I don't think he meant truth in terms of marketing (although I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where Apple has outright lied in their ads, but maybe in a release) but truth as design fundamental.
Based on the context of that sentence I would say Gruber meant it more in the way of "truth to materials" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_to_materials) in which Apple's design is reductive and efficient to the user. No ornament beyond the materials that construct the product.
I see you are trying to draw attention away from the fact that Apple has on repeated occations shown to be dishonest, disengenious and outright misrepresenting competitors by presenting information in ways they knew to be wrong.
I see you do that and I wonder why on earth anyone would be so loyal to a corporation that they would be willing to drag their own credibility down to defend the credibility of a corporation which in they have no vested interest. It baffles me and makes no sense.
That aside, let's get back to what you said:
I don't think he meant truth in terms of marketing ...snip... but truth as design fundamental.
Can you elaborate on what you think this is supposed to mean, apart from being a divertion away from the fact that Apple, more than any other company currently out there, manipulates and lies to their audience and to sustain their image as "different"?
I'm not loyal to Apple. I do like Gruber's writing though, so I was defending his use of the word 'truth'. I said what I thought it meant, including a related link to the concept on Wikipedia.
What are some examples in which Apple misrepresents customers?
Comments
"The company is a fractal design. Simplicity, elegance, beauty, cleverness, humility. Directness. Truth."
lolwut?
I have deep respect for some of Apple's design leadership, but calling the company humble is pure fanboyism.
The "truth" part is also questionable. Apple's product announcements are usually gushing with superlatives, sometimes at the expense of accuracy:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/03/steve-jobs-reality-di...
I don't think he meant truth in terms of marketing (although I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where Apple has outright lied in their ads, but maybe in a release) but truth as design fundamental.
Based on the context of that sentence I would say Gruber meant it more in the way of "truth to materials" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_to_materials) in which Apple's design is reductive and efficient to the user. No ornament beyond the materials that construct the product.
I see you are trying to draw attention away from the fact that Apple has on repeated occations shown to be dishonest, disengenious and outright misrepresenting competitors by presenting information in ways they knew to be wrong.
I see you do that and I wonder why on earth anyone would be so loyal to a corporation that they would be willing to drag their own credibility down to defend the credibility of a corporation which in they have no vested interest. It baffles me and makes no sense.
That aside, let's get back to what you said:
I don't think he meant truth in terms of marketing ...snip... but truth as design fundamental.
Can you elaborate on what you think this is supposed to mean, apart from being a divertion away from the fact that Apple, more than any other company currently out there, manipulates and lies to their audience and to sustain their image as "different"?
I'm not loyal to Apple. I do like Gruber's writing though, so I was defending his use of the word 'truth'. I said what I thought it meant, including a related link to the concept on Wikipedia.
What are some examples in which Apple misrepresents customers?