Paul Thurrott Thinks Apple is Bad. Imagine That.

Paul Thurrott’s Supersite Blog apparently firmly believes at least two things:

  1. Apple is “bad”.
  2. Newsweek is a credible source for Apple commentary.

The former is nothing less than Paul has always thought, despite his claims of being unbiased, etc., even as he calls those who support Apple names every chance he gets. The latter, however, is especially telling, since of course Newsweek was little more than an Apple tool until now.

As Paul himself explains it:

Now that Apple fanatic Steven Levy is gone, apparently Newsweek can tell it like it is about Apple.

So if you support Apple, you’re a “fanatic” (there goes Paul’s name-calling again). If not, then you’re just telling it like it is. Gotcha, Paul. Thanks for the tip.

I’ve learned something about the way Paul works. Notice that this article is not on the Windows Supersite home page, but rather Paul’s blog. Paul thinks he’s safer (and less vulnerable to attack) when he puts his more egregious comments there instead of the Supersite proper. He’s wrong, of course, since they’re part of the same site, but Paula will take what he can get in terms of “shelter” from those calling him on his crap.

Paul’s record of ignoring (or rewriting) Microsoft’s history is quite clear, yet he imagines an Apple currently running as Microsoft used to. His post, and the Newsweek piece he linked to, provide nothing to support the theory that Apple is bad. Apple’s popular. The iPod and iTunes command their market. Big deal. This is already known and there is nothing wrong with commanding your market.

Microsoft’s sins were in abusing their position (you know, like threatening to displace competitors from markets), not in being popular. Google’s Eric Schmidt summed it up nicely just recently: “Microsoft has a history of favouring its own applications and I can give you 500,000 pages of court testimony, document web blogs and so forth and so on about that”.

Aside from popularity, the articles here have nothing to say about Apple being “bad”. Apparently, it’s supposed to just be understood.

For example, Paul says:

It’s about Apple. Apple becoming a much more dominant player. Apple exercising its market power and getting some push back from companies that don’t like being abused and customers who don’t like being treated like they don’t matter.

Paul and others do not like Apple becoming a big player. It threatens their livelihood. Otherwise there’s no clue given as to why it’s “bad”.

Regarding Apple “exercising its market power” to abuse companies, where are the examples? Adobe? Is it because their pathetic Flash player has been left to rot on the Mac so Apple doesn’t want it on their iPhone? Most other mobile phones don’t allow it either (no, Flash Lite is not the same). The record labels? You know, the ones who are all but colluding against iTunes by providing their music DRM-free everywhere else? Other music stores? Like Amazon and eMusic, whose music is 100% compatible with the iPod?

Apple is in fact still being treated like a second-class citizen by most of the major players, something Paul champions, since he’s quick to remind us of Apple’s 3.5% global market share. Just look at Google’s new Chrome browser, which won’t be available on the Mac for several months. Yet this is the company Paul says is abusing its power? Please.

As for abusing their customers, that’s even more laughable. Consumer Reports and every survey has shown Apple blows other tech companies out of the water in terms of customer satisfaction. Try another tack, Paul, you’re sinking.

Paul’s writings are full of flowery multi-part prose about Apple’s products and services filled with misinformation or half-truths. As just one recent example, in Paul’s four-part MobileMe “review” he claims you cannot export contacts in any significant way because you must do so one at a time. Nonsense. He points out that when you export as vCard the selected account is exported, but — either through ignorance or deliberate suppression — does not bother to mention that you can select them all and export one vCard with all the information.

I used the above method to export all my contacts and then import them into Windows Live contacts in about three minutes. And it only took that long because I milked it out and took a couple of breaks.

The above is just one example of what Paul obscures in his “reviews” of Apple products. But when others give positive reviews Paul just calls them names, as Steven Levy learned today, and as others have learned before him.

For an excellent rundown of other Microsoft faults Paul chooses to ignore, read this piece. [Though a single political paragraph taints the piece.]

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Paul Thurrott Thinks Apple is Bad. Imagine That.

  1. PT attacks Apple for being successful. It is idiotic and meaningless. Whether you like Apple or not the whole premise of his writings and comments just don’t make sense from this perspective.

    Apple eats into Microsoft’s market share – big deal. Microsoft respond to a competitive threat by releasing a widely condemned and ignored product (Vista). Apple didn’t make Microsoft do anything. They just got about their business in the best way they could. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Some Apple products have been poor… the first version of Apple TV was rubbish and the company admitted as much with Apple TV 2.

    Apple is currently better at execution that Microsoft and somehow that makes it bad? Can any one give a reasonable explanation as to how that is supposed to work?

  2. Well, for one, I love it when you take on Paul. If it’s ok for Paul to blindly trash Apple, than I certainly think it’s also fair that someone trash’s Paul’s work for what it truly is – garbage!

