Mike Daisey is first and foremost an opportunistic storyteller with a nose for buzz worthy tech screed, whether on stage or on the page.
That's all you need to know.
I find it intriguing that after having crashed his reputation and career with the Steve Jobs hit piece, he has dusted himself off and gone back on the Apple attack, with zero chance of credibility*. For a publisher with no scruples or perhaps an ax to grind, it's a no-brainer/clickbait/red meat kind of move. The anti-Apple crowd is legion and the flamewars that ensue are money in the bank.
* Akin to Carly Fiorina touting her business prowess.
Another trash worthless piece with no facts to back it up. Apple just proved themselves yet again with there last record quarter which is one out of 10 years worth of record quarters I might add. This is not the early 1990's folks. Apple was still bigger than McDonalds back in those days. Now there bigger than Exon and everyone else. Apple is not going away now or later or ever. Mike Daisy is a troll that will write anything to get money.
One has to wonder, though, how many angry people here defending Apple were cheering The Guardian on when they ran stories about super thief Edward Snowden.
i think youd find most of the readers here recognize Snowden for the hero he is by exposing the lying, law-breaking activities conducted by the US federal government against its own people.
b9bot says: "Mike Daisy is a troll that will write anything to get money." Sort-of. I don't think he would write a pro-Apple piece to make money. I think most of these alleged click-trolls really do have hatred of Apple at their core. Why? Because everyone uses computers these days, and people who have heavy-vested, multi-year can-do on one platform feel very threatened when the other platform starts winning. Apple's pulling off maybe the biggest upset in corporate/tech history, and you can expect a lot of people to be unhappy about that.
total nonsense. this man and Bernie Sanders arent linked in any way, and shame on you for trying to suggest they are.
its not Sanders' fault the GOP presidential candidates are a total shit show and are completely un-electable. their debates were so bad (again) now theyre hating on their own party who organized the events!
It is the Democrats who have a total shit show and they're completely un-electable. Hillary? She belongs in prison. So many people do not like her and they don't want another Clinton anywhere near the WH. Sanders? Some old white, wacky socialist? Not a chance son. There's nobody else of relevance that the Democrats have.
And if you can't admit that the last CNBC debate was a total sham and a set up by the overly partisan extremist lying moderators and that crappy channel, then you are probably one of the extremists.
As much time as you spent slandering him, that opinion piece was really friggin' tame man. He basically copied numbers from USA Today, said the same stuff any skeptic says when analyzing Apple and called it a day.
oops -- somebody doesnt know the meaning of the word "slander". hint: it's not slander if it's true. rule #1.
i think youd find most of the readers here recognize Snowden for the hero he is by exposing the lying, law-breaking activities conducted by the US federal government against its own people.
I think that he should be put in front of a firing squad and shot, after being found guilty of course.
If he continues to hide, then I think that the US should send out a hit team and just wack him, regardless of where he is located in the world.
Sanders voter? WTF are you talking about? More like Trump voter.
Bernie Sanders is THE ONLY PERSON running who wants to overturn Citizen's United and get the money out of Washington.
Sanders is also the only candidate who wants to end the domestic spying on lawful Americans. and voted against the Patriot Act, twice. how crazy is that?? the republicans are in bed w/ banking and spying, and Clinton (Sanders' only competition) is in bed with banking and spying.
Don't be ignorant. The Guardian is well known for leaning far to the left when it comes to regular news, non tech related.
the point went over your head, apparently. ill make it simpler. the WSJ and WP are not-leftwing, and yet they run apple-troll nonsense too. so it its clear that political leanings have nothing to do w/ being an apple troll. get it?
i think youd find most of the readers here recognize Snowden for the hero he is by exposing the lying, law-breaking activities conducted by the US federal government against its own people.
No. Regardless of whether you think the US activities are warranted or not.... Snowden was no hero.
I might have considered him a whistle blower, but that was before he ran away to Russia and bought his freedom using intelligence - when he did that he became a traitor.
the point went over your head, apparently. ill make it simpler. the WSJ and WP are not-leftwing, and yet they run apple-troll nonsense too. so it its clear that political leanings have nothing to do w/ being an apple troll. get it?
I agree that the political leanings of a newspaper is not necessarily indicative of their Apple stance, I don't see anybody claiming that. However, there's nothing wrong with pointing out in which direction a newspaper leans, and in this instance, it happens to be far left.
It is the Democrats who have a total shit show and they're completely un-electable. Hillary? She belongs in prison. So many people do not like her and they don't want another Clinton anywhere near the WH. Sanders? Some old white, wacky socialist? Not a chance son. There's nobody else of relevance that the Democrats have.
omg, so the GOP forerunner, Trump, is electable in your mind? riiight. ok. come next november, we'll see. but judging by the debates thus far, the GOP is full of cranks.
