Life on the mobile edge: Revenge of the fanboys

One of the joys of being a pundit is stimulating readers. But sometimes, that stimulation stirs up a hornet’s nest, especially among the many fanboys whose attachment to specific technologies crosses into unnaturally personal territory. Often, that takes the form of online trash talk.

I do get the joy and allegiance one can form with technology, whether it’s cars or computers. That enthusiasm and emotional investment is part of what makes a geek a geek, and if you’re going to spend your workdays with technology, you really should enjoy it. But at the end of the day, it’s just inanimate technology. As technology changes, you need to be able to adapt your passions and loyalties as the technology actually merits.

Not everyone shares that point of view, as the often extreme comments on this blog demonstrate.

Corrections that, well, aren’t correct Many comments are thoughtful even when passionate, bringing up an alternative viewpoint or framework for judging a particular technology. A great example is the discussion thread for a post I did on the openness of Android. I love those comments the most, as there is no one-size-fits-all way to evaluate technology fit and utility, and these different points of view truly enrich the discussion for all readers.

I also appreciate when people correct factual errors in my writing. I try to be correct, but sometimes I err. I may be out of date in my knowledge, especially for technologies that vendors provide limited access to. I use iOS and Android devices every day, and have ready access to Chrome OS devices, a WebOS-based HP TouchPad tablet, and a BlackBerry OS-6 based Torch smartphone, but not to Windows Phone 7, Bada, or BlackBerry 7 smartphones or BlackBerry PlayBook tablets. All the mobile vendors are terrible about responding to inquiries, and even fewer actually try to answer the question, instead referring me to vapid blog posts or telling me they’ll look into it, then disappearing. I do Web research to explore an issue if I don’t have hands-on access, but that’s hit-or-miss. So do let me know of any errors, as I will correct them.

What I don’t appreciate are people who “correct” things that are not incorrect. Often, the person making the correction has no idea what he (it’s almost always a he) is talking about. He just wants something to attack with. A recent example comes from my post “A year with the iPad: How it’s changed me.” In it, “FrankLeeSpeakin” wrote, “How it’s changed me? … Baaad English! Well, that is what happens when one uses an iPad for too long.”

Ah, but anyone with knowledge of basic English knows that “it’s” is a legitimate contraction of not only “it is” but “it has.” There is no grammatical error. But I bet “FrankLeeSpeakin” felt better after posting that comment and has no idea he just made himself look illiterate.

Another example is from “girthdiggler” in my post reciting all the gaps in Windows Phone 7 that Microsoft won’t say if the forthcoming “Mango” release corrects: “He dogged out IE9 as being least complaint, yet didn’t mention it has THE BEST HTML5 performance out there. After all, the Web is headed to HTML5. So it’s very important to have a browser with good HTML5 performance.”

Yes, it is important to have the best HTML5 performance. Too bad that IE9 has by far the least level of HTML5 capability of any mobile browser. Want proof? Go to HTML5Test.com’s browser comparison tests, which shows that IE9 supports just half of the HTML5 functions that every other modern browser does. I wouldn’t call that “the best performance.”

Then there’s the folks who beat their chests (figuratively, I hope) in comments, proclaiming the story is full of errors — without citing any alleged errors. Here’s a recent classic (in its entirety) from “Jack11001100”: “Get your facts right! Super crap and junk written here. Don’t get misled by this dumb writer.”

These are fanboys who simply disagree but for some reason can’t just say that. Instead, they have to try to “take me down” by making vague yet dire “error” claims. If I made a mistake, tell me what it is. If you disagree, why not say so? After all, you’re entitled to have your own point of view.

A variation of that is to pick one error (often a figure of speech taken out of context by the commenter) and use that to “disprove” everything I have ever written and will ever write. For example, part of a comment from “Im Spartacus”: “This guy just used ‘Droid’ to describe an Android phone, ergo his entire body of work is invalid.”

It’s true! Droid is a brand name for Motorola’s Android smartphones. I have used it sometimes as a surrogate for Android in a list of devices, though I more commonly say “Androids” — which has its own problem, not being a noun but an adjective. I guess the conflict is so great that I should simply stop writing about Android devices entirely. Yeah, like that’ll happen.

Finally, there are the folks who decry that I have an opinion, complaining that I’m not objective (code for “I don’t agree with them”). Like “jamal_indo,” for example: “Stupid article, waste my time. Gruman still a fanboy and never grown up. Just be an objective journalist for once.” Umm, it’s a blog, which is the Web’s version of an opinion column. Of course it has an opinion. That’s the point. You’ll get objective, fair journalism in my news stories.

Fanboys gone wild It’s the fanboy comments I notice the most, especially from those who savage me personally, despite the fact they don’t know me. As an example, here’s what “Marc Miller” had to say: “I’m really, REALLY sorry I clicked on a link to this review, because now I get counted as one of this idiot’s readers. Are you capable of saying anything intelligent? I don’t own a single HP device, and even I was insulted by your obvious tone and bias. Note to self: Spend the rest of the day blasting this joke of a tech ‘writer’ on every forum you can find.” I’m sure they wouldn’t say in person what they say on the Web, but that’s always been an issue with the Web: People will happily trash you under the cover of anonymity (or at least an alias).

