Gene, please admit your mistakes, apologize, learn from your errors to improve the accuracy of your reporting or simply go away. You are adding to the noise that diminishes the stock value of a quality company. I shall recall the link to this article and continue to publish this comment when I feel it is appropriate.
Yes, he seems to have real sources. And the WSJ and NYT seem to get it right when they predict a day or two out from an event: once again, real sources (I suspect).
If you are an analyst you should shame the bad ones.
If not, you should expose their tricks.
It is a civic behaviour.
doxxic wrote: »
Daniel, you wrote a big, rather triumphant article about what it meant that Samsung almost certainly did not make the A7. I'd like to hear your thoughts about the fact that they actually do.
applesincider wrote: »
This is not journalism; this is tabloid trash.
This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.
Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you try to draw conclusions from too little data, you will screw up. And Apple is very secretive. All you can do with Apple is watch the long terms trends, and predict in broad strokes not specifics (and based on those you would have to be very positive).
These analysts are doing what they always do: making educated guesses. Anyone who treats their advice as fact should not be allowed to make their own investment decisions.
I would really like to know who is issuing better or more accurate information? No one? Anyone? Bueller?
Can DED do better?
swissmac2 wrote: »
Analysts should publish who pays them. Samesung is well known for funding guerilla marketing tactics.
macmanfelix wrote: »
He makes money doing this—more money than most of us—even those of us with honest, good-paying, beneficial jobs. He and his ilk are a lot like Miley Cyrus and her ilk: the only thing remarkable about them is that anyone cares. Unfortunately, enough people listen/watch/whatever to make them prodigious amounts of money. It’s marketing without substance i.e., they have no desirable product for sale (unlike teachers; real musicians; Apple Inc. etc.); but it works anyway.
There's an interesting article ("Apple Can't Win") by Forbes discussing the same thing as DED's piece.
"It will be fair to judge anything less than 170 million iPhones over these next 4 quarters as an utter failure of Apple’s strategy."
"Tim Cook and Apple management don’t talk sales goals, but I imagine somewhere in Cupertino they’re looking at a figure that many a Hollywood blockbuster shoots for these days — 200 million."
gtr wrote: »
Failed again, huh?
Back to university for Mr Munster...
<img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="32249" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/32249/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 500px; height: 280px">
Thank you for writing this. I am so sick of these so called analysts that try to manipulate the news to benefit their pocketbooks. They are all fools and you can add Jim Kramer into that group.
He was only off by 5 million. Twice. Let's cut him some slack. I mean he and his analyst friends did do potential stock buyers a big favor by causing Apple's stock to drop, and quite significantly at that.