And if you can't admit that the last CNBC debate was a total sham and a set up by the overly partisan extremist lying moderators and that crappy channel,
you do realize the GOP debates were set up by...the GOP, right? the RNC organized both debates. youre saying your own party set up its own candidates?
then you are probably one of the extremists
wait, what? im an extremist who set up the GOP debaters to look like selfish jackasses due to the words they spoke out of their own mouths?
yeah, thats likely...not. much more likely that the GOP candidates are simply out of touch. standing up for "rich old white guy" principles just aint much of a platform these days.
There's nobody else of relevance that the Democrats have.
I'm glad I have dual citizenship. If any of the candidates that are currently running are actually elected president, the US is in a whole lot of trouble.
I'm glad I have dual citizenship. If any of the candidates that are currently running are actually elected president, the US is in a whole lot of trouble.
yeah people have been saying that about the people they dont want elected since....well, since elections began. and yet, here we are, still one of the best places to live on earth. despite all the nonsense spewed about our current president, the economy is doing better now than it was 7 years ago. oops.
omg, so the GOP forerunner, Trump, is electable in your mind? riiight. ok. come next november, we'll see. but judging by the debates thus far, the GOP is full of cranks.
you do realize the GOP debates were set up by...the GOP, right? the RNC organized both debates. youre saying your own party set up its own candidates?
wait, what? im an extremist who set up the GOP debaters to look like selfish jackasses due to the words they spoke out of their own mouths?
yeah, thats likely. or that the GOP candidates are completely out of touch. standing up for rich old white guys just aint enough of a platform these days.
Trump? Yep, definitely more so than Hillary or Sanders. Trump is actually liked by quite a few people on the democrat side and Trump will draw in votes from all sides. Illegals probably don't like Trump, but who cares about them? They have no say and they have virtually no rights.
And the RNC is not my party. The RNC can go and screw themselves.
oops -- somebody doesnt know the meaning of the word "slander". hint: it's not slander if it's true. rule #1.
The guy did a monologue which is basically just art, meaning embellishments are par for the course. That's not worth bringing up unless you're attempting to smear him and his rather boring (and factually correct) opinion piece. (It's an opinion piece) on the tech section of The Guardian. Something nobody would care about if the Apple blogs (supreme embellishers in their own right, just without the theatrical setup) didn't direct all their traffic for his ad impressions.
Maybe slander isn't the right word, and i'll acknowledge that, but DED goes after blog writers and it gets stupidly uncomfortable. I think the last one he did the guy in his crosshairs responded to it confused on wtf was even going on.
Trump? Yep, definitely more so than Hillary or Sanders. Trump is actually liked by quite a few people on the democrat side and Trump will draw in votes from all sides. Illegals probably don't like Trump, but who cares about them? They have no say and they have virtually no rights.
you seem confused. Trump's inability to get elected has jack to do w/ immigrants, and everything to do w/ being a complete nutbag. no credibility. no chance of being a US president. if hes your great white hope....then prepare yourself for disappointment.
again -- the RNC, who effectively is the GOP, organized the debates. both debates. youre suggesting theres a conspiracy, which means you believe the GOP is sabotaging GOP candidates. that...doesnt...make....sense.
I wanted to see if anyone would try to defend Daisey in the forums on the facts of the case. No one did, but one poster did attack DED for his pro-Apple attitude. That counts as a victory.
Comments
Mike Daisey is first and foremost an opportunistic storyteller with a nose for buzz worthy tech screed, whether on stage or on the page.
That's all you need to know.
I find it intriguing that after having crashed his reputation and career with the Steve Jobs hit piece, he has dusted himself off and gone back on the Apple attack, with zero chance of credibility*. For a publisher with no scruples or perhaps an ax to grind, it's a no-brainer/clickbait/red meat kind of move. The anti-Apple crowd is legion and the flamewars that ensue are money in the bank.
* Akin to Carly Fiorina touting her business prowess.
* Akin to Carly Fiorina touting her business prowess.
????
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This is not the early 1990's folks. Apple was still bigger than McDonalds back in those days. Now there bigger than Exon and everyone else. Apple is not going away now or later or ever. Mike Daisy is a troll that will write anything to get money.
how do you explained the WSJ? they also publish troll nonsense about apple. Washington Post as well. are they too a left-wing rags?
or how about....posting troll nonsense has nothing to do w/ your political leanings? maybe?
Don't be ignorant. The Guardian is well known for leaning far to the left when it comes to regular news, non tech related.
i think youd find most of the readers here recognize Snowden for the hero he is by exposing the lying, law-breaking activities conducted by the US federal government against its own people.
b9bot says: "Mike Daisy is a troll that will write anything to get money." Sort-of. I don't think he would write a pro-Apple piece to make money. I think most of these alleged click-trolls really do have hatred of Apple at their core. Why? Because everyone uses computers these days, and people who have heavy-vested, multi-year can-do on one platform feel very threatened when the other platform starts winning. Apple's pulling off maybe the biggest upset in corporate/tech history, and you can expect a lot of people to be unhappy about that.
total nonsense. this man and Bernie Sanders arent linked in any way, and shame on you for trying to suggest they are.
its not Sanders' fault the GOP presidential candidates are a total shit show and are completely un-electable. their debates were so bad (again) now theyre hating on their own party who organized the events!
