Someone citing sources is not speculation. Someone speculating, and saying they are speculating, is speculation. I realize you don't like Kuo, and he may very well end up being wrong on this one. But he has consistently nailed Apple's future product plans months before anyone else, time and time again, for years. As long as he keeps providing accurate information, we'll keep covering him.
There's a difference between nailing product plans (which is debatable considering some of them are no brainier stat any one of us could nail) and sales projections. And considering Apple doesn't release sales figures for the Watch these predictions can never be proven right or wrong.
Totally agreed, the guy is very good, not perfect, but very good at product launches. But as far as I can remember average in sales forecasts.
There's a difference between nailing product plans (which is debatable considering some of them are no brainier stat any one of us could nail) and sales projections. And considering Apple doesn't release sales figures for the Watch these predictions can never be proven right or wrong.
If "anyone" could nail these product plans since they are "no brainers" then why don't we see articles quoting your statements on AppleInsider? After all, it's so easy that you claim anyone could do it.
Oh come on, you know exactly what I mean. How many things does this guy nail that no one was expecting? Most of what he predicts is what any one of us could guess. Not all of it but a lot of it. Quite honestly Mark Gurman at 9to5Mac gets just as much right if not more but I don't see anyone calling him a well connected insider or treating his leaks with a "breaking" news tag.
It's not Kuo but the elevation of Kuo to well connected insider that rubs us raw. So drop that superlative please
Name an analyst with a better track record.
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
It's not Kuo but the elevation of Kuo to well connected insider that rubs us raw. So drop that superlative please
Name an analyst with a better track record.
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
Well, Munster nailed the stock price in the iPod heyday, so I don't know why a mistake must ruin his reputation and Ming-Chi-Kuo saying that Apple will launch carbon fiber and titanium watches at the end of last year, not. Or saying that iPhone SE will be sold alongside the 5s, or reducing his sales forecasts of the SE due to the 5s selling for $250 from 20 million to 12 million, or saying that the first weekend sales of 5s will be more or less six million and being nine million...You get what you want. I have writing this EVERY TIME the guy is mentioned. Is good at product launches, the best, but forecasting sales no way. He has made at best the same mistakes as every other guy. OK, White is the most bullish analyst of Apple. But you must also said that Ming-Chi-Kuo is bearish in general. But the guy is good at PRODUCT LAUNCHES, only. And in that is not perfect either.
Hold on didn't he just say it would be 20-40% thinner? As I said on the last article with this apparently "well-connected insider" as the source, I don't understand why anyone listens to this bloke. He changes his mind on a weekly basis, and these for some reason aren't seen as guesses but "updates". As if Apple changes their mind from week to week this late in the game on whether they're changing the design or just a spec bump.
Anyway, I don't think a spec bump would do much to spur sales. The watch isn't particularly slow for stock apps at the moment, they just really need to fix third party apps. I don't even bother with them now, they don't launch 90% of the time. Also if history is anything to go by, the iPhone had a complete redesign for the 3G, as did the iPad 2. So perhaps the Watch will too.
I am not defending him, however, if you never worked in a R&D or Product development organization, this kind of back and forth happens all the time, there are conversations all the time about it is in, it is out. I also suspect his sources are seeing prototypes Apple is having made of these designs and as we know Apple makes lots of variation on the same design and evaluated them over time to determine which is best, it is not to the end are those decisions finally made. The fact this guy get this kind of information and usually comes out the other end with something that is very close to the final product say he had access to people who are involved in the design evaluation stages.
I worked in the R&D and Product Develop for nearly 20 yrs and This is exactly what goes on and I can tell many times we find out days or weeks before something is being release only to find out something is in or out we did not expect. I think Apple is probably far worse about these kind of decisions.
