I despise the mainstream media in this country. They are getting too powerful and too corrupt. It's not about reporting who, what, when, where, and why but it's about greasing palms and influence peddling. Not only in the tech world but also in the reporting of what is supposedly news. I hope that Apple stays the course and continues to do what they've always done, make great products that people love. That means telling the tech publications to go pound sand and continuing to raise the bar for their competition. In other words, give Samsung something else to copy.
Not sure why any one is surprise by the least in what is happening in the media. I agree Apple is not doing enough, they need to be more aggressive in their advertising. The only thing I am not sure about is how well gorilla advertising works in the mainstream world and if the average consumer sees most of what Samsung is attempting to do. Maybe they spend lots of money and it is a waste.
However, I will tell you in the US the media will attack you if you do not advertise with them. Every media company out there pays their bills with advertisers money. If you spend lots of money with them, they will be very careful about what is written about you in their media outlets. Whether they do it purposefully, meaning the top management tell everyone who works for them to be careful about what they write and say about their top advertisers or it just happen naturally, it happens and you see it every day.
The most obvious example I can give for those who like cars and watch topgear UK and US, the UK version is great and the US version sucks. Why, it is simply, the Advertisers in the US make the US version suck. In the UK, the show is put on by the BBC, which is funded by tax $ no advertisers, so they saw what they feel about cars, they point our the good, the bad and ugly and it make it fun and interesting. In the US, they do not say any bad things about the new cars they are showing off, since the advertisers will get upset and pull the ad $ from the network who puts on the show.
So if Apple nothing but good press they need to spend money on every mainstream advertising outlet so they buy their negative silence.
How ironic, given your incorrect "... to the gills" assessment. You really undermine yourself on several levels.
My experience of debating, particularly with relation to technology, is that the moment that a person starts referring to typos, grammatical errors etc. is the moment that they've lost the argument and are, subconsciously or otherwise, attempting to deflect the attention away from the weakness of their argument.
In running a business the job of the marketing department and public relations department is to push the company's products as being the best a customer can buy and at least attempting to exercise damage control over negative rumors about the company.
Apple is being just plain foolish to simply let the competition screw them over like that in the news media. Apple knows exactly what will happen when their rivals smear the company with anti-Apple ad campaigns. It gives the company a bad reputation, it scares off potential investors and puts the share price in the toilet. Sure, Apple doesn't give a fig because the company as a whole is still raking it vast amounts of money but it definitely does hurt shareholder value and in the long run it could put plenty of doubt into at least some consumers' minds about buying Apple products. If someone tries to smear your family name, anyone with a lick of sense would fight back and at least refute the claims, although not necessary starting a smear campaign of your own.
There are certainly legions of individuals who go out of their way to disparage Apple in any way possible. I often wonder if these people are actually Americans and if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to ruin an American business. I'm simply looking at this from a shareholder's point of view and it really appears as though Apple is a target for all sorts of reasons that are overlooked when relating with other companies. I simply can't comprehend how Apple could possibly be harming customers more than the many dozens of Android manufacturers around the globe selling low quality products in the tens of millions.
While I agree that there are false perceptions of Apple that sometimes negatively impact the share price, how do you account for the times when the share price is high? It's really only the tech nerds who pay attention to this stuff. For almost everyone else, it's almost a "conservative" vs. "liberal" argument: you inherently either really like Apple or really hate Apple as a company and you either really like/hate Google as a company. (There probably aren't the same emotional ties to a company like Samsung, but their products are extremely successful in the U.S.) And whether you buy Android or Apple is based upon that emotion. No article about a security flaw or about market share is really going to change most people's minds either way.
I think Apple should continue to take the high road. If you refute the claims, then you're acknowledging your competitor and even though Apple did it in the "Mac vs. PC" campaign, if you ignore your competition (from a marketing standpoint), then you're making a stronger statement: that they're not in our class.
I'm an Apple stockholder and frankly, I couldn't care less what idiot media outlets write about Apple. An article about a security flaw, whether it's correct or incorrect, is not going to affect what an analyst writes about either company.
When Apple decided, or rather found itself in the position of having become a mass-market producer, it became one of the largest companies in the world by many measures. But it also lost something: you can't market yourself as selling an elite product when you sell it to everyone. If everyone bought a BMW, it wouldn't be considered as desirable. And by the iPhone no longer being an elite product in wealthy countries, it makes the competition much more viable.
