mean he agrees with all their strategies, no matter how selectively you want to define "strategy".

[jerome_bent]

If you agree with Apple's strategy (i.e. create apps only within Apple's rules) then it of course makes sense to later defend Apple for only allowing web apps while the AppStore and Apple's development tools were not ready. But if one doesn't stick only to Apple's strategy, then other options present themselves like allowing developers to release their own native apps until Apple got its act together. Developers were ingenious enough to develop, and even sell, native iPhone apps before the AppStore came along.

Gruber wants Google and Android (and Palm and webOS) to succeed so they can keep Apple sharp and on top of the game; Gruber doesn't want Apple's competitors to succeed in and of themselves, his desire is predicated on more success for Apple.

Gruber's views are sufficiently nuanced to allow some disagreements with Apple on minor issues while still remaining in agreement of their overall goals. I'm not the one 'splitting hairs' by pointing that out, indeed it's actually Gruber's arguments that appear so (his dismissal of the Readability blog post because they seem like a content publisher—even though Readability isn't—is an example of him drawing arbitrary lines in the sand)