This really, really sucks. I like Marco's take on development (both software and career) and entrepreneurship, and he has a "no bullshit" approach to technology.
But what the heck is going on today? He questions The Verge's integrity (despite having nothing more than the absence of a iMac/HP Spectre One comment), tries to backpedal on it, then starts blocking sites he's feuding with?
Lame. He's normally the most level-headed of the popular Mac bloggers.
The Verge's "integrity" has now been questioned by both Marco and Gruber[0], both of whom appeared On The Verge[1,2]. In both cases, they demonstrated a veneer of level-headedness for the sake of their own "integrity", but it was obvious from the subtext what their real feelings on the matters discussed were.
I wouldn't take either of their opinions seriously. The Verge is the best tech website out there period, and there's no reason to believe that its journalists are biased. They are doing some amazing reporting and really trying to revolutionize online journalism.
And fuck Instapaper - Marco was such a douchebag about Android support. Use Pocket[3], they have beautiful apps for all platforms and don't inject their personal opinions and biases into their software. You can export your articles from Instapaper and import them into Pocket, so there's no excuse for not switching.
There is a very important distinction with regards to integrity, though. Marco imputes an incentive to appease manufacturers to keep review copies coming; Gruber speculates that they don't want to rile up the eternal "other side" of the Apple vs. the World debate.
The former is an attack on their journalistic integrity, Gruber's much less so - although still an attack, nevertheless.
Gruber knows to temper his rhetoric, being a guy with journalistic sentibilities himself. Marco is just a guy with a blog.
That's true. After all, Gruber is (at least in name) a journalist. Marco's blog is just a place for him to express the opinions/emotions he wears on his sleeve. The only reason anyone pays attention to him is because of the popularity of Instapaper.
I have tried to follow Marco and DF on and off for years, because I like to keep up with what Apple is doing and they seem to be pretty good at talking about that.
Unfortunately they are also pretty good at being utter children about near everything else, and seem to live their (public internet) lives in some kind of us vs. them bubble, ripe with snide bickering and pointless hatemongering.
They seem to be, unfortunately, the Fox News of tech journalism.
HP comes out with an all-in-one. Instead of resembling a generic monitor, which would be the obvious choice for a computer meant to look like a simple display, it resembles an iMac to a bizarre degree. (Note: I don't even like how the iMac looks)
How do you defend writing a long article about it without mentioning the resemblance even once? I'm not suggesting motives; I just can't understand it. Yes, I've heard the "oh it was obvious so it didn't need to be said" defense, I just don't get that.
As somebody that's pretty good friends with somebody that's been a long-time writer/editor at a couple of well-known tech sites, the simple answer is they just plain get tired of it.
These guys look at gadgets all day long. What it comes down to is they get tired of ripping on every new gadget that comes out with "lol, they ripped off Apple" and instead focus on other things because there's absolutely nothing interesting about writing the same thing over and over and over again. After a while, it does get to the point that it's so obvious that pointing it out becomes superfluous.
And I mean, in the case of the Spectre One, it's not even as direct a knock-off as the Envy line. The stand design is bulky and inelegant compared to the iMac. When viewed from the side or rear, it's fairly clear there are far worse offenders in the "steals from Apple" category.
Which isn't to say it isn't there and it isn't a shameless aping, just that if you look at gadgets for a living, it doesn't really stand out enough in that regard for it to feel worth the energy to point it out.
>How do you defend writing a long article about it
This may be a bit of a nitpick, but both the posts Marco accused of shilling for HP are under 500 words; that's not really a long piece at all.
I do agree that if a developer has some personal beef with a website that should not allow him/her to think they have the right to block it from their users. Apple wouldn't dream to go as far as to block google.com or samsung.com on their OS's for example just because they have some serious business disagreements. The fact is though we only really have one side of the story here, so hopefully Marco will explain his side of the story (perhaps on his podcast http://5by5.tv/buildanalyze).
To be honest though I simply cannot believe he would think such a thing acceptable, he seems like a pretty clued-in guy this would be a blunder of epic proportions if true, there's something more to this story.
