The reason for the article (idc and gartner number game) is to provide cover for stock manipulation, just I case the SEC and other Feds decide to do their job. The $5 drop of ape needed cover, what better reason than chrome overtaking Apple, the shysters thrive while the Feds look askance.
Yeah, but Business Insider has no pretensions to being anything other than the Buzzfeed of business reporting.
The FT actually thinks it is a serious newspaper. When you compare it to the WSJ or The Economist, it's laughable.
FT occasionally has a decent article (usually they hide it behind the paywall though). Honestly, even the WSJ has some duds at times. Depends on the journalist. Forbes varies, and even PED over at Fortune has some stinkers at times.
Great article, Dan!. IDC has a reputation for faulty analysis; just a pity it has influence.
'Faulty' is actually understandable, even acceptable -- we all make mistakes.
At this point, it is difficult to conclude that IDC is anything is other than agenda-driven. It probably has to do with their client base, and what these clients want to hear.
wow, just wow. for chrome to be attacked by BOTH apple AND windows users it must be a threat. numbers aside, the real results will be in the test scores from the kids using chrome vs windows vs apple. i dont care what my kids use, as long as it can show an improvement over whatever they were using before. that is the real and only argument that any parent needs to consider.
Even when he's just discussing numbers, his pieces are usually written from the viewpoint that the there is an unfair media bias against Apple - that the media tries to undermine Apple and support competing products.
This is just not true. The portrayal of Apple in the mainstream media is, on balance, positive. But pretending it isn't in order to adopt a siege mentality stirs up the hive so much more effectively.
I agree that in the general media, Apple is portrayed in a positive light. But every time you read the comments of one of these positive articles, it's full of people wondering is this was a paid advertising for Apple. Or how much the writer got paid from Apple.
On the otherhand, if you follow Apple (or AAPL) in the business media, it seems 2 to 3 that Apple (AAPL) will be portrayed in the negative light. If Apple reports a record profit earning quarter, the headlines on many of the articles will focus on any negative aspect of the earning report. Things like ....... "iPod sales plummetting" ....... "margins on the decline" ......... "Apple predicts flat earnings going forward" .......... "Profit way up, but earnings up only slightly " ......... "Mac marketshare growth slowing down" ..... etc.
Also, anything postitive articles about AAPL seems to be picked up and rebroadcast by only a few of the media outlets, but anything negative seems be picked up and rebroadcast by every one of the media outlets. Plus negative articles about Apple or AAPL seems to stay in the news for days while positive ones seems to disappear by the next day. It doesn't matter if half or more of the news article portrays Apple or AAPL in the positive light when those articles can't be found the day after it came out, while negative articles about Apple or AAPL can still be found days after it came out.
What if Apple is secretly paying IDC and Gartner and the like to give everyone else a false sense of where things are headed and their relative marketshare so that they continue to spend money on projects and advertising that prevent them from spending their time and effort and money where it would have the most impact on their ability to actually compete with Apple's products?
You really need to let people be positive about a brand that they passionate about. After all, this is a pro Apple brand forum.
For your own mental health, I urge you to deal with your issue and figure out why need to show your perceived superiority by balancing out common pro Apple viewpoints on here with with your "open minded" negativity. Why can you not let it go?
Let it go Relic, your act is fooling no one and gaining no respect from anyone on a pro Apple site that you are desperately trying to round up for yourself.
If you got something constructive to say, I am sure you are smart enough to do so without coming across like person who is just here to throw shit at positive Apple posters. That starts with actually reading what DED wrote in his editorial. Which you obviously did not even brother to do.
DED has a habit of getting pretty emotional, and could often be called an Apple Fanboi, but how is that relevant when all he is doing here is discussing numbers? The only valid argument against what he is saying here is proving that the numbers used in the original article are in fact correct. If they are not, the person highlighting them - and all his bias - is of no relevance. Sounds like your bias against DED is the issue here - even when he just uses facts, you'd rather not listen.
Actually he's not. He's discussing the numbers in question for about a paragraph then wanders around the landscape using other numbers to muddy the issue.
