John Gruber accepts money from MacHeist, despite past criticism

Apple pundit flip-flops for money, destroying credibility

Daring fireballer John Gruber, the writer of “Daring Fireball,” an Apple-centric blog, is critical of a discount software bundle called MacHeist in which independent Mac developers choose to participate. His argument in a nutshell, and I stress the word nut, is something to the effect of the developers not enjoying the profit from selling their overpriced wares at the deserved levels Gruber thinks they should, as if the company in charge of the software bundle is somehow cheating these hardworking blue collar workers out of money in a deal THEY CHOSE TO ACCEPT. He does this despite not being a software developer involved in the affair. Gruber champions for adult, individual professionals who neither asked him nor need it, in a cause that does not exist.

Gruber champions for adult, individual professionals who neither asked him nor need it, in a cause that does not exist."

Anyway, this criticism doesn’t pose a conflict of interest or ethics, apparently, because he is happy to accept the company’s money to support himself in exchange for his endorsement:

Excerpt from “Daring Fireball”

My thanks to this week’s RSS feed sponsor, MacHeist. (That’s right, MacHeist. Surprising, perhaps, given my critical [sic 1.1.He keeps using this adjective as a noun in two different posts.] of their bundle last year — more on that in a bit.) ¶ This year’s MacHeist II bundle contains another batch of great software for the crazy price of just $49. Snapz Pro X alone normally retails for more than that, and CSSEdit, although it normally sells for $30, is so good that it could easily sell for $50 or more all by itself.

“The crazy price” betrays his professionalism in whatever agreement he has with the MacHeist people. Reading between the lines reveals his seething contempt. In fact, I will go as far to say that he is laying the groundwork for whatever new baseless criticism he’s coming up with. As we learn, why, Snapz Pro X alone is more than the total sale price, and CSSEdit is, by itself, easily worth that crazy, insane low price. Horsegums Gruber’s original apeshit rant concluded that the developers were just not treated fairly, like the little helpless bitches they are. Trying to argue against the obvious, that the developers entered into the agreement as free-thinking individuals, Gruber states that this fact isn’t “in dispute.”

What’s in dispute is whether the money is being distributed equitably. Just because someone is satisfied with a bad deal doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad deal. From “Daring Fireball: The Iniquities of the Selfish”

Umm, no, that isn’t true. A transaction where all participants involved are happy is in fact the very definition of a good deal.

This just in

As I write this, a new post tries to justify his endorsement:

If I gave an app a bad review for its UI, I’d still accept a sponsorship from the developer. It wouldn’t change my opinion or what I’d write about it in the future, but it’d still be a legitimate sponsorship.

This following paragraph is a doozy:

And in the particular case of MacHeist, I completely stand behind everything I wrote last year. Nor will their sponsorship affect what I will, or will not, write about them this year.

O’ the irony! The irony! The very existence of this paragraph contradicts what it says! His endorsement of the product has affected what he will write about them, as is evident by this new post!

Why it is an endorsement, and not merely “sponsorship”

There is a fundamental difference in the two ideas at work here, and that is the fact that John Gruber put pen to paper to support the company MacHeist. It isn’t like his image advertisement that appears in the gutter of his blog where there is a clear separation of content. No. Mr. Gruber typed, actually sat down to write advertising copy, to aid in this company’s success by writing that post, thereby giving explicit endorsement, and implicitly giving it by accepting their money. The bottom line is that his successful, popular blog will aid in the success of the company that pays for his “on air” endorsement, no matter how openly written. His isn’t a magazine that has two separate departments comprising of editorial and advertising, where internal policies keep such conflicts of interest from existing. He is a single human being with one consciousness, and now it is tainted. He has now lost credibility.

Labels: Blogosphere