Having read more into the Marco/9-5Mac story and looking on Twitter, seems Marco has concluded the website does not want their content 'scraped' due to content in their articles being 'almost libelous'. Unfortunately he has taken the decision to block his users ability to save from the site as some sort of punishment against them. Can't see any real official explanation, and the error message is unhelpful. Unfortunately I cannot agree with his position, it is repugnant and seems to be a double standard (he has not blocked other sites which heavily criticise Instapaper). Shame, let's hope he sees sense.
Edit: he has lifted the block and apologised for putting it in place without the publishers explicit request, guess he saw sense in the end, everyone gets clouded by anger sometimes. http://blog.instapaper.com/post/31303984531
Guess I should have said more clearly, meant blocking in the browser. With Google Maps, I thought this was down to their license agreement expiring, and that Google reportedly have their own App Store version in the works. I suppose if the app is rejected by Apple on frivalous grounds this would be cause for concern.
So were you part of the meetings that decided this? Because I could, for the record, say that Google pulled its Maps app off of the iPhone in iOS 6.
I don't think either is an appropriate characterization of the situation. More likely, Apple had features they wanted that Google wouldn't license (eg turn by turn), so Apple decided to develop its own product. The license terms of the agreement for which Apple was paying Google included shipping the Google Maps app, so when Apple decided not to renew the agreement, they had to stop shipping a product called Google Maps.
You're right, I don't know (don't care, either). I was trying to make a point that there is probably a story that involved more than 1/2 a sentence.
My mind is not in the least way made up. I'm curious where that came from, honestly. That's a strong assertion that I actually tried to keep out of my post as I hypothesized what I saw as a plausible scenario given only whats been in the media.
I have no clue, and I highly doubt anybody posting here does, either.
> That's a strong assertion that I actually tried to keep out of my post as I hypothesized what I saw as a plausible scenario given only whats been in the media.
You said it was "more likely," implying you had some reason to believe it besides what people say on the Internet.
That's a good point. My intention was that it was more likely that there was a much richer story than "X is trying to screw Y". Thanks for explaining so I can make my comments closer to what I'm trying to say.
Your first point is incorrect. Apple developed (and has always developed) the Maps app for iOS. The app is no longer using the Google Maps API - that is the difference in iOS 6.
Adding editorial opinions to Instapaper seems like a Bad Idea. People using it just want to read content, and being told "I disagree with this site" is only going to piss them off.
Worse yet, how many users will write it off as a technical error, shrug, close the window, and move on to read other things? Instapaper has found a way to stifle the readership and mindshare of whomever they choose, that, for non-HN readers could have it's cause masked from view.
Marco Arment made a mistake here. I know the feeling well. He will get over it, and so will all of you.
Is there much more to say about it than that?
I will never understand why people personalize so much what what Arment says. He's an independent developer; he's one of us. He happens to like iOS more than a lot of HN'ers. "Liking the wrong operating system" seems like a much smaller sin than "shitting all over an indie developer".
> I will never understand why people personalize so much what what Arment says.
Perhaps because his writing, frequently obnoxious and bereft of charm, makes him very easy to dislike. Even for people like myself who might otherwise agree with his positions.
As a long time Instapaper user, I've been slowly migrating to Pocket since they released multi-page saving, but now plan to move completely.
The Instapaper error message should at least be more truthful, or the opt-out list made public so you know restrictions before purchasing the application.
I just started using Pocket, and have found it a much nicer experience than Instapaper all around. This reminds me to take the Instapaper button off my bookmarks bar...
In an email to Buzzfeed, Marco stated (as he posted on Twitter) that it was 9to5Mac's willingness to write potentially libelous statements that he didn't want to deal with:
...I really don't foresee doing this for any other site unless they explicitly request it.
What 9to5 has consistently written about me and Instapaper goes far beyond what's acceptable, is potentially libelous, and could cause potential legal issues. This has never happened to this degree from any other site, and would certainly never happen from a professionally run publication.
I will not tolerate their behavior or the potential legal risks of interacting with 9to5 or Seth at all, so I removed the ability for Instapaper to interact with their site.
Sounds like someone wants to be a big shot but doesn't have a thick enough skin to deal with criticism. His app is completely worthless without other people's content.
I think, trying to read through the pettiness and petulance of it all, that Marco has a fine point to be argued. He just makes it in a really insufferable way.
