If AI doesn't Trust Gartner's research then WHY are they posting this crap as news?
Do you also believe that AI should believe and fervently stand behind any and all rumours it posts? I think you?re failing to see what this and many other sites are about.
Research firm Gartner sees Apple's iPad controlling the lion's share of the tablet market for the next three years. Or maybe a little bit less. Or perhaps a whole lot more. On second thoughts, only just a little bit more. Or less. Ummm - well, come back and ask us again in 2014. OK?
Can we have our $500,000 now please? Thank you very much. It's a pleasure doing business with you.
Do you also believe that AI should believe and fervently stand behind any and all rumours it posts? I think you?re failing to see what this and many other sites are about.
No, they don't have to believe them all. But if they post a "rumor" by a company they've publically stated they doubt, it's dishonest not to link back to that doubting post simply because they happen to like the rumor this time.
This site is for "apple news and analysis"
Not: "We post everything Apple, and if it's positive we let it slide, but if it's negative, we go out of our way to try and discredit it"
That's "Apple PR" at best "Apple Fanboyism" at worst.
I don't draw issue with them bringing up this report, since every other tech site will. What I draw issue with is them posting this one like it's from a trustworthy source (no questioning) when they JUST pointed out how inconsistent the firm was two days ago. Again, if this post showed Android (or any other platform) gaining the upper hand by 2015, you KNOW that DED or someone would be here ready to write off the report as useless and not to be listened to.
But because they AGREE with the outcome, they let other's assume it's true.
What is there for the competition to offer to challenge Apple's lead? Put yourself in the shoes of an average consumer who sees no price advantage in buying an iPad competitor and a substantial software deficit, as in having a choices between thousands of titles for the iPad vs. hundreds for the other products (hundreds might be overstating it).
Besides, if the competition is playing catch-up, what makes you think Apple intends to stand still long enough for them to succeed?
I've never said that Apple does intend to stand still
I'd also disagree with your idea of the average consumer. I don't believe he/she/it has much of an idea how many apps one store or the other has. There's probably many who don't even really understand "apps" to begin with, assuming that the device they buy just magically does all those things they saw in the commercial. And according to some recent surveys there's a significant percentage of smartphone/tablet buyers who buy few if any apps at all. Personally I think the "average" consumer is more concerned with price and presentation. If you've got two good-looking devices on the shelf with the form-factor the buyer is looking for, basically the same hardware and stock functionality, but the "other" is 20% less than Apple's product, "other" is going to get the nod more often than not. Arguing that 80% of the buyers would opt for spending 20% more only because one has the Apple name on it is unlikely. Remember, my "average consumer" isn't well-versed on the technical differences or perceived advantages of Apple's iPad even tho they may have heard of it. Once they're standing in front of the display the Apple advantages may not be so clear to them. That's my opinion anyway.
Gartner has zero credibility in my book. Their poor track record speaks volumes and companies that blindly follow Gartner's recommendations are shortsighted.
Do you also believe that AI should believe and fervently stand behind any and all rumours it posts? I think you?re failing to see what this and many other sites are about.
Oh, he knows exactly what it's about. But, since he's astroturfing for Android, it's convenient for him to ignore inconvenient facts. (Then try to rationalize them away when they're pointed out.)
Okay okay. i'll continue to bite on the pissing contest/ troll thread
GArtner is simply doing what it does well, which is providing very conservative estimates on a market. It is simply covering its bases in a very predictable manner. You folks don't really understand the mind set of how busness is conducted. Yes of course it is making claims that don't make sense to YOU. Thats is fine. Its not about having to prove its findings - its about something else completely
Gartner is selling stability. Companies rely on its estimates to plan their capital and manpower budgets. They make money off this. IF they were to predict the Apple juggernaut and your Fanboy hysteria /takeover the world they would lose credibility and thus lose a lot of customers. You can rant and rave about this and you will, so be it, meanwhile the real world goes on despite you. The market will not let one company dominate. They are simply one force that will bring that consensus about about.
