You know, when you can reliably expect Jon Gruber's opinions on a matter to lean pro-Apple -- when he does all sorts of mental gymnastics to make the logic come out right, no matter how absurd it sounds -- well, how is he not regarded as a shill?
There is a difference between criticizing the implementation of a policy (e.g. the AppStore review process is too slow, the AppStore review process sometimes makes embarrassing mistakes) and criticizing the policy itself (e.g. Apple's control over the AppStore is a bad thing). Gruber (and Marco et al) might criticize specific tactics by Apple but the Mac pundits largely agree with the strategy and the goals—whatever the strategy or goals may be.
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.
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".
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)
Gruber says, FTA: "Maybe I'm missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple's insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn't 'serving up content'? That's exactly what Readability does."
On the one hand you have Apple, who charges 30% for access to a platform. An app developer creates that value by writing something that people want, and then Apple takes 30% to deliver it.
On the other hand you have Readability, who essentially creates a filter for content -- just a little bit beyond applying a stylesheet to the content, as far as the end result goes. The actual mechanics are more involved, but the end-result is the same as if someone were to apply a custom CSS to your article that made it nice and, well, readable. And for this service, they charge $5/mo and spread 70% of your $5 with the producers of the different content which gets made readable.
To say then, that Readability is creating content is ridiculous. They are transforming existing content -- there is no comparison between them and, say, Amazon, who this policy is meant to target. Under Gruber's definition of 'serving up content', the mini Opera browser which delivers pre-rendered images of web pages (on some platforms) is also 'serving up content'.
Hell, VNC clients can easily be construed to be content servers under this rationalization!
To say then, that Readability is creating content is ridiculous. They are transforming existing content -- there is no comparison between them and, say, Amazon...
Amazon isn't creating content either. They are reformatting books into the Kindle format. Which is similar to what Readability does.
Amazon owns (or licenses) that content and is therefore 'publishing' it. Readability doesn't own or control the content, they are simply rearranging it like an intelligent RSS reader.
At a fundamental level Amazon take written content, pay the owner of the content money and sell it on at a mark up based on reformatting it in a way which adds value to the consumer.
How is that different to the way that Readability take written content, pay the owner of the content money, and sell it on at a mark up based on reformatting it in a way which adds value to the consumer?
The key difference between Readability and an RSS reader, is the RSS reader hands no money to the content creator.
I don't like this as I like the idea of Readability but I can't dispute that what they do is basically the same as what Amazon do.
One thing I would say is that I think Readability get a lot of credit for the fact that they will distribute payments to small content creators.
While this is obviously great, I'd be really interested to know how much of what they pay out goes to bloggers and how much goes to the usual suspects. I'm guessing that in reality it doesn't end up supporting the small guys as much as we'd like simply because most of what is read comes from the big providers - that's why they're big in the first place.
I didn't even comment on this specific case. I just wanted to point out that, contrary to what you claimed, John Gruber have in fact criticized Apple quite a bit, and especially on the topic of their App Store regulations. To claim that he always agrees with Apple is simply either uninformed, or a lie.
Yes, Gruber is generally decent (except when it comes to Android, where he seizes every available opportunity to make snide, petty, uninformed remarks).
But everyone else here is talking about this specific case, which, as you suggest, seems startlingly out-of-character for him.
He is sometimes critical, true, when the critical mass goes against Apple, but his sneering pro-Apple stance 99% of the time is insufferable. It seems like 50% of his posts are about iPad competitors.
I didn't say he never disagrees with Apple. I said that he frequently does agree with them and that he often goes to absurd extents to justify positions that seem contrary to common sense. I said that he used tortured logic to arrive at these positions, and that he can be counted on reliably to agree with Apple.
Glenn Beck occasionally disagrees with the Republicans too but I bet I know how he'll vote in most elections.
If you allow Readability to be 'different' because it's just a gateway, then everyone from Murdoch on down will create a similar gateway to their subscription content, no-one will pay Apple anything and users will continue to have to run through hassle of buying content outside the store and become disillusioned with the store.
Apple's core, recurring problem is that they're writing rules intended for well-defined software and services, but they simply can not account for all the software that doesn't neatly fit into those buckets.
There is almost nothing they can do with the store without running afoul of some well-meaning edge case.
This is it. With so few people providing genuinely intelligent, impartial advice, often you end you going to someone like Gruber who provides intelligent, partial advice and then balance it with similar voices on the other side of the argument.
I like Gruber but I know that some things are going to come with a certain spin.
