I'm neither an Apple fanboy nor a hater. I have an iPhone5, but I use a Windows 7 desktop PC. (I am, however, an Apple Maps hater after using it for a few days.)
The annoying thing about articles like this is that it's basically the professional journalist's version of trolling... making an outrageous statement in order to garner attention/clicks. He can come in and shit all over Apple, and suffer no consequences if he's wrong.
I would be infinitely more interested in his opinion if he actually shorted the stock and put his money where his mouth is, journalistic rules against trading aside.
While the headline is inflammatory, the article itself is not so bad. He makes some valid observation about how the market and Apple's position in it have changed, making it harder for them to be the new and innovative player as they have more and more to lose by taking risky moves.
>While the headline is inflammatory, the article itself is not so bad. He makes some valid observation about how the market and Apple's position in it have changed, making it harder for them to be the new and innovative player as they have more and more to lose by taking risky moves.
They have made the EXACT same arguments since after the iPod.
The Zune was to kill it, cheap alternatives were going to kill it. Didn't happen.
Then they put out the iPhone.
It was doomed, they said at first, then Android was going to kill it, then the Antennagate, then the 4S was not impressive enough, etc.
Then the iPad came out, and at first it was "just a large iPhone" and it will fail, then it was gonna be killed by Windows tablets, then by Android tablets, then the Kindle Fire.
They never stop in the same bloody vein. How about instead of BS predictions they do some REPORTING?
I.e tell how Apple does based on numbers, and report it when they --inevitable at some point-- start losing out? Why do they feel they have to play prophets?
Your argument is spurious at best. It's akin to saying the "big one" didn't hit San Francisco in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, so therefore it won't hit in what's remaining of 2012.
Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.
No, it's more akin to somebody arguing that the "big one" will hit in what's remaining of 2012, and somebody else responding to that argument by noting that the same conditions used in the argument prevailed in past years when the "big one" did not hit.
In other words, it's not an argument that this can't happen, merely an argument that the original argument is baseless.
It'like responding to some guy saying that it will hit "in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011", to "shut up, stop playing the Oracle, since you suck at it, and just inform us WHEN it hits".
The part of the iPhone 5 presentation that made me think was when they emphasised how big headphone manufacturer they are. I remember similar boasting from Nokia (the biggest camera manufacturer at the time) around 2008. We know what happened next...
Numbers can be manipulated as easily as opinions. Note the recurring statistic in which Apple's (continuously dropping) market share is compared to that of 15 handset manufacturers who run Android as though that is a reasonable comparison.
>Numbers can be manipulated as easily as opinions.
Not Quarterly results and SEC fillings.
>Note the recurring statistic in which Apple's (continuously dropping) market share is compared to that of 15 handset manufacturers who run Android as though that is a reasonable comparison.
"Continuously dropping"? They sell more units with each new device up to now (and the 5's preorders see that trend continuing). So, if their "market share" also drops, then that just means the market is expanding at a faster rate.
>Note the recurring statistic in which Apple's (continuously dropping) market share is compared to that of 15 handset manufacturers who run Android as though that is a reasonable comparison.
What you're saying is true and yet at some level the current iPod/iPhone/iPad basically are all the same thing just with or without a cellular radio and/or with a different sized screen. Other than making AppleTV more than a "hobby", it is difficult to see what other "big" permutations of this theme are available for Apple to exploit (this would have been true with or without Jobs).
Meanwhile we have tablet/laptop hybrids, which Microsoft has been taking the lead on (facing a similar reaction to the early iPod, which history may or may not prove to be similarly ill-directed) and then virtually-deviceless-devices, which Google has been pushing into with their Glass project.
You can't count Apple out because of its infamous development secrecy (who knows what they might do next?), but visibly a lot of the cool potential Next Big Things in the gadget/device space seem to be forming at non-Apple companies.
Good point, I should have mentioned Asus. I own and love an original Transformer (TF101), but I still believe it is Microsoft who is likely to push the concept into the mainstream.
Having control of the OS gives Microsoft a lot of power Asus doesn't have with their Android hybrids. Also, as cool as the Transformer is, it still doesn't feel quite like a true hybrid device because ultimately you're still running mostly software that was designed with touch-only in mind, at least assuming you're using it to run Android and haven't installed Ubuntu/ARM or something.
One thing he correctly points out is how much better Apple Maps would have been if Mr. Jobs were around. Apple Maps is too big of a blunder for Apple to contain its criticism.
How, exactly, would Jobs have made it better? Would he have somehow made the Maps team overcome the inherently intractable obstacles they faced given their position? Would he have jumped in and single-handedly crafted excellent data? Would he have extended the use of Google Maps, despite the indications that this transition was forced on Apple?
I keep seeing people say this, but I never hear anyone say exactly what he would have done to make it happen. People basically treat Jobs as magical fairy pixie dust that could be sprinkled on a project to make it awesome. As if Jobs never oversaw the production of anything bad.
If every journalist/blogger who has been bearish on Apple (versus trolling for pagehits) actually shorted the stock, there would be no naysayers at this point :)
I agree - the article was basically a cheap trolling shot at Apple. It ignored a lot of history (remember the initial release of OS X?) and overplayed the map problems. FWIW, iOS6 Maps work great for me, and I live on a private rural road. Apple has always incrementally improved its products, and Maps will be no exception.
Apple Maps works great for me because in terms of quality of data it matches Google. Remember that there are lots of cities in this world and not all of them will be missing lots of data.
So it /matches/ the quality of Google's data in select few countries? Does it ever exceed Google's quality? Because it sure is worse than Google's quality in most other countries. Pardon me for expressing my disappointment.
Well, at least it is in the "Opinion" section, and not filed under "News". I think the literature category is similar to say Paul Graham's essays. Which is not to say that the quality is comparable though.
Now that (shorting the stock) from a journalist covering the subject. Or, for that matter, investing in stock of a company that you cover as a journalist is just about the worst journalistic blunder you can pull off.
The annoying thing about articles like this is that it's basically the professional journalist's version of trolling... making an outrageous statement in order to garner attention/clicks. He can come in and shit all over Apple, and suffer no consequences if he's wrong.
I would be infinitely more interested in his opinion if he actually shorted the stock and put his money where his mouth is, journalistic rules against trading aside.