    Personally, I can’t stomach any longer to read his posts, my stomach simply won’t take it, but reading posts like yours and Daniel Eran Dilger’s is like Rollaid’s, because exposing Paul’s lies with the truth has a soothing effect – Paul’s writings are bad, they contain untruths, downright lies, at times, and are among the most biased writings that I have ever read.

    Thanks for your objective and unbiased post and please, for heaven’s sake, keep em coming, because we all know that Paul will continue to keep his bad, bad writings coming, unfortunately!

  3. Sarah Palin is prettier than Hillary Clinton. Toyota/Lexus makes higher quality cars than Ford. The skipper is fatter than Gilligan. Macs are better than PCs.

    I don’t make the rules, I just live here. Why does the truth make anyone a fanboi. Apple sucks sometimes, true. They aren’t perfect. But they are quite impressive most of the time and that is why they have the following they do.

  4. AshA,

    When I claimed that Apple’s success threatens some people’s (including Paul’s) livelihood, you said this:

    “This is pure crap”

    No it’s not, and it proves you don’t practice what you preach. In your misguided comment a few minutes ago on a post of mine over a year old, you suggested I read more of Paul’s columns, and yet your statement above proves that YOU are the one not reading his stuff.

    Read my article here and you’ll see I link to a special rant from Paul where he actually says this:

    “And if you care about the systems you support now, your jobs, and your very livelihood, you might do [sic] demand the same from the company. All of us have backed the same horse. And from what I can tell, that horse looks like it’s’ ready for the proverbial pasture.”

    That’s right, he (and others) have “backed the same horse” (Microsoft) and it sucks, which threatens their “very livelihood”. Those are Paul’s words, not mine.

    Don’t feel bad. Everyone who just glances at Paul’s stuff and reads his conclusions could be fooled into thinking he’s impartial. (Well, not really, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.) However, no full reading of Paul’s work could give the impression that he’s anything but a Microsoft fanboi and incessant FUD-spreading Apple basher.

  5. Wow! I’m still in amazement. I commented on an earlier post while you were bashing Paul. The Apple Fanboys are at it again. As i said earlier I do believe Paul is more objective than others, i.e. Apple Fanboys on this site. I own 4 iPods, a Macbook and other assorted Apple gear as well as use Windows and Linux. Defending Apple is one thing but to blindly follow Jobs is just insane.
    “Paul and others do not like Apple becoming a big player. It threatens their livelihood. Otherwise there’s no clue given as to why it’s “bad”.”
    This is pure crap. If there was no competition there would be nothing to talk about, no innovation in the market place, and nothing to compare.
    Don’t Apple Fanboys have more time than to pick apart articles to put their slant on them? At least he reviews the products and not trash the same writer.

  6. Paul Thurrott feels at ease being disingenuous about Apple. He must. He’s a sad little fungus that can only survive under the dank canopy of Microsoft. Apple’s rise has given threat to Paul and all he’s sustained himself on over the years. So he decided to expand his scope as a reviewer to included Apple technology. Unfortunately his “objectivity” reeks sometimes of subtle bias to outright prejudice (“bad guys”). He wants us to thinks he’s fair and balanced but his allegiance to Redmond is far too transparent. Read his blog and you’ll agree.

    I wish he would completely stop writing about Apple products. He simply doesn’t bring anything of value to consumers.

  7. Luis,

    I’ve answered this question before, but here it is again. Paul is not like Dvorak (who long ago admitted to baiting Mac users) or Enderle (who almost of necessity cannot maintain a blog bashing anyone outright — he saves that for his back-handed quotes).

    Paul is on several pro-Microsoft blogs proudly proclaiming Windows in the name, yet has some Apple hardware and uses it to claim objectivity and fairness. He claims to be unbiased, and though an actual reading of his work would reveal that as a farce, most people won’t read his multi-part Apple “reviews” (as he well knows).

    In short, while few that matter take Dvorak or Enderle seriously, or would base any kind of decision on them, the same may not be so true of Mr. Thurrott.

    When choosing whose FUD to counter, it makes sense to counter those who may actually have some influence. Of the three you mention, only Paul is a possibility in that regard.

  8. Lin Yu Tan, Chinesse phylosopher, said once that: “He left out his need to defend himself because he left out his need to be attacked.”

    Why do we, Apple conciouss users, jump so much when someone (specially the known ones: Thurrot, Enderle, Dvorak) spoke against Apple?

    Do we feel that “we are attacked in our decision to buy/like Apple’s products?

  9. Paul Thurrott is the original Microsoft© Defender©.

    He’d bash anything non-Microsoft while proclaiming that he’s unbiased.

    So why would anyone listen to him? Leo Laporte should stop doing the stupid show with the Microsoft Whipping Boy.

Comments are closed.