I've never said that Apple does intend to stand still
I'd also disagree with your idea of the average consumer. I don't believe he/she/it has much of an idea how many apps one store or the other has. There's probably many who don't even really understand "apps" to begin with, assuming that the device they buy just magically does all those things they saw in the commercial. And according to some recent surveys there's a significant percentage of smartphone/tablet buyers who buy few if any apps at all. Personally I think the "average" consumer is more concerned with price and presentation. If you've got two good-looking devices on the shelf with the form-factor the buyer is looking for, basically the same hardware and stock functionality, but the "other" is 20% less than Apple's product, "other" is going to get the nod more often than not. Arguing that 80% of the buyers would opt for spending 20% more only because one has the Apple name on it is unlikely. Remember, my "average consumer" isn't well-versed on the technical differences or perceived advantages of Apple's iPad even tho they may have heard of it. Once they're standing in front of the display the Apple advantages may not be so clear to them. That's my opinion anyway.
I sadly agree with you, the average consumer has very little clue, what they are buying works for and against them in my book. Apple has great simplistic advertising which works in their favor so do most of the Android commercials. They are selling an image. There will always be folks who want to buy simple , some who want macho and everything in between. most folks buy based on peer pressure and on price. I guess the outcome of this will be fought on the sales floor of few outlets, I don't really understand why Apple puts so few devices in Bestbuy and alike. But one thing I do know as long as the public sees so many Android devices in every phone store/walmart/Rado Shack and alike ournumbering Apple 10 to 1 it doesn't bode well long term does it? Apple will eventually be beaten down by the pure weight and mass of Android. Too bad, that the world will turn once again into a big fragmented, and very insecure race to the bottom Android Universe. Nobody cares really. Its happened with hi-fi, cars and just about every thing sold. I thnk Apple knows this already and is why they don't want the volume market
Gartner are great spreadsheet jockeys, for sure. But the problem with analysts, all of them, is that they really don't know Apple's or Google's or RIM's or HP's real product roadmaps. If they did, they could make more money blackmailing the companies involved than by selling their reports to corporate suckers.
So, since Gartner doesn't know what will really happen 4 years (or 4 days) from now, they extrapolate numbers in a vacuum. Using current data and trends, then running them forward to some arbitrary future date. As in "If things continue exactly as they are right now, this is what will happen in the future."
And that's pretty much the definition of science fiction. The best science fiction makes a comment on current social trends by extrapolating them into a possible future. Maybe Gartner could leave the boring world of tech analysis behind. They could make the leap to Hollywood screenwriting. Big money in that.
Oh, he knows exactly what it's about. But, since he's astroturfing for Android, it's convenient for him to ignore inconvenient facts. (Then try to rationalize them away when they're pointed out.)
You mean like the facts (links) you refuse to provide? or those that Soph refuses to provide? Or the fact that Soph has stated in this article and others that he also things Gartner predictions are trash. So what "facts" are you talking about? Please, where have EITHER of you pointed out facts to contradict what I said here? I would wait, but expecting you to actually respond to a question is about as useful as waiting for a pumpkin to turn into a carriage.
The fact of the matter is is that whenever an analyst predicts Apple on top, this site posts the study as is, but whenever the study states something else, DED or some other writer is quick to point out the fallacies of the study, either in the methodology, or how they interpret it.
So please, tell me what, exactly this site is about. Because I was under the impresstion that it was claiming to be a site for Apple News and commentary on that news, not a Spin zone to preach to the choir, which it's been of late.
When is the last time this site, in it's "analysis," ever said anything contrary to the current company line at apple? or be critical of a move that Apple makes? Surely, you're not going to claim that Apple is perfect, or that a site claiming to offer analysis on Apple only offers things that put the company in a positive light.
And I haven't mentioned android, AT ALL in this topic, and yet I'm somehow "Astroturfing" for them? All I'm saying is what Soph and AI have ALREADY SAID, that Gartner is trash and shouldn't be listened to. So why is AI posting this "story" without linking to the Analysis they've done on the company that released the data?
EDIT: Because you'll use it to nitpick instead of actually answer a question: Yes, I have said the word android, but I haven't said that they're taking over, or that they're better, or anything of the like. I've only mentioned them as an example of a competing platform where AI questioned Garnter's predictions because iOS wasn't in the lead.
No, they don't have to believe them all. But if they post a "rumor" by a company they've publically stated they doubt, it's dishonest not to link back to that doubting post simply because they happen to like the rumor this time.
This site is for "apple news and analysis"
Not: "We post everything Apple, and if it's positive we let it slide, but if it's negative, we go out of our way to try and discredit it"
That's "Apple PR" at best "Apple Fanboyism" at worst.