I will stake my entire Apple shares on Apple not releasing a new watch that makes the existing bands incompatible. Just using myself as an example...I've spent over $250 on new bands...$150 in just the last month. If come June or September there's a brand new watch and none of the 3 bands I bought in March are compatible I will be pissed off and will definitely not be buying a 2nd gen Watch. I think most people that own an Watch would agree the biggest issues are around performance and software not external aesthetic design.
There are only so many things that people want to upgrade every year or two; while at the same time, no one wants to be seen wearing or using an old device. I would feel comfortable if the Watch design settles to four year upgrade cycles (after the next one in 2017, it could be a tad thinner and the two buttons got to go), the iPhone form factor changed every two years, and the Pad settled to four regarding its looks. Macs seem to be on a 5-6 year cycle? I am a pretty average person and feel that I could follow that upgrade cycle without breaking the bank, and feeling that I don't get pressured into buying the next gadget just for the looks.
But why do you have to upgrade your watch every time Apple comes out with a new model, unless they stop supporting yours, or they come out with a new feature -- or style -- you want to buy?
There's around 500 million potential customers for the Watch based on the number of activated iPhones worldwide. There's enough room there for everyone to get what they want and Apple to make massive profits.
But if they don't upgrade every year or even sooner, then they are losing both new customers who have already passed on the watch, and customers who will buy the new model because it looks nice. It's not unusual for people who wear watches to buy several watches, some as often as every year or two, and now that Apple has made it possible to pair more than one watch with a phone, that makes it even more likely that such people will do it for an Watch.
At the end of the day, there's no reason anyone has to upgrade every year anyway, unless they want the new features. However, people do "upgrade" their fashions every year just because of the way it looks. And that's how I thought Apple was going to do this differently, but they seemingly thought they'd get buy on the cheap by doing it only with the bands.
It's the cynics in all of us who think Apple will drop support for a watch within 5 years like they do with the phones, but the reality is, the watches don't have to work that way, unless Apple continues to treat it like a tiny iPhone, and force upgrades to drive sales.
It's the fashion angle that will set Apple apart from the crowd, and make the smartwatch a acceptable fashion item, thus spreading its acceptance. Unfortunately, Apple can't figure out what to do with the watch. On the one hand Apple is treating it like an iPhone, on the other like a high end fashion watch. And they're seemingly failing at both badly.
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
Calling Kuo a "well-connected insider" is not helping casual readers or any readers at all. Why? Because it is totally FALSE and a flat out LIE. By definition an insider is someone WHO ACTUALLY WORKS AT APPLE or HOLDS SIGNIFICANT OWNERSHIP OF APPLE. PERIOD.
Now if you want to push lies and falsehoods to get more clicks go ahead. But don't try to blame casual readers. Don't try to say that you are giving an analyst a false title to help casual readers. You are doing the exact opposite. You are misleading casuals who have no idea who Kuo is and what his real job is.
This a the real definition of insider: An insider is a director or senior officer of a company, as well as any person or entity that beneficially owns more than 10% of a company's voting shares. For purposes of insider trading, the definition is expanded to include anyone who trades a company's shares based on material non-public knowledge. Insiders have to comply with strict disclosure requirements with regard to the sale or purchase of the shares of their company.
Kuo is a guy who has a bunch of contacts to Apple supply chain vendors. Thats it. Calling him anything else is ridiculous and misleading.
He's an insider in Apple's supply chain. I don't understand why that is so difficult to comprehend. Calling me a liar isn't going to help your cause here.
Calling Kuo a "well-connected insider" is not helping casual readers or any readers at all. Why? Because it is totally FALSE and a flat out LIE. By definition an insider is someone WHO ACTUALLY WORKS AT APPLE or HOLDS SIGNIFICANT OWNERSHIP OF APPLE. PERIOD. ... Kuo is a guy who has a bunch of contacts to Apple supply chain vendors. Thats it. Calling him anything else is ridiculous and misleading.
