They are getting sued for that.
I just wish consumers got more from class action lawsuits.
I literally traded in my beloved 13 mini for the 16 because of the promise of the improved Siri with Apple Intelligence features.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
John Gruber Reacts to Apple Declining His Interview After His Criticism
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just wish consumers got more from class action lawsuits.
I literally traded in my beloved 13 mini for the 16 because of the promise of the improved Siri with Apple Intelligence features.
You’re not hearing that from anyone, come on, LOL.
apple's become such a joke. remember when they booted jon steward? only a brain diseased imbecile could support apple at this point. don't worry. they are out there.
I’m not the original poster but let me guess. To point out to you the fact that Apple engaged in false advertising, something that isn’t legal, when they were using said feature to sell the iPhone 16 not only by seemingly demoing the feature in a video at WWDC, but then doubling down by releasing a commercial featuring an up and coming actress that advertised this feature and by releasing print adds trying to sell that feature and other features under the guise of Apple Intelligence forcing them to subsequently, publicly, walk that feature back including removing some text on their website that was also used in some of those print ads and totally yanking that commercial off of the air….
I’m going to venture a guess that it had something to do with all of that combined with your outright excusing that behavior and criticizing others who refuse to do the same because we don’t have our heads jammed up Apple’s collective rear end.
That's quite an interesting state of play he's presenting. His 'wins and losses' language reveals that his approach to Apple is distinctly competitive.
I'm surprised he'd use that language, considering he likely expects Apple to agree to future interviews, however now that this 'wins' and 'losses' claim has been laid bare, there’s little incentive for Apple to engage with him again. As a commentator enjoying a continued relationship with a company through their successes and failures, I would put forward the notion that the relationship is not a flippant one, but one built on trust and a mutual ‘best foot forward’ mindset.
He was quoted as saying, "The fiasco is that Apple pitched a story that wasn't true, one that some people within the company surely understood wasn't true, and they set a course based on that." My immediate reaction is that it's rich for a media figure to accuse another of pitching stories that aren’t true.
In today's world this approach is 'clicks hits and views 101'. The barrage of misinformation/disinformation/fake news in the media and social media, where facts and truth take a back seat is so prevalent that we've become desensitised to it. An air of hypocrisy lingers, feeding off the exploitative nature of the moment.
Apple dropped the ball on what they promised in '24, and they have heard the feedback loud and clear it seems, as MacRumors pointed out in other posts. If declining an interview meant Apple could investigate their shortcomings without being reactive to media types looking for a 'quick win', and he got exactly that when Apple declined the interview, then he should be happy. There is no loss here.
By his own purported strategy, his popularity would skyrocket if nobody agreed to his interviews. Clearly, the strategy is flawed. If a company he doesn’t represent declining an interview counts as a ‘win’, then his foundation was quicksand to begin with.
Apple have always been extremely tight about their works in progress and product launches, though, sadly, this grip has loosened significantly recently with the many 'commentators' and 'leakers' looking for their claim to fame. He got his win through someone else's shortcomings. That's not something to shout about, in my book.
Apple doesn't walk into a room where it doesn't control the narrative. Ever.
You mean, the way US works the next 3.5 years.
And they're alone in that?
A kind of Schrödinger,'s cat thought experiment! John Gruber is either dead to Apple, or alive and kicking. 💁
The point is not "competing" against Apple, but explaining the result of what is effectively a bad business decision on Apple's side.
The best business decisions with a business partner are those who lead to a "win-win" situation and I think it was the case with their collaboration before.
Even after the criticism, keeping the collaboration going would IMHO also been a "win-win" as a way for Apple to show that they can accept legitimate criticism and a way to mend the damage.
The decision Apple made instead is arguably a loss for them and a win for Gruber for the reasons stated.
All that matters is what happens with Apple Intelligence/Siri next spring. If it works, this episode is water under the bridge and Gruber goes back to being Apple's #1 evangelist. If it doesn't work it's up to Gruber to decide how he wants to cover it. Considering his entire livelihood is centered around his Apple coverage (he doesn't make money off Markdown), it would be as momentous a decision as writing "Something's Rotten in the State of Cupertino." The fact that Gruber's credential for WWDC wasn't pulled at the last minute shows that there's still some level of professionalism at Apple Park.