I don't draw issue with them bringing up this report, since every other tech site will. What I draw issue with is them posting this one like it's from a trustworthy source (no questioning) when they JUST pointed out how inconsistent the firm was two days ago. Again, if this post showed Android (or any other platform) gaining the upper hand by 2015, you KNOW that DED or someone would be here ready to write off the report as useless and not to be listened to.
But because they AGREE with the outcome, they let other's assume it's true.
That is not analysis.
First you need to lighten up on the fanboy epithet. It gains you no support for your position except among other astroturfers. AI posted the previous report in the same manner, there is no functional difference here. Except that DED reviewed a previous report to compare their predictive accuracy against what really happened in the predicted timeframe.
No further opinion was offered on their current prediction except to note what it meant in growth terms. No terms of agreement or disagreement were offered either in the smartphone article or this one, you are showing a degree of sensitivity to whether they agree or not which is simply not stated. You can imply all kinds of things but those would be implications which are not defensible. In fact this and subequent posts lead the casual observer to see your arguments as strawman arguments, not based on the articles themselves. I went back and reread the first here:
to make sure. You are demonstrating a high degree of sensitivity to aligned expectations for these articles, which if parsed from an objective standpoint do not support that assertion. Worse, you seem to conflate subsequent commentary with the article itself.
First you need to lighten up on the fanboy epithet. It gains you no support for your position except among other astroturfers. AI posted the previous report in the same manner, there is no functional difference here. Except that DED reviewed a previous report to compare their predictive accuracy against what really happened in the predicted timeframe.
No further opinion was offered on their current prediction except to note what it meant in growth terms. No terms of agreement or disagreement were offered either in the smartphone article or this one, you are showing a degree of sensitivity to whether they agree or not which is simply not stated. You can imply all kinds of things but those would be implications which are not defensible.
Read both their titles. One of them tells you that The report is pointless because Gartner can't make up their mind. This is backed up by Analysis. It's CLEAR that they don't take it. They've done similar posts whenever Gartner releases numbers where iOS isn't in the best possible light. And how can you take "Last years predictions not very accurate" as anything other than "Hey, their prediction was wrong"
You're right, when I read an article by DED I have a preconcieved notion about how it will play out. But here's the thing: When DED writes an article about "The competition" you know what type of tone he'll take, and how he'll present the information. He's as predictable as a clock.
This one was posted AS IS, and the wording of the title casts no doubt in the readers mind if they should believe it or not. In fact, words like "Dominating" express quite the opposite (see the article on techcrunch to see how someone can take the SAME information and spin it differently). No, they're not supporting this prediction, but they're certainly not questioning it, or comparing it to other Gartner predictions.
And if "Questioning AI's policies" makes you a fanboy, that's pretty pathetic. Notice I haven't ONCE mentioned a competing platform or how it was going to take over. And I don't expect to gain any "support"
The vast majority of people who read this article don't read the comments. Of those that read the comments, a vast majority don't reply to them. Of those that reply to them they've already made up their minds because if anyone even HINTS at questioning the article or Apple, they're labeled a "Fandroid"
Yes, I use Android. I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the countless others that posted something and NEVER mentioned another platform, or if they did, it was based SOLEY on personal preference (and they didn't even bash iOS) and yes trolls like Soph and others went out of their way to bash their position (with only opinion of their own) and label them fandroids.
You mean like the facts (links) you refuse to provide? or those that Soph refuses to provide? ...
Uh, yeah, the facts we, "refused to provide." WTF are you even gibbering about? And who the hell is Soph?
I think you've just, in the moderately intelligible parts of your post, confirmed what we already knew about you. If only you could just be honest and admit why you're here, then we might respect you, at least.
GArtner is simply doing what it does well, which is providing very conservative estimates on a market. It is simply covering its bases in a very predictable manner ...
... Gartner is selling stability. Companies rely on its estimates to plan their capital and manpower budgets. They make money off this. IF they were to predict the Apple juggernaut and your Fanboy hysteria /takeover the world they would lose credibility and thus lose a lot of customers.
What Gartner does very well is reinforce the mindsets of clients who really don't have a clue and want some third party to bolster and confirm their unreasoning, uneducated take on the business environment around them. Don't look to consultants selling snake oil to upset clients' apple carts of prejudices. That's not the way to endear themselves to dimwit clients with more loose cash than common sense. It's why Garner so often fails at what it claims to do well - be truly and honestly predictive, letting the chips fall where they may.
