[gress]

This piece ignores the obvious. These people aren't afraid of their own criticisms of Apple. They are afraid that their criticisms will be magnified and distorted by the press and used as the basis of hit-pieces, and that this will reflect badly on them.

This isn't fear of Apple. It's legitimate fear of what the press will do with what they say.

[mwfunk]

Why the hell would someone downvote gress' comment? The article misrepresented the reason for Marco's regret, to use as evidence for its thesis. Marco regretted what he said because it was being used out-of-context to support a flood of stories in the press that he thought were BS not to mention the gazillion emails he was getting about it.

Now, I suppose someone could be reading this and thinking, "sure, that's what Marco wants everyone to believe, but really he's just scared of the Apple mafia." If you, a reader who downvoted gress, are thinking this as well, step back and really think about that statement for a second, and think about things like projection and assumptions and confirmation bias.

I guess I'm sticking up for Apple here, but really I'm sticking up for intellectual honesty. I love it when people criticize the utter living hell out of Apple, but for actual legitimate things. Opinions based on conspiracy theories, tribalism, or just plain making stuff up discredits real, authentic criticism that actually means something and that might actually result in positive change. This goes for any topic really, not just Apple stuff.

I'm not characterizing this particular article in that way- it seemed thoughtful and well-written, aside from misrepresenting Marco and possibly others. I'm giving the author the benefit of the doubt here that this was just a misunderstanding. It's more a response to people who have assumptions that are so entrenched that they would disbelieve Marco's own stated reasons for regretting what he wrote, because not believing him and assuming something more sinister better reinforces whatever much more dramatic narrative they've already imagined.

[oddevan]

Exactly. That was the crux of Arment's "regret" of his article. It wasn't that he was critical of Apple, it was that he said it in such a way that the tech press in general was able to quote him on stupid "hit pieces" on Apple. It wasn't his original article per se, but the way that original article was used.

[skc]

Doesn't wash.

Trick question, why is it that they are not afraid about what the press will do with their snarky comments on say, Google, Microsoft, Samsung or Android?

[comex]

For some of the more notable bloggers, because everyone knows they're on Team Apple. They aren't just people who have a lot of Apple products, they're people who have significantly bought into Apple's worldview and culture. Since tech punditry as a whole is very tribal, trashing the other teams regularly is par for the course, but trashing your own team is seen as a betrayal, an extraordinary event, a reaction to the company's own betrayal of the pundit's heightened trust. The latter is newsworthy, the former is not.

(While this mentality is strong in Apple-land, it certainly has its place among Google partisans as well, among others...)

[pauloday]

Reminds me of this[1] LessWrong post. It's not unique to tech, it's (unfortunately) part of our tribalistic instinct:

> Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

[1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

[comex]

I think it's telling that the two things John Gruber blogs about are tech - and sports, where fans are expected to pick a team and be loyal to it. At least in the latter arena, most people treat the tribalism as just for fun!

Which is why I read Daring Fireball. I do like Apple in general, but I also just find it fun to be on a team, and try not to take it too seriously.

[gress]

Otherwise known as an ad hominem argument.

[gress]

Because the press doesn't make hit pieces about brands that are not perceived as the leader to be toppled.

[raesene4]

Given that in the mobile field, Android is perceived as the leader, this line of thinking doesn't really seem to hold.

[snowwrestler]

The popular press does not perceive Android to be the leader in their number one metric, driving pageviews/rageviews.

[seabee]

Android is the leader by market share but iOS leads mind share.

Android isn't a strong brand. Samsung, HTC, Sony, LG et al put their own corporate branding ahead of whatever Android version they use. Amazon barely mentions its existence. Apple and Samsung are probably the only strong brands in mobile right now and Apple is a lot further ahead.

[rdsnsca]

Apple leads in the most important metric profit share. They took 93 % of the smart phone profit last quater.

[gress]

Android is not perceived as the leading brand. Apple is, with Samsung in second place.

[wz1000]

Aside from a select few free software communities, the Apple community is the one I've witnessed the most negativity and hate in.

Maybe this is because people in both of these communities feel they are "special" somehow, and "better" than the average user?

[gress]

Are you talking about hatred towards apple? Pick any positive article about Apple on the web with a comments section. You will see that the comments are filled with hateful anti-Apple invective.

[wz1000]

It goes both ways in my experience. People often hate on Apple, but on communities with many Apple users there is significant negativity in the opposite direction. Criticism of Apple is generally not taken well.

[forgottenpass]

why is it that they are not afraid about what the press will do with their snarky comments on say, Google, Microsoft, Samsung or Android?

Because the press is also running snarky comments about those? Fitting in with the general direction of the press hivemind is one of the first hard lessons I had to learn about putting anything on twitter. Of course there are multiple threads in any one naval-gazing clique, and my interests span across multiple circles of press that don't pay attention to each-other, so I generally don't tweet anything anymore.

[engendered]

They are afraid that their criticisms will be magnified and distorted by the press and used as the basis of hit-pieces

Hardly.

Many Apple fans still operate as if it is some tiny, vulnerable niche company, and they're a member of the few. Perhaps this is some sort of traumatic stress of those early days, but it manifests in this feeling of great discomfort if your words are used "against" the hive. Arment, significant in this piece, incredibly claimed that it was a nightmare having his entirely valid, indisputable issues with Apple software lately, spoken of by "the others".

This is bizarre behavior. It is absolutely incredible. Apple is one of the largest corporations on the planet. It is an enormous money machine. And people are desperately fearful that their opinions about Apple might get known? Come on.

The whole "magnified and distorted" and "hit piece" noises is just garbage. It has nothing to do with proportionality or reality, it's just this sense that a community is under attack and they need to be defensive, and it's just bizarre.

[declan]

I've been an Apple user since the IIe days, and I remember the tiny, vulnerable niche company it was very well. But as you say:

"Apple now twice as big as world's second-largest company, ExxonMobil" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnol...

[gress]

There is nothing bizarre about people not wanting to have their names used in support of positions they don't agree with.