The fact remains that competition makes a company stronger. It forces you to make better products. If Apple wants to respond to Samsung or Google/Android it should do so by improving its products, not by engaging in the same kind of unethical marketing the competition uses. Personally, I hope that Apple can come up with some kind of technological leap that would take the competition 2-3 years to copy. And if it can't, then it deserves to fail even though the competitor's phones wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Apple's iPhone.
If you create a product that everyone wants, then other companies are going to copy it. That's life. And the reality is that Apple fanboys who think there's absolutely nothing good about an Android (or even a Windows) phone are just as blind as those who are ignorant of the faults of Android.
Just as most of the masses only use their computers for web-surfing, email, some Netflix or Hulu, photo/video storage and maybe still some slight word processing and spreadsheet use, most of the masses use their phones for texting, Facebook, tweeting, photo/video capture and game playing plus a few miscellaneous apps (regardless of what you've loaded onto your phone). Oh, yeah and making and receiving the occasional phone call. And if that's all you're going to do, the reality is that an Android or Windows phone also works just fine.
My experience of debating, particularly with relation to technology, is that the moment that a person starts referring to typos, grammatical errors etc. is the moment that they've lost the argument and are, subconsciously or otherwise, attempting to deflect the attention away from the weakness of their argument.
HAHAHAHAHA, You are responding to someone who responded to someone who referred to a grammatical error ( supposedly). Can you actually comprehend anything?
You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung.
Why that needed explaining is beyond me.
Wow, you're arrogant. I'm claiming no such thing. How you derived that from what I wrote is beyond me. I made absolutely no comparison to articles about Samsung, either explicit or implicit. I simply pointed out that this article is about as biased as a piece of writing can possibly be. You should try reading what people write, without making up a whole bunch of stuff that they didn't write.
He didn't do that. He said he couldn't imagine more biased writing. And bias isn't proportional to payment anyway. Suggest you follow your own advice and read posts more carefully.
Why would Samsung pay people to be on AI? I am sure they have paid commentators on other tech sites- but here? Pointless.
I doubt they care about this site, but there have been a few drive-by posts from people who were incensed by any slight against Samsung, or by association, Korea. I believe that is not the known M.O. for their paid bloggers. The Taiwanese bloggers that Samsung paid to troll against HTC were concern trolling, spreading FUD about HTC.
A few drive-by posts on AI have fit this description, but the poster is quickly outed as a deliberate liar over some factual error about how the Apple product they're complaining about actually functions.
Wow, you're arrogant. I'm claiming no such thing. How you derived that from what I wrote is beyond me. I made absolutely no comparison to articles about Samsung, either explicit or implicit. I simply pointed out that this article is about as biased as a piece of writing can possibly be. You should try reading what people write, without making up a whole bunch of stuff that they didn't write.
Calm down troll you gonna get yourself a heart atta.... actually continue..
Originally Posted by iMemberCalm down troll you gonna get yourself a heart atta.... actually continue..
So because you disagree with me, you think I'm a troll, and you want me to have a heart attack? Wow. I'm glad you're able to keep this all in perspective.
By comparing said writing to the paid writing of other sites.
You have an amazing ability to read things into comments that were never said. I literally never mentioned Samsung, or whether or not people were paid, yet you keep saying I compared this article to articles written about Samsung. Unbelievable.
Here is what I actually said: "I can't imagine any more biased writing than this article we're commenting on. It's laughable." I never mentioned Samsung, did I? The comment I responded to never mentioned Samsung, did it? So how on earth can you say, "You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung." That makes absolutely no sense.
By comparing said writing to the paid writing of other sites.
You have an amazing ability to read things into comments that were never said. I literally never mentioned Samsung, or whether or not people were paid, yet you keep saying I compared this article to articles written about Samsung. Unbelievable.
Here is what I actually said: "I can't imagine any more biased writing than this article we're commenting on. It's laughable." I never mentioned Samsung, did I? The comment I responded to never mentioned Samsung, did it? So how on earth can you say, "You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung." That makes absolutely no sense.