There's a resemblance by Gartner and their ilk to Palm Beach "walkers" - young to middle aged "gentlemen" on Florida's Atlantic Coast, who flirt with and squire around wealthy, lonely widows and spinsters. There's no sense of conviction, principles or ethics in play here. It's all about chasing the wafting scent of money.
You mean like the facts (links) you refuse to provide? or those that Soph refuses to provide? Or the fact that Soph has stated in this article and others that he also things Gartner predictions are trash. So what "facts" are you talking about? Please, where have EITHER of you pointed out facts to contradict what I said here? I would wait, but expecting you to actually respond to a question is about as useful as waiting for a pumpkin to turn into a carriage.
The fact of the matter is is that whenever an analyst predicts Apple on top, this site posts the study as is, but whenever the study states something else, DED or some other writer is quick to point out the fallacies of the study, either in the methodology, or how they interpret it.
So please, tell me what, exactly this site is about. Because I was under the impresstion that it was claiming to be a site for Apple News and commentary on that news, not a Spin zone to preach to the choir, which it's been of late.
When is the last time this site, in it's "analysis," ever said anything contrary to the current company line at apple? or be critical of a move that Apple makes? Surely, you're not going to claim that Apple is perfect, or that a site claiming to offer analysis on Apple only offers things that put the company in a positive light.
And I haven't mentioned android, AT ALL in this topic, and yet I'm somehow "Astroturfing" for them? All I'm saying is what Soph and AI have ALREADY SAID, that Gartner is trash and shouldn't be listened to. So why is AI posting this "story" without linking to the Analysis they've done on the company that released the data?
EDIT: Because you'll use it to nitpick instead of actually answer a question: Yes, I have said the word android, but I haven't said that they're taking over, or that they're better, or anything of the like. I've only mentioned them as an example of a competing platform where AI questioned Garnter's predictions because iOS wasn't in the lead.
Your arguments are tiresome and not at all productive. Your demands that AI be critical when you think they should be critical are specious at best and egotistical. You seem to be acutely tuned into the "Apple company line" whatever the heck that is, and accuse AI of blindly supporting that, with no accurately supporting evidence to back it up. And still worse you make utter ridiculous statements like
Quote:
Surely, you're not going to claim that Apple is perfect, or that a site claiming to offer analysis on Apple only offers things that put the company in a positive light.
Unfortunately I feel compelled at this juncture to put you on the ignore list because your arguments fail repeatedly, logically and have no real value for discussion purposes to me.
Uh, yeah, the facts we, "refused to provide." WTF are you even gibbering about? And who the hell is Soph?
I think you've just, in the moderately intelligible parts of your post, confirmed what we already knew about you. If only you could just be honest and admit why you're here, then we might respect you, at least.
The post I quoted on said I was ignoring "inconvenient" facts. So, since I said that AI is a Fan site (not a news Site), where are the facts to counter this? When is the last time AI posted ANYTHING that questioned a move by Apple or suggested how they could improve their current position?
If they were a news site, that would be fine. But the thing is is that they DO provide commentary (see, DED) it just always happens to be in Apple's favor. Then they're not a news site, and they can't be an analysis site, because an analyst NEVER maintains the same POV no matter what. So what are they? I said they're a fan site, being generous. You disagreed, saying I was ignoring facts.
Your arguments are tiresome and not at all productive. Your demands that AI be critical when you think they should be critical are specious at best and egotistical. You seem to be acutely tuned into the "Apple company line" whatever the heck that is, and accuse AI of blindly supporting that, with no accurately supporting evidence to back it up. And still worse you make utter ridiculous statements like
Unfortunately I feel compelled at this juncture to put you on the ignore list because your arguments fail repeatedly, logically and have no real value for discussion purposes to me.
No, I said if they're going to be critical, be consistent. You either report these "analysts" as the press release shows, or you question their methods. You don't only question their methods when it doesn't suite you.
That's what I'm saying. It's not a question of being critical whenever "I" or anyone else things. It's an either/or thing. They're either critical of Gartner ALL the time, or they just post the news as it comes.
I wasn't aware that it was "Egotistical" or "arrogant" to take a company at their tag line: "Apple news and Analysis" I don't give a rat's ass which path they choose (report all, or analyze all). It's their website. But choosing to only analyze when it placed Apple in a better light IS arrogant.