"A guy with a bunch of contacts" is well within the colloquial definition of "insider. [1]" Your constant attempts to narrowly define the English language to fit within your own narrative are as or more deceiving than whatever you constantly bitch about the AI staff doing.
1. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insider "a person belonging to a limited circle of persons who understand theactual facts in a situation or share private knowledge"
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
Well, Munster nailed the stock price in the iPod heyday, so I don't know why a mistake must ruin his reputation and Ming-Chi-Kuo saying that Apple will launch carbon fiber and titanium watches at the end of last year, not. Or saying that iPhone SE will be sold alongside the 5s, or reducing his sales forecasts of the SE due to the 5s selling for $250 from 20 million to 12 million, or saying that the first weekend sales of 5s will be more or less six million and being nine million...You get what you want. I have writing this EVERY TIME the guy is mentioned. Is good at product launches, the best, but forecasting sales no way. He has made at best the same mistakes as every other guy. OK, White is the most bullish analyst of Apple. But you must also said that Ming-Chi-Kuo is bearish in general. But the guy is good at PRODUCT LAUNCHES, only. And in that is not perfect either.
Kuo never, ever said Apple was planning to launch carbon fiber or titanium watches. He said Apple would launch new casings in September, which proved correct (faux "rose gold" and "gold" sport casings). If you go back and re-read it, my report specifically speculated on the types of new casings Apple could introduce, which is where your reference to carbon fiber and titanium comes from.
Kuo never, ever said Apple was planning to launch carbon fiber or titanium watches. He said Apple would launch new casings in September, which proved correct (faux "rose gold" and "gold" sport casings). If you go back and re-read it, my report specifically speculated on the types of new casings Apple could introduce, which is where your reference to carbon fiber and titanium comes from.
wrong again.
Gold and Rose gold are NOT new casing. Those are still aluminum casing with a different coat of paint.
Kuo specifically said there would be NEW CASINGS in addition to aluminum, steel, and gold.
"Aside from current casing materials of aluminum, stainless steel and 18k gold, we believe 1-3 new versions of Apple Watch featuring new casing materials are likely to go into mass production in 4Q15."
Dude was FLATOUT WRONG about additional casings.
This is all fine for discussion, but calling me a liar and questioning my "journalistic integrity" are personal attacks and are considered a bannable offense. You've been warned twice now.
Well, Munster nailed the stock price in the iPod heyday, so I don't know why a mistake must ruin his reputation and Ming-Chi-Kuo saying that Apple will launch carbon fiber and titanium watches at the end of last year, not. Or saying that iPhone SE will be sold alongside the 5s, or reducing his sales forecasts of the SE due to the 5s selling for $250 from 20 million to 12 million, or saying that the first weekend sales of 5s will be more or less six million and being nine million...You get what you want. I have writing this EVERY TIME the guy is mentioned. Is good at product launches, the best, but forecasting sales no way. He has made at best the same mistakes as every other guy. OK, White is the most bullish analyst of Apple. But you must also said that Ming-Chi-Kuo is bearish in general. But the guy is good at PRODUCT LAUNCHES, only. And in that is not perfect either.
Kuo never, ever said Apple was planning to launch carbon fiber or titanium watches. He said Apple would launch new casings in September, which proved correct (faux "rose gold" and "gold" sport casings). If you go back and re-read it, my report specifically speculated on the types of new casings Apple could introduce, which is where your reference to carbon fiber and titanium comes from.
OK, sorry then. But you mislead me. Ok, then I wasn't registered, so didn't expressed my opinions back them, but as you said you go to a broad casual readers, WORLD WIDE, so sometimes we, readers from abroad, can get lost in translation, sorry then.
But, as I read that in MacRumors, I'm still insist that the guy reduced the forecasts for the SE from 20 to 12 million due to the presumed aggressive 5s price of $250 that will lead potential buyers of the SE to the 5s, according to MacRumors Ming-Chi-Kuo said that the 5s will be kept on sale alongside the SE. And he has made many mistakes in sales forecasts, Overestimating FQ3 2015 iPhone sales and underestimating the iPads ones in the same quarter. The same with the 5s first weekend sales, I know, I know, he give a range of 6-8 million but his sentiment was nearer six, and then it was 9 million.