When you said you thought this article was the most biased article, TS's point was that you completely missed the point about the editorial itself. It was about Samsung paying so-called neutral people to be biased against Apple. Apple is not paying DED to be biased. They don't have to. He made up his own mind, that's why its called an editorial and why he works here. This is what makes it funny. You come to an Apple, site, read an editorial which is biased towards Apple in it's defense (that Samsung is PAYING other sites which should not be biased, to be biased) and you have a meld down in shock of how biased THIS editorial is towards Apple on an Apple fan site. Yet you completely miss the more important point in that sites which are not supposed to be biased against Apple, are. That was the main point of this article, but you still don't seem to get it.
I don't think anyone in their right mind here would state that "AppleInsider is not biased towards Apple". Is this a shocker to you? It hopefully should not be to anyone able to reason. Most people who come here to criticize AI editorials for being biased towards Apple are either trolls who get a rise of out picking fights, paid shills of the competition, or masochists. Either you still don't get the main point of the article, or you fall into one of the 3 groups.
I guess this is what they mean by don't feed the trolls.. you will keep coming back for more and happily respond to what I wrote. oh well. Guess I better ignore you going forward. I'd happily hit the "Block Member" button. Done.
When you said you thought this article was the most biased article, TL's point was that you completely missed the point about the editorial itself. It was about Samsung paying people to be biased. Apple is not paying DED to be biases. He made up his own mind, that's why its called an editorial. . This is what makes it funny. You come to an Apple, site, read an editorial which is biased towards Apple in it's defense and you have a meld down in shock of how biased an editorial is. What were you expecting from an editorial at an Apple fan site? honestly.
Wow, you people are unbelievable. I have not had anything even remotely approaching a meltdown (or "meld down" as you say).
You ask what I'm expecting from an editorial at an Apple fan site - well it's the same as what I expect from any site I read: good writing and factual content, presented in an objective, unbiased way. What this writer fails to realize is that his points would be made even more effectively if his articles weren't dripping with bias. It's hard to take him seriously or believe what he says when he has such an obvious agenda. And beyond that, it's impossible for reasonable people to link to these articles on other sites and be taken seriously because there is such an obvious pro-Apple bias. It is completely unnecessary. He could write in a more objective tone and still make exactly the same points.
I happen to buy nearly every product Apple puts out and I have great respect for them as a company, but this type of biased writing is a huge turn-off to me.
I'm still baffled at how much you guys have read into my comments that I never said, and that you think I'm having a meltdown and am going to have a heart attack, etc., etc. when I've remained perfectly calm. You have a very skewed view of reality.
Comments
You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung.
Why that needed explaining is beyond me.
Ditto in England.
Not sure why any one is surprise by the least in what is happening in the media. I agree Apple is not doing enough, they need to be more aggressive in their advertising. The only thing I am not sure about is how well gorilla advertising works in the mainstream world and if the average consumer sees most of what Samsung is attempting to do. Maybe they spend lots of money and it is a waste.
However, I will tell you in the US the media will attack you if you do not advertise with them. Every media company out there pays their bills with advertisers money. If you spend lots of money with them, they will be very careful about what is written about you in their media outlets. Whether they do it purposefully, meaning the top management tell everyone who works for them to be careful about what they write and say about their top advertisers or it just happen naturally, it happens and you see it every day.
The most obvious example I can give for those who like cars and watch topgear UK and US, the UK version is great and the US version sucks. Why, it is simply, the Advertisers in the US make the US version suck. In the UK, the show is put on by the BBC, which is funded by tax $ no advertisers, so they saw what they feel about cars, they point our the good, the bad and ugly and it make it fun and interesting. In the US, they do not say any bad things about the new cars they are showing off, since the advertisers will get upset and pull the ad $ from the network who puts on the show.
So if Apple nothing but good press they need to spend money on every mainstream advertising outlet so they buy their negative silence.
My experience of debating, particularly with relation to technology, is that the moment that a person starts referring to typos, grammatical errors etc. is the moment that they've lost the argument and are, subconsciously or otherwise, attempting to deflect the attention away from the weakness of their argument.
Samsung fans defend murder! I didn;t think that they were even that low!
Samsung fans probably not..but the ones getting paid by Samsung definitely yes!
also Thanks!
Are you saying that murder can never be defended or that there has never been any murder in the history of the human race?
In running a business the job of the marketing department and public relations department is to push the company's products as being the best a customer can buy and at least attempting to exercise damage control over negative rumors about the company.