EDIT: You yourself called out Gartner's track record in a previous post.
Comments
If AI doesn't Trust Gartner's research then WHY are they posting this crap as news?
Do you also believe that AI should believe and fervently stand behind any and all rumours it posts? I think you?re failing to see what this and many other sites are about.
Can we have our $500,000 now please? Thank you very much. It's a pleasure doing business with you.
Do you also believe that AI should believe and fervently stand behind any and all rumours it posts? I think you?re failing to see what this and many other sites are about.
No, they don't have to believe them all. But if they post a "rumor" by a company they've publically stated they doubt, it's dishonest not to link back to that doubting post simply because they happen to like the rumor this time.
This site is for "apple news and analysis"
Not: "We post everything Apple, and if it's positive we let it slide, but if it's negative, we go out of our way to try and discredit it"
That's "Apple PR" at best "Apple Fanboyism" at worst.
I don't draw issue with them bringing up this report, since every other tech site will. What I draw issue with is them posting this one like it's from a trustworthy source (no questioning) when they JUST pointed out how inconsistent the firm was two days ago. Again, if this post showed Android (or any other platform) gaining the upper hand by 2015, you KNOW that DED or someone would be here ready to write off the report as useless and not to be listened to.
But because they AGREE with the outcome, they let other's assume it's true.
That is not analysis.
What is there for the competition to offer to challenge Apple's lead? Put yourself in the shoes of an average consumer who sees no price advantage in buying an iPad competitor and a substantial software deficit, as in having a choices between thousands of titles for the iPad vs. hundreds for the other products (hundreds might be overstating it).
Besides, if the competition is playing catch-up, what makes you think Apple intends to stand still long enough for them to succeed?
I've never said that Apple does intend to stand still
I'd also disagree with your idea of the average consumer. I don't believe he/she/it has much of an idea how many apps one store or the other has. There's probably many who don't even really understand "apps" to begin with, assuming that the device they buy just magically does all those things they saw in the commercial. And according to some recent surveys there's a significant percentage of smartphone/tablet buyers who buy few if any apps at all. Personally I think the "average" consumer is more concerned with price and presentation. If you've got two good-looking devices on the shelf with the form-factor the buyer is looking for, basically the same hardware and stock functionality, but the "other" is 20% less than Apple's product, "other" is going to get the nod more often than not. Arguing that 80% of the buyers would opt for spending 20% more only because one has the Apple name on it is unlikely. Remember, my "average consumer" isn't well-versed on the technical differences or perceived advantages of Apple's iPad even tho they may have heard of it. Once they're standing in front of the display the Apple advantages may not be so clear to them. That's my opinion anyway.
Research firm Gartner...........
Gartner has zero credibility in my book. Their poor track record speaks volumes and companies that blindly follow Gartner's recommendations are shortsighted.
Didn't we just go thru one of these "Gartner prediction" threads? So this one is just as reliable an indicator as the last one, correct?
+1 If we are going to trash the analysts when they make predictions that go against Apple then we shouldn't be lauding them when they do the opposite.
Do you also believe that AI should believe and fervently stand behind any and all rumours it posts? I think you?re failing to see what this and many other sites are about.
Oh, he knows exactly what it's about. But, since he's astroturfing for Android, it's convenient for him to ignore inconvenient facts. (Then try to rationalize them away when they're pointed out.)
GArtner is simply doing what it does well, which is providing very conservative estimates on a market. It is simply covering its bases in a very predictable manner. You folks don't really understand the mind set of how busness is conducted. Yes of course it is making claims that don't make sense to YOU. Thats is fine. Its not about having to prove its findings - its about something else completely
Gartner is selling stability. Companies rely on its estimates to plan their capital and manpower budgets. They make money off this. IF they were to predict the Apple juggernaut and your Fanboy hysteria /takeover the world they would lose credibility and thus lose a lot of customers. You can rant and rave about this and you will, so be it, meanwhile the real world goes on despite you. The market will not let one company dominate. They are simply one force that will bring that consensus about about.