He had a fine point to be argued until he brought it into his app functionality. Seriously, not only is that is ridiculously childish, but it's totally unnecessary—he has the audience to make his point in full editorial glory. If it's libel then sic a lawyer on them, don't play games with your user base, most of whom don't and shouldn't give a fuck.
Blocking someone describing your product as tantamount to illegal activity (scraping) is cheaper than lawyering up.
Marco's current problem is that he's put himself in such a bloviating position that relenting and whitelisting 9to5Mac is going to make him look like a huge idiot.
Someone with a thicker skin would probably have asked the guys whether they really thought Instapaper was illegal, and whether Marco should disable Instapaper support for them. That way, he wouldn't be editorializing his articles.
This measure also creates a precedent where site owners can petition him to disable support for their website - which, taken far enough, is going to make Instapaper very undesirable to prospective users.
Those of us who've paid Marco money would rather that he didn't take a service we've paid money for to use as a bargaining chip.
You know what else is worthless without other people's content? Google. Does it make Google's achievements any less noteworthy? Any less useful? No. Your point s invalid.
Content is worthless without a means to access it. That's what Instapaper is at its core.
The big question Marco didn't answer: Did he talk with a lawyer about this?
If someone's libeling you, you talk with a lawyer about suing them for libel. If someone's libeling someone else and you're worried about legal risk to your product, you talk with a lawyer about that. Then, if necessary, you censor. And when people ask why, you respond with something along the lines of: "I talked with a lawyer and I had to censor 9to5Mac to avoid legal risks. I'm sorry, my hands are tied."
I don't like 9to5Mac, but I dislike censorship more. I had to cancel my subscription because of this. It particularly sucks because Instapaper is a joy to use.
I realize my decision means nothing by itself, but it looks like other people are canceling their subscriptions for the same reason. Hopefully, that'll be enough to get Marco to change his stance.
Wait, proposing a hypothetical that maybe the FBI got UDIDs by an accidental capture of Instapaper's server is libelous, but insinuating that The Verge is a shill for OEMs isn't?
Marco is exhibiting exactly how not to act. If you want people to use your product, you don't censor things on their behalf. That's an incredible example of crossing the line.
It's not that it's dull, it's just that (today in particular) I am wasting time reading about X famous dev vs. Y popular tech blog. I'm just lamenting that I should be developing code because reading about X vs. Y is not helping me to someday become an X. None of this is anyone's fault but my own.
Truly shameful behavior that permanently destroys the huge amount of trust Instapaper has built up with users. Instapaper, as any such product, is a service to its users, not a bludgeon for political battles. That is a hard line in the sand that once crossed reveals a lack of integrity from the operators.
Neither side especially comes off well in all of this. 9to5mac misspelled his name? I don't see how that's especially funny (and it is childish), but Arment needs to lighten up about that. I also don't see how even the accusations regarding the servers the FBI seized hold water, but there is a polite way to deal with it (read: not blocking a site and making it look like anyone but you is at fault).
Ultimately, I'll still use Instapaper as long as Arment keeps making a quality app and keeps his personal choices out of what I see in the app.
Marco's response on Twitter seemed to indicate that people had, in fact, already begun to blame him for the UDID leak. At the very least, that's a foreseeable reaction to publishing a story claiming a potential link.
The apology doesn't reflect an understanding of the gravity of what he did. He mostly apologizes for using the wrong mechanism and generally overreacting, not for the betrayal of his users and the abuse of power for personal reasons.
So Mr. Marco is upset by some blog and that's why I can't use it in Instapaper? I don't even read 9to5mac but it's reason enough for me to cancel my Instapaper account.
I came here to recommend Pocket. Free. Natively supports iOS, Android, Firefox, Chrome (and has bookmarklet and other web app support for anything else). No ideological baggage or jerkiness.
Developers don't like being branded as scrapers, as it carries the implication that the service in question is stealing content from others to provide its service.
The absolute worst thing Instapaper can be accused of is implementing an old-Readability style function that strips pages of non-article content, most frequently ads.
By that definition Safari Reader is a scraper, so is AdBlock, Reeder, or any other app that tries to improve on the average abysmal reading environment most websites provide.