Apple is being just plain foolish to simply let the competition screw them over like that in the news media. Apple knows exactly what will happen when their rivals smear the company with anti-Apple ad campaigns. It gives the company a bad reputation, it scares off potential investors and puts the share price in the toilet. Sure, Apple doesn't give a fig because the company as a whole is still raking it vast amounts of money but it definitely does hurt shareholder value and in the long run it could put plenty of doubt into at least some consumers' minds about buying Apple products. If someone tries to smear your family name, anyone with a lick of sense would fight back and at least refute the claims, although not necessary starting a smear campaign of your own.
There are certainly legions of individuals who go out of their way to disparage Apple in any way possible. I often wonder if these people are actually Americans and if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to ruin an American business. I'm simply looking at this from a shareholder's point of view and it really appears as though Apple is a target for all sorts of reasons that are overlooked when relating with other companies. I simply can't comprehend how Apple could possibly be harming customers more than the many dozens of Android manufacturers around the globe selling low quality products in the tens of millions.
While I agree that there are false perceptions of Apple that sometimes negatively impact the share price, how do you account for the times when the share price is high? It's really only the tech nerds who pay attention to this stuff. For almost everyone else, it's almost a "conservative" vs. "liberal" argument: you inherently either really like Apple or really hate Apple as a company and you either really like/hate Google as a company. (There probably aren't the same emotional ties to a company like Samsung, but their products are extremely successful in the U.S.) And whether you buy Android or Apple is based upon that emotion. No article about a security flaw or about market share is really going to change most people's minds either way.
I think Apple should continue to take the high road. If you refute the claims, then you're acknowledging your competitor and even though Apple did it in the "Mac vs. PC" campaign, if you ignore your competition (from a marketing standpoint), then you're making a stronger statement: that they're not in our class.
I'm an Apple stockholder and frankly, I couldn't care less what idiot media outlets write about Apple. An article about a security flaw, whether it's correct or incorrect, is not going to affect what an analyst writes about either company.
When Apple decided, or rather found itself in the position of having become a mass-market producer, it became one of the largest companies in the world by many measures. But it also lost something: you can't market yourself as selling an elite product when you sell it to everyone. If everyone bought a BMW, it wouldn't be considered as desirable. And by the iPhone no longer being an elite product in wealthy countries, it makes the competition much more viable.
The fact remains that competition makes a company stronger. It forces you to make better products. If Apple wants to respond to Samsung or Google/Android it should do so by improving its products, not by engaging in the same kind of unethical marketing the competition uses. Personally, I hope that Apple can come up with some kind of technological leap that would take the competition 2-3 years to copy. And if it can't, then it deserves to fail even though the competitor's phones wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Apple's iPhone.
If you create a product that everyone wants, then other companies are going to copy it. That's life. And the reality is that Apple fanboys who think there's absolutely nothing good about an Android (or even a Windows) phone are just as blind as those who are ignorant of the faults of Android.
Just as most of the masses only use their computers for web-surfing, email, some Netflix or Hulu, photo/video storage and maybe still some slight word processing and spreadsheet use, most of the masses use their phones for texting, Facebook, tweeting, photo/video capture and game playing plus a few miscellaneous apps (regardless of what you've loaded onto your phone). Oh, yeah and making and receiving the occasional phone call. And if that's all you're going to do, the reality is that an Android or Windows phone also works just fine.
Lol, he was obviously referring to the accusations against Samsung.
HAHAHAHAHA, You are responding to someone who responded to someone who referred to a grammatical error ( supposedly). Can you actually comprehend anything?
You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung.
Why that needed explaining is beyond me.
Wow, you're arrogant. I'm claiming no such thing. How you derived that from what I wrote is beyond me. I made absolutely no comparison to articles about Samsung, either explicit or implicit. I simply pointed out that this article is about as biased as a piece of writing can possibly be. You should try reading what people write, without making up a whole bunch of stuff that they didn't write.
Yeah… you were.
By comparing said writing to the paid writing of other sites.
I doubt they care about this site, but there have been a few drive-by posts from people who were incensed by any slight against Samsung, or by association, Korea. I believe that is not the known M.O. for their paid bloggers. The Taiwanese bloggers that Samsung paid to troll against HTC were concern trolling, spreading FUD about HTC.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/24/apple-samsung-astroturf-shill/
A few drive-by posts on AI have fit this description, but the poster is quickly outed as a deliberate liar over some factual error about how the Apple product they're complaining about actually functions.