I've never said that Apple does intend to stand still
I'd also disagree with your idea of the average consumer. I don't believe he/she/it has much of an idea how many apps one store or the other has. There's probably many who don't even really understand "apps" to begin with, assuming that the device they buy just magically does all those things they saw in the commercial. And according to some recent surveys there's a significant percentage of smartphone/tablet buyers who buy few if any apps at all. Personally I think the "average" consumer is more concerned with price and presentation. If you've got two good-looking devices on the shelf with the form-factor the buyer is looking for, basically the same hardware and stock functionality, but the "other" is 20% less than Apple's product, "other" is going to get the nod more often than not. Arguing that 80% of the buyers would opt for spending 20% more only because one has the Apple name on it is unlikely. Remember, my "average consumer" isn't well-versed on the technical differences or perceived advantages of Apple's iPad even tho they may have heard of it. Once they're standing in front of the display the Apple advantages may not be so clear to them. That's my opinion anyway.
I sadly agree with you, the average consumer has very little clue, what they are buying works for and against them in my book. Apple has great simplistic advertising which works in their favor so do most of the Android commercials. They are selling an image. There will always be folks who want to buy simple , some who want macho and everything in between. most folks buy based on peer pressure and on price. I guess the outcome of this will be fought on the sales floor of few outlets, I don't really understand why Apple puts so few devices in Bestbuy and alike. But one thing I do know as long as the public sees so many Android devices in every phone store/walmart/Rado Shack and alike ournumbering Apple 10 to 1 it doesn't bode well long term does it? Apple will eventually be beaten down by the pure weight and mass of Android. Too bad, that the world will turn once again into a big fragmented, and very insecure race to the bottom Android Universe. Nobody cares really. Its happened with hi-fi, cars and just about every thing sold. I thnk Apple knows this already and is why they don't want the volume market
So, since Gartner doesn't know what will really happen 4 years (or 4 days) from now, they extrapolate numbers in a vacuum. Using current data and trends, then running them forward to some arbitrary future date. As in "If things continue exactly as they are right now, this is what will happen in the future."
And that's pretty much the definition of science fiction. The best science fiction makes a comment on current social trends by extrapolating them into a possible future. Maybe Gartner could leave the boring world of tech analysis behind. They could make the leap to Hollywood screenwriting. Big money in that.
Oh, he knows exactly what it's about. But, since he's astroturfing for Android, it's convenient for him to ignore inconvenient facts. (Then try to rationalize them away when they're pointed out.)
You mean like the facts (links) you refuse to provide? or those that Soph refuses to provide? Or the fact that Soph has stated in this article and others that he also things Gartner predictions are trash. So what "facts" are you talking about? Please, where have EITHER of you pointed out facts to contradict what I said here? I would wait, but expecting you to actually respond to a question is about as useful as waiting for a pumpkin to turn into a carriage.
The fact of the matter is is that whenever an analyst predicts Apple on top, this site posts the study as is, but whenever the study states something else, DED or some other writer is quick to point out the fallacies of the study, either in the methodology, or how they interpret it.
So please, tell me what, exactly this site is about. Because I was under the impresstion that it was claiming to be a site for Apple News and commentary on that news, not a Spin zone to preach to the choir, which it's been of late.
When is the last time this site, in it's "analysis," ever said anything contrary to the current company line at apple? or be critical of a move that Apple makes? Surely, you're not going to claim that Apple is perfect, or that a site claiming to offer analysis on Apple only offers things that put the company in a positive light.
And I haven't mentioned android, AT ALL in this topic, and yet I'm somehow "Astroturfing" for them? All I'm saying is what Soph and AI have ALREADY SAID, that Gartner is trash and shouldn't be listened to. So why is AI posting this "story" without linking to the Analysis they've done on the company that released the data?
EDIT: Because you'll use it to nitpick instead of actually answer a question: Yes, I have said the word android, but I haven't said that they're taking over, or that they're better, or anything of the like. I've only mentioned them as an example of a competing platform where AI questioned Garnter's predictions because iOS wasn't in the lead.
No, they don't have to believe them all. But if they post a "rumor" by a company they've publically stated they doubt, it's dishonest not to link back to that doubting post simply because they happen to like the rumor this time.
This site is for "apple news and analysis"
Not: "We post everything Apple, and if it's positive we let it slide, but if it's negative, we go out of our way to try and discredit it"
That's "Apple PR" at best "Apple Fanboyism" at worst.
I don't draw issue with them bringing up this report, since every other tech site will. What I draw issue with is them posting this one like it's from a trustworthy source (no questioning) when they JUST pointed out how inconsistent the firm was two days ago. Again, if this post showed Android (or any other platform) gaining the upper hand by 2015, you KNOW that DED or someone would be here ready to write off the report as useless and not to be listened to.
