It’s funny to watch a Google employee try to tear Gruber down, especially when he totally misses the points Gruber was making.
Gruber and Jackassery
It’s funny to watch a Google employee try to tear Gruber down, especially when he totally misses the points Gruber was making.
It’s even funnier to see the asshats in the comments section patting his back for his “great writing”! The fact that his “writing” was arguing the totally wrong point didn’t seem to matter to them.
It’s easier to attack if you ignore the actual context.
Wow, Ray Cromwell is a complete moron. I’m not surprised he’s working for Google.
Google should have better control of their employees. Unless they like them publicly acting like children on Google +. Maybe they do.
Straw men make the best targets.
I thought Gruber failed to make a relevant response without contradicting himself. On one hand, Google is horrible (my summary of his tone since he’s assuming, so shall I) for entering markets and dominating but Apple does the same then he says Google does the same thing Apple does. Huh?
His point is he hates how Google acts like they aren’t being competitive. It has nothing to do with their actions just that they won’t admit, to his liking, their desire to be competitive.
Weaksauce, IMHO. [let the flaming behing] lol
you are so clueless, dude. how is it possible? youre arguing the same wrong thing as Cromwell. it’s clear that either you are a very stupid man (a jackass, to use Gruber’s parlance), or a troll. i will have to conclude the latter.
Gruber specifically clarifies that he doesnt believe Google entering existing markets and clobbering them is a bad thing. its what successful companies do, Apple included. what he is pointing out in his original essay was Google’s BS for pretending they arent doing exactly that; for instead believing theyre on a noble mission to “create new things that dont exist”. that isnt true…they are in the business of entering existing markets and clobbering people. to pretend otherwise is to self-delusional and noteworthy. thus his critique.
how can you so fundamentally fail to grasp this main thrust of Gruber’s two essays?
To me, it seems like Google is doing what Mr. Gruber says they are. Competing like crazy, and pretending to be benign. There are dupes in all organizations, and Mr. Cromwell comes across that way with respect to his own org (which I presume to be Google).
here, let me read it for you since you didnt:
“My piece he’s referring to had nothing to do with Apple. I did mention iPhone and Android, but only as one example of Google following the lead of others, commoditizing existing markets, the opposite of Larry Page’s onstage edict that ‘We should be building great things that don’t exist.’
[…]
“Again, I reiterate, my piece that Cromwell is referring to had almost nothing to do with Apple. It really was just about Google, and what I perceive to be their institutional hypocrisy and self-deception.
[…]
“The gist of my piece was not that Apple is good and Google is bad. The gist of my argument is that Google is a ruthless competitor that enters existing markets, upends them, and isolates itself with a seemingly unquenchable desire to dominate every single market in consumer online services; yet, hypocritically, its leadership describes Google as just wanting to get along, that Google is institutionally a nice company, and that they succeed by ‘building great things that don’t exist’, whereas what they actually do is build free versions of things that already exist and make money selling ads. Google employees self-identify as not-ruthless while acting ruthlessly, leading to cognitive dissonance.”
Show me where Google said they “create new things that don’t exist” and I’ll change my tune. What you’re going to paste is Larry Page saying “we should…” not saying “we do…” to which Gruber’s arguments falls flat on its face:
“I suppose technically Page didn’t claim that Google actually does build great things that don’t exist, only that they (and everyone in attendance)should. But the implication certainly is there.”
So now implications by Page are Google saying “we create things that don’t exist” (which they do: Glass, self-driving cars) and “do not compete in established industries?
Show me the “clues” you have that render me clueless.
yep, you got it. Glass and self-driving cars are not a product. android, maps, webmail, google+, etc, are their products. existing markets.
Page’s speech w/ the lines about what the press should be focused on are the entire grounds for the implication that he actually believes his own company does what he says companies should do.
here’s another way you’re clueless. you paraphase Gruber like so:
“On one hand, Google is horrible [my summary of his tone since he’s assuming, so shall I] for entering markets and dominating but Apple does the same”
…yet Gruber has never advocated either: 1) that google is horrible. 2) that apple is not doing the same (clobbering existing markets). never. has never said that. in fact, Gruber says:
“The gist of my piece was not that Apple is good and Google is bad. The gist of my argument is that Google is a ruthless competitor that enters existing markets, upends them, and isolates itself”
so, since you said thats what Gruber believes, please link us to supporting copy. show us where Gruber asserts either of those two things.
Glass is a product. It just isn’t launched yet.
His company does do it but the implication he or anyone else at Google believes they aren’t competing in other fronts is made up.
incorrect. only developers can sign up to try to get developer prototyes. consumers cannot purchase it. not. a. product.
Correct, I paraphrased with dramatic phrasing but made it known I was summarizing his tone since he was making wide sweeping assumptions.
Where did I say that’s what he believes? I said that was me summarizing his tone. That’s what he did to Page. Page said something very straight forward yet he added an implication of his own. Gruber did the same [said something very specific] so I did the same [implied his tone].
Beta. It will launch in late 2014 [so say the last word on it].
since 2014 is in the future, that is again not a product in the present. fail, fail, fail again.
but please — address the other points. the ones you made when you claim Gruber thinks google is “horrible” and unlike apple.
So the iPhone 6 (or 5s) is in progress. Is it not a product they are working on?
What in the world would you call a product that is being built?
mighty fine mental gymnastics, there. a fancy way of saying, “Yep, I just made that up (for dramatic effect, dude!). He didn’t say those things at all.”
whereas Gruber’s interpretation of Page’s statement is much more reasonable — if the CEO of a company says companies should act a certain way, it’s implied the CEO feels his company does act that way. that’s a reasonable assumption to make. yours wasnt.
as summarized quite clearly by Gruber himself in his piece:
“I suppose technically Page didn’t claim that Google actually does build great things that don’t exist, only that they (and everyone in attendance) should. But the implication certainly is there.”
it is there. only by using mental gymnastics can you pretend it isnt.
ah, i see you actually cant yield the last word.
the iphone6, or any other hardware/software, is not a product until it’s released. until then its vaporware.
Yes, I was being facetious [noted as much].
Implications are just that…implications. They are not, by any measure, the truth.
Even if you take the implication to mean he believes Google is building stuff that doesn’t exist, well…they are. You can’t stretch it to believe he meant Google isn’t competing in other areas.
Ok…vaporware. Page said “things”, I say “products”, you say “vaporware”. Either way, we should be building them.
(feel free to get the last word and I won’t respond at all)
Jackass.
I sense Dale Carnegie’s words are greater than ever today, especially with the Internet. With all the Internet’s unfounded, unwarranted, and over the top criticism, complaints, and condemnations, it’s easy to fire back. It’s much harder, but much greater to try to elevate over it.
I think Gruber was restrained in his response, that said, I wonder if Cromwell deserved a response if indeed he was trolling. The Peter Cohan’s of the world, obviously, deserve no response because attention is like oxygen to them, and you have to deprive them of attention, then perhaps constructively state a response.