Wow, you're arrogant. I'm claiming no such thing. How you derived that from what I wrote is beyond me. I made absolutely no comparison to articles about Samsung, either explicit or implicit. I simply pointed out that this article is about as biased as a piece of writing can possibly be. You should try reading what people write, without making up a whole bunch of stuff that they didn't write.
So because you disagree with me, you think I'm a troll, and you want me to have a heart attack? Wow. I'm glad you're able to keep this all in perspective.
Yeah… you were.
By comparing said writing to the paid writing of other sites.
You have an amazing ability to read things into comments that were never said. I literally never mentioned Samsung, or whether or not people were paid, yet you keep saying I compared this article to articles written about Samsung. Unbelievable.
Here is what I actually said: "I can't imagine any more biased writing than this article we're commenting on. It's laughable." I never mentioned Samsung, did I? The comment I responded to never mentioned Samsung, did it? So how on earth can you say, "You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung." That makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah… you were.
By comparing said writing to the paid writing of other sites.
You have an amazing ability to read things into comments that were never said. I literally never mentioned Samsung, or whether or not people were paid, yet you keep saying I compared this article to articles written about Samsung. Unbelievable.
Here is what I actually said: "I can't imagine any more biased writing than this article we're commenting on. It's laughable." I never mentioned Samsung, did I? The comment I responded to never mentioned Samsung, did it? So how on earth can you say, "You’re claiming that a heavily pro-Apple article not paid for by Apple is the same as a heavily pro-Samsung article paid for by Samsung." That makes absolutely no sense.
When you said you thought this article was the most biased article, TS's point was that you completely missed the point about the editorial itself. It was about Samsung paying so-called neutral people to be biased against Apple. Apple is not paying DED to be biased. They don't have to. He made up his own mind, that's why its called an editorial and why he works here. This is what makes it funny. You come to an Apple, site, read an editorial which is biased towards Apple in it's defense (that Samsung is PAYING other sites which should not be biased, to be biased) and you have a meld down in shock of how biased THIS editorial is towards Apple on an Apple fan site. Yet you completely miss the more important point in that sites which are not supposed to be biased against Apple, are. That was the main point of this article, but you still don't seem to get it.
I don't think anyone in their right mind here would state that "AppleInsider is not biased towards Apple". Is this a shocker to you? It hopefully should not be to anyone able to reason. Most people who come here to criticize AI editorials for being biased towards Apple are either trolls who get a rise of out picking fights, paid shills of the competition, or masochists. Either you still don't get the main point of the article, or you fall into one of the 3 groups.
I guess this is what they mean by don't feed the trolls.. you will keep coming back for more and happily respond to what I wrote. oh well. Guess I better ignore you going forward. I'd happily hit the "Block Member" button. Done.
When you said you thought this article was the most biased article, TL's point was that you completely missed the point about the editorial itself. It was about Samsung paying people to be biased. Apple is not paying DED to be biases. He made up his own mind, that's why its called an editorial. . This is what makes it funny. You come to an Apple, site, read an editorial which is biased towards Apple in it's defense and you have a meld down in shock of how biased an editorial is. What were you expecting from an editorial at an Apple fan site? honestly.
Wow, you people are unbelievable. I have not had anything even remotely approaching a meltdown (or "meld down" as you say).
You ask what I'm expecting from an editorial at an Apple fan site - well it's the same as what I expect from any site I read: good writing and factual content, presented in an objective, unbiased way. What this writer fails to realize is that his points would be made even more effectively if his articles weren't dripping with bias. It's hard to take him seriously or believe what he says when he has such an obvious agenda. And beyond that, it's impossible for reasonable people to link to these articles on other sites and be taken seriously because there is such an obvious pro-Apple bias. It is completely unnecessary. He could write in a more objective tone and still make exactly the same points.
I happen to buy nearly every product Apple puts out and I have great respect for them as a company, but this type of biased writing is a huge turn-off to me.
I'm still baffled at how much you guys have read into my comments that I never said, and that you think I'm having a meltdown and am going to have a heart attack, etc., etc. when I've remained perfectly calm. You have a very skewed view of reality.