But because they AGREE with the outcome, they let other's assume it's true.
That is not analysis.
First you need to lighten up on the fanboy epithet. It gains you no support for your position except among other astroturfers. AI posted the previous report in the same manner, there is no functional difference here. Except that DED reviewed a previous report to compare their predictive accuracy against what really happened in the predicted timeframe.
No further opinion was offered on their current prediction except to note what it meant in growth terms. No terms of agreement or disagreement were offered either in the smartphone article or this one, you are showing a degree of sensitivity to whether they agree or not which is simply not stated. You can imply all kinds of things but those would be implications which are not defensible. In fact this and subequent posts lead the casual observer to see your arguments as strawman arguments, not based on the articles themselves. I went back and reread the first here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...nd_a_half.html
to make sure. You are demonstrating a high degree of sensitivity to aligned expectations for these articles, which if parsed from an objective standpoint do not support that assertion. Worse, you seem to conflate subsequent commentary with the article itself.
First you need to lighten up on the fanboy epithet. It gains you no support for your position except among other astroturfers. AI posted the previous report in the same manner, there is no functional difference here. Except that DED reviewed a previous report to compare their predictive accuracy against what really happened in the predicted timeframe.
No further opinion was offered on their current prediction except to note what it meant in growth terms. No terms of agreement or disagreement were offered either in the smartphone article or this one, you are showing a degree of sensitivity to whether they agree or not which is simply not stated. You can imply all kinds of things but those would be implications which are not defensible.
Read both their titles. One of them tells you that The report is pointless because Gartner can't make up their mind. This is backed up by Analysis. It's CLEAR that they don't take it. They've done similar posts whenever Gartner releases numbers where iOS isn't in the best possible light. And how can you take "Last years predictions not very accurate" as anything other than "Hey, their prediction was wrong"
Or here, where DED made sure to note that Gartner's numbers on Android didn't match other tabulations: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...7_million.html
You're right, when I read an article by DED I have a preconcieved notion about how it will play out. But here's the thing: When DED writes an article about "The competition" you know what type of tone he'll take, and how he'll present the information. He's as predictable as a clock.
This one was posted AS IS, and the wording of the title casts no doubt in the readers mind if they should believe it or not. In fact, words like "Dominating" express quite the opposite (see the article on techcrunch to see how someone can take the SAME information and spin it differently). No, they're not supporting this prediction, but they're certainly not questioning it, or comparing it to other Gartner predictions.
And if "Questioning AI's policies" makes you a fanboy, that's pretty pathetic. Notice I haven't ONCE mentioned a competing platform or how it was going to take over. And I don't expect to gain any "support"
The vast majority of people who read this article don't read the comments. Of those that read the comments, a vast majority don't reply to them. Of those that reply to them they've already made up their minds because if anyone even HINTS at questioning the article or Apple, they're labeled a "Fandroid"
Yes, I use Android. I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the countless others that posted something and NEVER mentioned another platform, or if they did, it was based SOLEY on personal preference (and they didn't even bash iOS) and yes trolls like Soph and others went out of their way to bash their position (with only opinion of their own) and label them fandroids.
You mean like the facts (links) you refuse to provide? or those that Soph refuses to provide? ...
Uh, yeah, the facts we, "refused to provide." WTF are you even gibbering about? And who the hell is Soph?
I think you've just, in the moderately intelligible parts of your post, confirmed what we already knew about you. If only you could just be honest and admit why you're here, then we might respect you, at least.
GArtner is simply doing what it does well, which is providing very conservative estimates on a market. It is simply covering its bases in a very predictable manner ...
... Gartner is selling stability. Companies rely on its estimates to plan their capital and manpower budgets. They make money off this. IF they were to predict the Apple juggernaut and your Fanboy hysteria /takeover the world they would lose credibility and thus lose a lot of customers.
What Gartner does very well is reinforce the mindsets of clients who really don't have a clue and want some third party to bolster and confirm their unreasoning, uneducated take on the business environment around them. Don't look to consultants selling snake oil to upset clients' apple carts of prejudices. That's not the way to endear themselves to dimwit clients with more loose cash than common sense. It's why Garner so often fails at what it claims to do well - be truly and honestly predictive, letting the chips fall where they may.