I am with you in that in product launches the guy is the best, and I don't think that you are a liar for sure, your point of view is as respectable as from everyone. But my argument every time Kuo is mentioned is that his credibility is the biggest in product launches, but average at best in sales figures forecasts, to be fair, your article transmit that his sales figures are a guess at best.
Yep I was going to say the exact same thing. But why argue with someone who never worked in an R&G or product development organization or never negotiate deals with third parties to try and work a deal together to make something happen.
These people are so literal, The guy made claim which we have to believe it was base on some fact which most likely was base on Apple exploring the idea but somehow go turn around and never happen. I have to say Ming does have some inside tracks whether directly into Apple or is supply chain. He at least hearing stuff from whom every is doing prototype work for Apple. What most of the so call people here in the know do no know is Apple does not always use production facilities to do prototyping work. I will give an example, I was in a PCB fab facility in South Calif visiting a supplier my company used for our production parts for Optical Networking products. While there I saw something I should not have seen, it was PCB which was round in design and got a close enough look at to know it was an Apple design. It was the prototype board for the 2002 Imac. I so knew months before the world did that Apple was working on something which used a round PCB board.
And most of it were obvious stuff like the iPhone6s would
get the A9 processor. Duh.
And Kuo is even WORSE at predicting unit sales numbers. He has been off by 20-30% on iPhone sales
predictions. IN other words he is guessing and pulling crap out of a hat. And
what a surprise he gets some stuff correct.
SOG, what information do you have Apple was not considering all the above. Grant it I still believe the sapphire was for all the watches not the phone, thus the reason the watch was delay by almost a year. But apple could have been playing around with it for the phone. But you presented no evidence that Apple was not at some time looking at do the things Ming said Apple was doing. You seem to think that because apple did not do it means it was never in the consideration.
What are your prediction of what Apple is doing and when, also do you have sources which have any idea what Apple is doing and when beyond saying hey there is this technology and Apple should do something with it, AR and VR which everyone is convince Apple has to get into this and make a headset. I am sorry but one thing Apple is really good at is taking the geek out of technology. People wearing computers on their heads looking like the Borg is too geeky and I am not sure how you take the geek out of things like Google glasses which fail miserably, because Google is filled with a bunch of geeks not people who understand people and design.
Ming Kuo should not be referred to as an INSIDER. PERIOD.
This has been said many times by members here. An insider is a high ranking Apple Executive or shareholder. Kuo is neither. Neither is Kuo an insider of the Apple supply chain because he neither is a high ranking executive/shareholder with any of Apple's vendors.
Kuo is an analyst who works for KGI. That's it. Calling him anything else is misleading and false.
Well connected analyst. That's fine. The world 'insider' should never be used to reference Kuo.
By your logic, the very name of this website is "misleading and false."
So is this week piss on Watch week? There's a story on Quartz about how one year later no one needs an Watch (because everyone's buying decisions are 100% based on need) and Re/code is running a story about some Watch survey where most people call it a dud, yet if you read into the story 77% those surveyed who own the watch say it's a success and 2/3rds plan to upgrade. So the ones calling it a dud are those who don't own one or were pessimistic about from day one. Such shoddy tech reporting.
If the iPhone is any indication, the "S" updates are more significant. There's nothing wrong with the form factor. A faster, more efficient processor that makes the watch more responsive (and perhaps lets it display more e-mail graphics) would resolve many complaints.
It's not Kuo but the elevation of Kuo to well connected insider that rubs us raw. So drop that superlative please
Name an analyst with a better track record.