Agreed. The narrative that Apple “canceled” Gruber simply for being critical doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. He’s been sharply critical of Apple before notably after previous WWDCs and yet was still invited back to interview top execs year after year. Apple has never shied away from tough questions when delivered with professionalism.Joanna Stern, who’s hardly a soft touch journalist, just did interviews with Apple execs.
What changed this year isn’t the critique, it’s the tone. Specifically, that bizarre and vulgar innuendo Gruber made involving Tim Cook and the President of the United States. It wasn’t just irreverent, it was crass and wildly unprofessional. That’s not “speaking truth to power.” That’s burning a bridge with a blowtorch.
Apple’s silence this time isn’t censorship, it’s consequences. There’s a difference between being independent and being inflammatory. Gruber’s independence was never the issue his discretion was.
I agree with Grubers assessment that this helped him more than hurt him. First of all there were many articles written about the fact that Apple declined which gave him added exposure for the forthcoming show and he likely received more viewers to the shows YouTube video this year because people wanted to hear what he would say about it.
Drama whether valid or not drives clicks and views and they definitely benefitted him this year by declining his invitation. And I also agree with what he said about it proves his independence, that he can be critical of Apple and that only helps his reputation as a journalist.
Apple feels what he wrote was unfair, I don't think it is. They promised features a year ago that they did not deliver and he merely pointed out that they presented things that weren't ready. Apple failed to do their due diligence with regards to their AI capabilities but presented us all these new shiny things that didn't come to fruition and still haven't and likely wont even next year if you listen to them talk in their interview with Joanna Stern.
They don't have to do interviews with anyone, that's their choice but it does seem petty. Also that hour long interview with Joanna, they scheduled that with her mere 24 hours before the interview took place. She mentioned in the Gruber video how highly unusual that was, she usually has a weeks long notice ahead of such interviews for a scheduled event like this. It just goes to show how muddled Apple was this WWDC in my opinion and I suspect they wouldn't have chosen her to do this had they known she would go on the Gruber stage later that evening to dish about it.
Drama whether valid or not drives clicks and views and they definitely benefitted him this year by declining his invitation. And I also agree with what he said about it proves his independence, that he can be critical of Apple and that only helps his reputation as a journalist.
Apple feels what he wrote was unfair, I don't think it is. They promised features a year ago that they did not deliver and he merely pointed out that they presented things that weren't ready. Apple failed to do their due diligence with regards to their AI capabilities but presented us all these new shiny things that didn't come to fruition and still haven't and likely wont even next year if you listen to them talk in their interview with Joanna Stern.
They don't have to do interviews with anyone, that's their choice but it does seem petty. Also that hour long interview with Joanna, they scheduled that with her mere 24 hours before the interview took place. She mentioned in the Gruber video how highly unusual that was, she usually has a weeks long notice ahead of such interviews for a scheduled event like this. It just goes to show how muddled Apple was this WWDC in my opinion and I suspect they wouldn't have chosen her to do this had they known she would go on the Gruber stage later that evening to dish about it.
To play devil's advocate (sorta), The WWDC edition of Talk Show is typically over an hour long, in front of a live audience, and in a venue on the other side of town -- compared to what other media get (10 minutes in a podcast studio setup at Apple Park on keynote day) the Apple execs are really making an exception for Gruber.
So from their perspective they're probably thinking why extend such a privilege to Gruber when he kicks them while they're down. From Apple's perspective it makes sense. It's petty but nuanced... ok, more petty than nuanced considering Joz and Craig already had their story prepared on how to answer "The Apple Intelligence Delay Question" (look at Joanna Stern's interview).
I agree with Gruber, the better decision was probably to attend and give their canned answer like they did for everyone else -- Gruber wouldn't push them beyond that, he never does, typically at these events he just hypes up whatever Apple's official positioning is of their new product.
So from their perspective they're probably thinking why extend such a privilege to Gruber when he kicks them while they're down. From Apple's perspective it makes sense. It's petty but nuanced... ok, more petty than nuanced considering Joz and Craig already had their story prepared on how to answer "The Apple Intelligence Delay Question" (look at Joanna Stern's interview).
