If you think any of his questions are relevant or insightful you are retarded,...
This is ad hominem. Call the argument "retarded", if you must, but not me. I'll cop to fat and lazy, but I haven't been called "retarded" since I was 9.
Google is not in this for the good of humankind, nor is Apple. They're a public company, looking to make a profit.
The two are not mutually exclusive goals. Google has a track record of doing good things with the tech community and people in general. Apple does not, in fact Apple is openly hostile to the community and even it's own customers.
Never said they were mutually exclusive. "Hostility to customers" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I assume all their customers, deprived of acceptable alternative products, are masochists, considering Apple's revenue growth over the past decade. Apple and Google have different revenue models and different ecosystems. I personally prefer Apple hardware and iOS over Android, but I take no position on which model is better, in some objective way. Preferences are, by nature, subjective. And I use lots of Google tools on a daily basis, so I think they're a great company, too. One can enjoy oysters and snails, as it were.
Dismissing the point of view because of the author is pure ad hominem.
Understanding the bias and mindset of the writer is not important? What colour is the sky in your world
Right, Gruber has been on the attack against Android from the word go. Does this not colour how objective his writings are on this subject?
Also nice try to get it marked as ad hominem, but in order for it to be ad hominem it would need to be untrue in this context, which it isn't. You'd have a point if I compared Gruber to Hitler but I didn't (because that would be something Hitler would do).
I live in Boulder, where the sky is normally a crystalline blue. Pretty much paradise.
There are multiple forms of ad hominem. You didn't use the "abuse" form of the fallacy, but you did use the "circumstantial" form. You can use that to reduce the weight of the other's argument, but it's not a proof. Even assuming bias, which I'm certainly willing to concede, you still have to address the substance, which you did not in your original comment.
Now you have. -o-