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
Here and elsewhere, whenever you see Kuo quoted, he gets superlatives added to his name: "well-informed," "often reliable," "highly accurate," etc. It happens so often that to the casual reader, it raises suspicions. Is it just a habit? Is he really all that and a bag of chips, or does he have a publicist that pushes the superlatives? It just seems a bit much.
The very nature of the prediction-making business creates situations ripe for confirmation bias. Get enough things right or close enough that people will mentally close the gap, and people will forget the stuff that was wrong. That's how palm readers stay in business. Figuring out scientifically if Kuo really is that accurate would take a lot of effort, checking every prediction he makes against reality, and in some way or another weighting those predictions for difficulty. (Accuracy in predictions that unconnected casual observers could also get right more than half the time shouldn't count as much as predictions that actually do require connections and insight.) Figuring out if he really has a better track record than others in the business would be even more challenging, because you'd have to find a sufficient number of competitors and check all their work in order to see if Kuo is really any more accurate than average. You can't just name a few things Kuo got right and compare those to a few doozies that someone else got wrong, and conclude that Kuo is better than average.
On the other hand, if, by design or by habit, Kuo's greatness is simply asserted every time his name is mentioned, then he's well-positioned for confirmation bias, so long as he gets at least some things right, or close enough that people will give him credit even for a miss. That's how palm readers and fortune tellers do it.
Comments
Well, Munster nailed the stock price in the iPod heyday, so I don't know why a mistake must ruin his reputation and Ming-Chi-Kuo saying that Apple will launch carbon fiber and titanium watches at the end of last year, not. Or saying that iPhone SE will be sold alongside the 5s, or reducing his sales forecasts of the SE due to the 5s selling for $250 from 20 million to 12 million, or saying that the first weekend sales of 5s will be more or less six million and being nine million...You get what you want. I have writing this EVERY TIME the guy is mentioned. Is good at product launches, the best, but forecasting sales no way. He has made at best the same mistakes as every other guy. OK, White is the most bullish analyst of Apple. But you must also said that Ming-Chi-Kuo is bearish in general. But the guy is good at PRODUCT LAUNCHES, only. And in that is not perfect either.
I am not defending him, however, if you never worked in a R&D or Product development organization, this kind of back and forth happens all the time, there are conversations all the time about it is in, it is out. I also suspect his sources are seeing prototypes Apple is having made of these designs and as we know Apple makes lots of variation on the same design and evaluated them over time to determine which is best, it is not to the end are those decisions finally made. The fact this guy get this kind of information and usually comes out the other end with something that is very close to the final product say he had access to people who are involved in the design evaluation stages.
I worked in the R&D and Product Develop for nearly 20 yrs and This is exactly what goes on and I can tell many times we find out days or weeks before something is being release only to find out something is in or out we did not expect. I think Apple is probably far worse about these kind of decisions.
There's around 500 million potential customers for the Watch based on the number of activated iPhones worldwide. There's enough room there for everyone to get what they want and Apple to make massive profits.
But if they don't upgrade every year or even sooner, then they are losing both new customers who have already passed on the watch, and customers who will buy the new model because it looks nice. It's not unusual for people who wear watches to buy several watches, some as often as every year or two, and now that Apple has made it possible to pair more than one watch with a phone, that makes it even more likely that such people will do it for an Watch.
At the end of the day, there's no reason anyone has to upgrade every year anyway, unless they want the new features. However, people do "upgrade" their fashions every year just because of the way it looks. And that's how I thought Apple was going to do this differently, but they seemingly thought they'd get buy on the cheap by doing it only with the bands.
It's the cynics in all of us who think Apple will drop support for a watch within 5 years like they do with the phones, but the reality is, the watches don't have to work that way, unless Apple continues to treat it like a tiny iPhone, and force upgrades to drive sales.
It's the fashion angle that will set Apple apart from the crowd, and make the smartwatch a acceptable fashion item, thus spreading its acceptance. Unfortunately, Apple can't figure out what to do with the watch. On the one hand Apple is treating it like an iPhone, on the other like a high end fashion watch. And they're seemingly failing at both badly.
1. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insider "a person belonging to a limited circle of persons who understand theactual facts in a situation or share private knowledge"
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/12/09/apples-streaming-tv-talks-fell-apart-on-push-for-skinny-channel-bundle-priced-under-30month---report
But, as I read that in MacRumors, I'm still insist that the guy reduced the forecasts for the SE from 20 to 12 million due to the presumed aggressive 5s price of $250 that will lead potential buyers of the SE to the 5s, according to MacRumors Ming-Chi-Kuo said that the 5s will be kept on sale alongside the SE. And he has made many mistakes in sales forecasts, Overestimating FQ3 2015 iPhone sales and underestimating the iPads ones in the same quarter. The same with the 5s first weekend sales, I know, I know, he give a range of 6-8 million but his sentiment was nearer six, and then it was 9 million.
I am with you in that in product launches the guy is the best, and I don't think that you are a liar for sure, your point of view is as respectable as from everyone. But my argument every time Kuo is mentioned is that his credibility is the biggest in product launches, but average at best in sales figures forecasts, to be fair, your article transmit that his sales figures are a guess at best.
Yep I was going to say the exact same thing. But why argue with someone who never worked in an R&G or product development organization or never negotiate deals with third parties to try and work a deal together to make something happen.
These people are so literal, The guy made claim which we have to believe it was base on some fact which most likely was base on Apple exploring the idea but somehow go turn around and never happen. I have to say Ming does have some inside tracks whether directly into Apple or is supply chain. He at least hearing stuff from whom every is doing prototype work for Apple. What most of the so call people here in the know do no know is Apple does not always use production facilities to do prototyping work. I will give an example, I was in a PCB fab facility in South Calif visiting a supplier my company used for our production parts for Optical Networking products. While there I saw something I should not have seen, it was PCB which was round in design and got a close enough look at to know it was an Apple design. It was the prototype board for the 2002 Imac. I so knew months before the world did that Apple was working on something which used a round PCB board.
SOG, what information do you have Apple was not considering all the above. Grant it I still believe the sapphire was for all the watches not the phone, thus the reason the watch was delay by almost a year. But apple could have been playing around with it for the phone. But you presented no evidence that Apple was not at some time looking at do the things Ming said Apple was doing. You seem to think that because apple did not do it means it was never in the consideration.
What are your prediction of what Apple is doing and when, also do you have sources which have any idea what Apple is doing and when beyond saying hey there is this technology and Apple should do something with it, AR and VR which everyone is convince Apple has to get into this and make a headset. I am sorry but one thing Apple is really good at is taking the geek out of technology. People wearing computers on their heads looking like the Borg is too geeky and I am not sure how you take the geek out of things like Google glasses which fail miserably, because Google is filled with a bunch of geeks not people who understand people and design.
The very nature of the prediction-making business creates situations ripe for confirmation bias. Get enough things right or close enough that people will mentally close the gap, and people will forget the stuff that was wrong. That's how palm readers stay in business. Figuring out scientifically if Kuo really is that accurate would take a lot of effort, checking every prediction he makes against reality, and in some way or another weighting those predictions for difficulty. (Accuracy in predictions that unconnected casual observers could also get right more than half the time shouldn't count as much as predictions that actually do require connections and insight.) Figuring out if he really has a better track record than others in the business would be even more challenging, because you'd have to find a sufficient number of competitors and check all their work in order to see if Kuo is really any more accurate than average. You can't just name a few things Kuo got right and compare those to a few doozies that someone else got wrong, and conclude that Kuo is better than average.
On the other hand, if, by design or by habit, Kuo's greatness is simply asserted every time his name is mentioned, then he's well-positioned for confirmation bias, so long as he gets at least some things right, or close enough that people will give him credit even for a miss. That's how palm readers and fortune tellers do it.