That’s OK — I can take it! After all, I hardly hold my punches when I criticize something.

One common theme is to call me a fanboy, especially in regards to Apple products. Typical comments along these lines include:

• From “Philip Gould”: “I think his post is primarily designed as a troll to inflame people by a Apple fan boy who really does not like Microsoft or its products”
• From “DatDarkOne”: “This time without a doubt, you have managed to show that you have no credibility. That you actually posted an article without doing proper research is amazing. I’ve tried to give you the benefit of a doubt with the whole Apple bias thing. But to basically lie about your platform’s opponent, that is just too low.”
• From “Dajunga”: “Galen, for a while you were slowly but surely becoming a joke. Now you’re pretty much all the way there. Have you taken a look at the comments on your work? No, it’s not a coincidence. You’ve lost all credibility.”
• From “Strykr”: “You, sir, are an idiot. You write this ‘review’ as though the update was supposed to fix every little problem. Never was that supposed to be the case. Do you work for Apple?”
• From “Steve__S” as a backhanded compliment: “I’m shocked … a well reasoned and fairly accurate overview of the tablet market by Galen Gruman. Nicely done. Much better than his usual ‘work.'”

Another class of comment cites my stint at Macworld as evidence that I am biased against all things not Apple. Ironically, I was hired at Macworld in 1991 explicitly because I was not a fanboy and thus could help connect the Mac aficionados to the rest of the world. I was viewed with some suspicion when I joined; in fact, David Pogue, the current New York Times technology columnist and then a Macworld columnist, would refer to me as “Mr. DOS Head.” People took great pity on me because I did not understand SCSI.

Nonetheless, I rose to become executive editor in 1994, leaving in 1998 (around the time Steve Jobs came back) after losing faith in Apple’s ability to save the Mac. Never mind where else I’ve worked since I began my career in 1984: a CBS newsfeed project called ExtraVision, IEEE Software, Computerworld, Upside, Third Age, M-Business, and of course InfoWorld. And I’ve written for PC World, CIO magazine, and many others.

As any reader knows, my favorite of the mobile technology bunch is Apple’s iOS, which I believe has revolutionized in a very good way the boring personal computer industry. Anyone who knows my history with Apple understands that it’s been a strained one, so my “love” for Apple is actually a “love” for (most of) its Mac and iOS products. That “love” is conditional: I’ve had major issues with Apple’s products and technology in the late 1990s, and if Apple lost its edge, I’d shift my affections. And if other companies come up with great technology, I have enough “love” to go around. It’s not monogamy, lifetime or even serial!

An unpleasant reality is out there for many readers: The only mobile platforms doing well are Apple’s and Google’s, and both companies seem to anger certain segments of the technology community in a very visceral way, especially Apple. When I criticize Windows Phone 7, WebOS, Symbian, MeeGo, or BlackBerry, there’s a hue and cry about bias.

But let’s look at the facts: Windows Phone 7’s first version was so inadequate that its sales don’t even show up in most surveys; it’s a percent or two at best. HP killed WebOS a year after buying it and five weeks after releasing its first real product using it — that is, one not already developed by Palm. Nokia has all but killed Symbian and dropped MeeGo like a hot potato. BlackBerry sales continue to decline significantly, as RIM continues to deliver less than it has promised. Shooting the messenger won’t change the facts on the ground.

Oddly, no one called me a Microsoft fanboy this week when I suggested Windows 8 could displace Apple’s dominance in the tablet market, if Microsoft actually delivers on the promises made at its Build conference. Seems like a double standard may be in effect!

Then there are those who claim I have a financial bias. Some assert that I own stock in Apple. I wish I did, given how much it has appreciated in the last decade, but the truth is I own no stocks in any company. And I would not own stocks in technology companies because of the job I have.

A pitifully funny claim related to alleged financial bias is one that pops up periodically from commenters such as “LA Tablet”: “What he doesn’t disclose here, and on any of his other recent articles bashing non-Apple products and technologies, is that he makes a living evangelizing Apple products as well as writing books on Apple products (he is the author of ‘Mac OS X Lion Bible’ and ‘Exploring iPad 2 for Dummies’).”

I make nowhere close to a living on these books, and the fact that I wrote them is both in my InfoWorld bio linked from every blog post and in the author byline that appears in every review and feaure I write — and I’m the one who made sure these facts were disclosed to readers. Their publisher asked me to work on these books because of my experience, and these books are completely independent from Apple, as are the 20 other books I have written on other technology subjects. I’d be equally happy to write Android versions of these books; I’ve even proposed it, but the publisher thought the market was too small.

OK, I had to address the claims of material bias and conflict of interest. They’re the kind of poison the Web is unfortunately quite amenable to spreading. But the disagreements, the passions, the different choices and criteria so many readers have — I love it. Keep it coming! You know I will.

This article, “Life on the mobile edge: Revenge of the fanboys,” was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Galen Gruman’s Mobile Edge blog and follow the latest developments in mobile technology at InfoWorld.com. Follow Galen’s mobile musings on Twitter at MobileGalen. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.