I agree with Gruber, the better decision was probably to attend and give their canned answer like they did for everyone else -- Gruber wouldn't push them beyond that, he never does, typically at these events he just hypes up whatever Apple's official positioning is of their new product.
Most of the people dismissive of Gruber seem to be angry about his political commentary, which is whatever, and ancillary to this story.
Apple were clearly hurt by ‘Something rotten’, and have reacted to it by declining to attend. It’s a bit petty, but again, whatever.
I think the Talk Show was better for it. Gruber is a pretty bad interviewer, and was much more comfortable with Patel and Stern, who were great I thought.
He addressed the controversy well during the show I thought.
This reads quite differently, especially the last comment quoted. Initially during the show the chatter was very much around ‘you’re in the dog house but it’ll be fine later’, whereas I feel like the second quote is a big F-U to Apple and suggests he thinks they won’t ever be coming back.
I don’t think that’s any great loss, but it adds (for me) to real feeling of malaise in and around Apple at the moment. It feels like they’re heading the wrong direction, not least by having staff commit perjury IIRC and having finance staff overrule Phil Schiller.
The company feels like it’s changing for the worst, and I think Gruber feels that way too.
Apple were clearly hurt by ‘Something rotten’, and have reacted to it by declining to attend. It’s a bit petty, but again, whatever.
I think the Talk Show was better for it. Gruber is a pretty bad interviewer, and was much more comfortable with Patel and Stern, who were great I thought.
He addressed the controversy well during the show I thought.
This reads quite differently, especially the last comment quoted. Initially during the show the chatter was very much around ‘you’re in the dog house but it’ll be fine later’, whereas I feel like the second quote is a big F-U to Apple and suggests he thinks they won’t ever be coming back.
I don’t think that’s any great loss, but it adds (for me) to real feeling of malaise in and around Apple at the moment. It feels like they’re heading the wrong direction, not least by having staff commit perjury IIRC and having finance staff overrule Phil Schiller.
The company feels like it’s changing for the worst, and I think Gruber feels that way too.
FWIW my take is that it’s not that Apple is being petty about criticism. They’re big boys and girls and face it all the time. I suspect it’s the unprofessional language used by Gruber that caused the “nope”. Simple as that.
I am well aware of the situation. And I have never excused Apple’s behavior regarding AI delays or criticized others for not excusing it. What are you going on about?
Uhhh... what? Gruber implied that somewhere? I don't believe it frankly, you CANNOT make that sort of jibe against an openly gay CEO of a company. The same company which extends the courtesy of sending top execs to your hour long+ talk show every year.
Unbelievable, what a stupid thing to say. Again I don't believe he would be that grotesque, do you have a source or are you being hyperbolic?
These comments act like Gruber didn’t start by covering Apple with near zero corporate PR access. What he writes isn’t particularly dependent on having corporate PR access or even anonymous inside sources. He’s not an access journalist or rumors blogger. Apple stonewalling him would change very little for him.
If you'd listened to the Talk Show, Gruber characterised Apple's response and it has nothing to do with that.
Here is the reference: https://daringfireball.net/2024/11/i_wonder
I'm Australian, and we're much more comfortable with swearing than Americans, and don't clutch our pearls like you do, so it doesn't bother me much, personally.
He didn’t just imply it, he outright said it, on his blog.
I Wonder
Singsong congratulations from the leaders of America’s biggest companies.
daringfireball.net
“I wonder how much Cook dithered over that cheerful-looking exclamation mark. I hope he regrets it. I wonder whether the latter four knowingly made the error of addressing former president and president-elect Trump as “President Trump”. Our nation only has one president at a time, and that president remains Joe Biden. I wonder how much it stings to be reminded that all the money in the world cannot buy dignity. I wonder too, what taste Cheetos-dusted 78-year-old testicles leave in one’s mouth. Whatever the flavor, I hope it lingers.”
Anyone who thinks it was just the silly Siri delayed article that’s why Gruber’s invitation was declined, it so obviously is not.
Those bridges had sparks going up for a while, the Siri article was just a flamethrower that turned this beef full sizzle.
Meanwhile back on planet Earth – John Who?