It is the Democrats who have a total shit show and they're completely un-electable. Hillary? She belongs in prison. So many people do not like her and they don't want another Clinton anywhere near the WH. Sanders? Some old white, wacky socialist? Not a chance son. There's nobody else of relevance that the Democrats have.
And if you can't admit that the last CNBC debate was a total sham and a set up by the overly partisan extremist lying moderators and that crappy channel, then you are probably one of the extremists.
oops -- somebody doesnt know the meaning of the word "slander". hint: it's not slander if it's true. rule #1.
i think youd find most of the readers here recognize Snowden for the hero he is by exposing the lying, law-breaking activities conducted by the US federal government against its own people.
I think that he should be put in front of a firing squad and shot, after being found guilty of course.
If he continues to hide, then I think that the US should send out a hit team and just wack him, regardless of where he is located in the world.
Sanders is also the only candidate who wants to end the domestic spying on lawful Americans. and voted against the Patriot Act, twice. how crazy is that?? the republicans are in bed w/ banking and spying, and Clinton (Sanders' only competition) is in bed with banking and spying.
http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/
the point went over your head, apparently. ill make it simpler. the WSJ and WP are not-leftwing, and yet they run apple-troll nonsense too. so it its clear that political leanings have nothing to do w/ being an apple troll. get it?
i think youd find most of the readers here recognize Snowden for the hero he is by exposing the lying, law-breaking activities conducted by the US federal government against its own people.
No. Regardless of whether you think the US activities are warranted or not.... Snowden was no hero.
I might have considered him a whistle blower, but that was before he ran away to Russia and bought his freedom using intelligence - when he did that he became a traitor.
the point went over your head, apparently. ill make it simpler. the WSJ and WP are not-leftwing, and yet they run apple-troll nonsense too. so it its clear that political leanings have nothing to do w/ being an apple troll. get it?
I agree that the political leanings of a newspaper is not necessarily indicative of their Apple stance, I don't see anybody claiming that. However, there's nothing wrong with pointing out in which direction a newspaper leans, and in this instance, it happens to be far left.
omg, so the GOP forerunner, Trump, is electable in your mind? riiight. ok. come next november, we'll see. but judging by the debates thus far, the GOP is full of cranks.
you do realize the GOP debates were set up by...the GOP, right? the RNC organized both debates. youre saying your own party set up its own candidates?
wait, what? im an extremist who set up the GOP debaters to look like selfish jackasses due to the words they spoke out of their own mouths?
yeah, thats likely...not. much more likely that the GOP candidates are simply out of touch. standing up for "rich old white guy" principles just aint much of a platform these days.
There's nobody else of relevance that the Democrats have.
I'm glad I have dual citizenship. If any of the candidates that are currently running are actually elected president, the US is in a whole lot of trouble.
yeah people have been saying that about the people they dont want elected since....well, since elections began. and yet, here we are, still one of the best places to live on earth. despite all the nonsense spewed about our current president, the economy is doing better now than it was 7 years ago. oops.
but by all means, depart if you must.
omg, so the GOP forerunner, Trump, is electable in your mind? riiight. ok. come next november, we'll see. but judging by the debates thus far, the GOP is full of cranks.
you do realize the GOP debates were set up by...the GOP, right? the RNC organized both debates. youre saying your own party set up its own candidates?
wait, what? im an extremist who set up the GOP debaters to look like selfish jackasses due to the words they spoke out of their own mouths?
yeah, thats likely. or that the GOP candidates are completely out of touch. standing up for rich old white guys just aint enough of a platform these days.
Trump? Yep, definitely more so than Hillary or Sanders. Trump is actually liked by quite a few people on the democrat side and Trump will draw in votes from all sides. Illegals probably don't like Trump, but who cares about them? They have no say and they have virtually no rights.
And the RNC is not my party. The RNC can go and screw themselves.
oops -- somebody doesnt know the meaning of the word "slander". hint: it's not slander if it's true. rule #1.
The guy did a monologue which is basically just art, meaning embellishments are par for the course. That's not worth bringing up unless you're attempting to smear him and his rather boring (and factually correct) opinion piece. (It's an opinion piece) on the tech section of The Guardian. Something nobody would care about if the Apple blogs (supreme embellishers in their own right, just without the theatrical setup) didn't direct all their traffic for his ad impressions.
Maybe slander isn't the right word, and i'll acknowledge that, but DED goes after blog writers and it gets stupidly uncomfortable. I think the last one he did the guy in his crosshairs responded to it confused on wtf was even going on.
you seem confused. Trump's inability to get elected has jack to do w/ immigrants, and everything to do w/ being a complete nutbag. no credibility. no chance of being a US president. if hes your great white hope....then prepare yourself for disappointment.
again -- the RNC, who effectively is the GOP, organized the debates. both debates. youre suggesting theres a conspiracy, which means you believe the GOP is sabotaging GOP candidates. that...doesnt...make....sense.