There's a resemblance by Gartner and their ilk to Palm Beach "walkers" - young to middle aged "gentlemen" on Florida's Atlantic Coast, who flirt with and squire around wealthy, lonely widows and spinsters. There's no sense of conviction, principles or ethics in play here. It's all about chasing the wafting scent of money.
You mean like the facts (links) you refuse to provide? or those that Soph refuses to provide? Or the fact that Soph has stated in this article and others that he also things Gartner predictions are trash. So what "facts" are you talking about? Please, where have EITHER of you pointed out facts to contradict what I said here? I would wait, but expecting you to actually respond to a question is about as useful as waiting for a pumpkin to turn into a carriage.
The fact of the matter is is that whenever an analyst predicts Apple on top, this site posts the study as is, but whenever the study states something else, DED or some other writer is quick to point out the fallacies of the study, either in the methodology, or how they interpret it.
So please, tell me what, exactly this site is about. Because I was under the impresstion that it was claiming to be a site for Apple News and commentary on that news, not a Spin zone to preach to the choir, which it's been of late.
When is the last time this site, in it's "analysis," ever said anything contrary to the current company line at apple? or be critical of a move that Apple makes? Surely, you're not going to claim that Apple is perfect, or that a site claiming to offer analysis on Apple only offers things that put the company in a positive light.
And I haven't mentioned android, AT ALL in this topic, and yet I'm somehow "Astroturfing" for them? All I'm saying is what Soph and AI have ALREADY SAID, that Gartner is trash and shouldn't be listened to. So why is AI posting this "story" without linking to the Analysis they've done on the company that released the data?
EDIT: Because you'll use it to nitpick instead of actually answer a question: Yes, I have said the word android, but I haven't said that they're taking over, or that they're better, or anything of the like. I've only mentioned them as an example of a competing platform where AI questioned Garnter's predictions because iOS wasn't in the lead.
Your arguments are tiresome and not at all productive. Your demands that AI be critical when you think they should be critical are specious at best and egotistical. You seem to be acutely tuned into the "Apple company line" whatever the heck that is, and accuse AI of blindly supporting that, with no accurately supporting evidence to back it up. And still worse you make utter ridiculous statements like
Surely, you're not going to claim that Apple is perfect, or that a site claiming to offer analysis on Apple only offers things that put the company in a positive light.
Unfortunately I feel compelled at this juncture to put you on the ignore list because your arguments fail repeatedly, logically and have no real value for discussion purposes to me.
Uh, yeah, the facts we, "refused to provide." WTF are you even gibbering about? And who the hell is Soph?
I think you've just, in the moderately intelligible parts of your post, confirmed what we already knew about you. If only you could just be honest and admit why you're here, then we might respect you, at least.
The post I quoted on said I was ignoring "inconvenient" facts. So, since I said that AI is a Fan site (not a news Site), where are the facts to counter this? When is the last time AI posted ANYTHING that questioned a move by Apple or suggested how they could improve their current position?
If they were a news site, that would be fine. But the thing is is that they DO provide commentary (see, DED) it just always happens to be in Apple's favor. Then they're not a news site, and they can't be an analysis site, because an analyst NEVER maintains the same POV no matter what. So what are they? I said they're a fan site, being generous. You disagreed, saying I was ignoring facts.
So, where are the facts I'm ignoring mouse?
Your arguments are tiresome and not at all productive. Your demands that AI be critical when you think they should be critical are specious at best and egotistical. You seem to be acutely tuned into the "Apple company line" whatever the heck that is, and accuse AI of blindly supporting that, with no accurately supporting evidence to back it up. And still worse you make utter ridiculous statements like
Unfortunately I feel compelled at this juncture to put you on the ignore list because your arguments fail repeatedly, logically and have no real value for discussion purposes to me.
No, I said if they're going to be critical, be consistent. You either report these "analysts" as the press release shows, or you question their methods. You don't only question their methods when it doesn't suite you.
That's what I'm saying. It's not a question of being critical whenever "I" or anyone else things. It's an either/or thing. They're either critical of Gartner ALL the time, or they just post the news as it comes.
I wasn't aware that it was "Egotistical" or "arrogant" to take a company at their tag line: "Apple news and Analysis" I don't give a rat's ass which path they choose (report all, or analyze all). It's their website. But choosing to only analyze when it placed Apple in a better light IS arrogant.
EDIT: You yourself called out Gartner's track record in a previous post.