I am a major fan and paying user of Instapaper and similar services. But how are they not stealing content from others to provide their services? Read it later apps are useless without content. Websites may provide an abysmal reading experience, but it is their property and they can present it as they please. Even if I don't like it and prefer to use Instapaper, it is still theft of a certain kind. So, yes, Instapaper/Safari Reader/Adblock/Reeder are scrapers in my estimation.
Eh, I hate arguing this point cause I find myself doing it a lot and never really getting anywhere interesting, but here goes. I believe copyright infringement is a subset of stealing. The common definition of stealing is taking something you don't own without permission. The fact that the owner still has a copy is immaterial. Acting like depriving the owner of their copy is a necessary component of stealing is just a remnant of a time where it was much harder to make perfect copy of valuable property. I know the copy vs. steal debate is touchy, but I also feel it is just a distraction from the larger issue.
In most copyright infringements, the infringers are either sharing what they legally bought and own or accepting something that was shared with them and sharing it themselves. There is never any "taking" involved, for any definition of the word.
Does Safari Reader allow storing articles as the re-formatted version rather than as an original bookmark?
I think the new-Readability style is contentious, wherein the content is stored re-formatted, whereas the old style was just basic JavaScript, no different from a downloaded GreaseMonkey userstyle.
To be fair, he's mostly instigating it himself with incendiary posts and tweets. I can't keep up with how many people he's told to f--- off in the past 48 hours.
Marco has a history of doing this. He's a developer, and an opinionated one at that (which is saying something for us guys.)
His actions here stink of foul play rather than any genuine worry. Maybe he has another side to this – but if he does, telling people to fuck off isn't the way around it.
> He's a developer, and an opinionated one at that
Too often this is a euphemism for "he's a jerk who's unwilling to consider anyone else's perspective or requirements".
You can kinda get away with that in software development if you're incredibly smart, but it's an awful attitude to bring to any other part of your life.
I can completely understand Marcos reaction here. 9to5/Seth seems to have been persistently badgering him. For example (Seth's words):
But in updating, I spelled his name wrong —”Marcus Armento”—as a laugh.
and..
I also linked to his Tweet above about spelling his name wrong and the funny replies it received.
and more...
I (also jokingly) called his app “Instascraper,” which publishers often
call the app because it removes ads from the websites it views. “Scraping”
is what publishers call bots and other robot services that strip content
from a site and republish it without any financial payment
That was in addition to the stories of Instapaper as a source of the leaked UDIDs and previous unflattering commentary.
Marco isn't completely blameless, however I completely understand why he was upset. Banning 9to5 was a step too far however he realized his mistake and owned up to it.
It's also worth noting that the popup is still a lie. Instapaper can save articles from 9to5Mac, but chooses not to. It's an important distinction for the user, who probably will think that it is something wrong with 9to5Mac.
9to5Mac, a notoriously unreliable rag, claims Marco is censoring them. I should believe them... why?
There are sites Instapaper does not scrape. For example, ArsTechnica does not allow scraping of full articles. Instapaper respects this whereas other scrapers ignore ArsTechnica and scrape anyway.
My point is, just because Instapaper refuses to scrape a site does not automatically mean censorship has occurred.
>9to5Mac, a notoriously unreliable rag, claims Marco is censoring them. I should believe them... why?
Marco more or less admits to as much in an email to Buzzfeed.
>What 9to5 has consistently written about me and Instapaper goes far beyond what's acceptable, is potentially libelous, and could cause potential legal issues. This has never happened to this degree from any other site, and would certainly never happen from a professionally run publication.
>I will not tolerate their behavior or the potential legal risks of interacting with 9to5 or Seth at all, so I removed the ability for Instapaper to interact with their site.
Now, there's room to debate whether this should be called censorship, but it's clear that 9to5Mac is blocked on InstaPaper as a direct result of what they've published on their site.
I read the link at the top of the article, which failed to explain it. Should I have realized that since the linked article is 9to5, it would of course have failed to present the basic facts underlying it's own article?
But what the heck is going on today? He questions The Verge's integrity (despite having nothing more than the absence of a iMac/HP Spectre One comment), tries to backpedal on it, then starts blocking sites he's feuding with?
Lame. He's normally the most level-headed of the popular Mac bloggers.