The fact that Chromebooks went from not all that interesting (essentially 0%) in 2013 to 27.2% of the education market a year later is highly relevant and not surprisingly totally ignored by DED.
Everybody, including Apple, quotes IDC. So obviously calling IDC out today and not a year ago (when the news was very favorable) strikes some folks as hypocrisy.
The fact remains that Chromebooks are gaining traction, more than I expected, given they took 4.5% share this year up from 0.2% share in 2012.
This must worry both MS and Intel. It's too easy to go ARM with Chromebooks and Intel won't subsidize Atom tablets anymore.
Personally, I'm never getting a Chromebook, nor is my family if I can help it. I'd much rather get a Win 8.1 netbook if I had to choose something other than a MBA. Google rubs me the wrong way...dealing with their services gives me hives. So I'm anti-Chrome but I won't deny the reality that Windows is as vulnerable as Nokia and Blackberry was in the sub-$300 arena.
In early 2011, IDC analysts observed that with its Windows Phones, "Microsoft has steadily lost market share while other operating systems have brought forth new and appealing experiences," but turned those facts around with a bold prediction that by 2015, Microsoft would gain significantly greater market share in smartphones (20.9 percent) than Apple (15.3 percent).
With 2015 just a couple weeks away, Windows Phone now has trivial global market share in phones (about on par with Google's Chromebooks among PCs), while Apple's iPhone now has 40 percent or greater share in the U.S., U.K., Australia and Japan and higher share than IDC predicted even in China and across Western Europe.
IDC appeared to be overly optimistic on iPone world wide share for 2015. Isn't it really something like 10% now?
One of the things that went terribly wrong with their prediction was Android vs Windows Phone distribution.
Does it even really matter if these guys keep fudging numbers to show Apple is always losing market share to everyone?
It does, but not to the people that matter.
If IDC, FT or BI, or any other investor clickbait site articles get read, they make money. If Investors subscribe, they make more money. Who cares if the information is useful, or relevant, it just sends their automated HFT computers into a frezny, good news or bad. Feed the HFT systems enough bad data and you see flash crashes.
I'm sure Garrahan and Bradshaw enjoy being lectured on journalistic integrity by DED, an author of such intellectual hygiene that he comments on his own articles from sock-puppet aliases and supports his assertions mainly through links to his own propaganda pieces.
Go away, Dilger - you're embarrassing yourself and AI.
Regardless of their enjoyment of such reprimand, it was sorely needed and embarassing my obvious that they were simply aiming for a one-two punch of degrading Apple and propping up android while gaining clicks for themselves. The fact that the article title was blatantly and admittedly false simply shows there IS NO JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY in the authors' repertoire.
Great job DED. Thorough and factual as always. Glad someone with the ability is willing to take a stand for truth and exposing the pathetic fabricators.
Oracle's case against Google is still lumbering through the courts, and it's certainly possible that Google will prevail.
It would, however, be pretty irresponsible for Google to not cover its ass, and we are seeing plenty of evidence of that as Andy Rubin leaves, the Chrome guy takes over
I mean the bottom line is - Chromebooks have became one of the players in the education sector - whether Chromebooks will beat Apple's almighty marketing power and brand recognition remains to be seen ...
Comments
Share this guys....
Twitter! Facebook! Linkedln! Ello! Youtube! Vimeo! EVERYWHERE!
Oh forgot this guy --> email Relic too!
IDC is pure BS. The FT is worse. It's unfortunate, really, since they used to be a very good newspaper.
None of them can match Business Insider for sheer propaganda though.
Yeah, but Business Insider has no pretensions to being anything other than the Buzzfeed of business reporting.
The FT actually thinks it is a serious newspaper. When you compare it to the WSJ or The Economist, it's laughable.
Yeah, but Business Insider has no pretensions to being anything other than the Buzzfeed of business reporting.
The FT actually thinks it is a serious newspaper. When you compare it to the WSJ or The Economist, it's laughable.
FT occasionally has a decent article (usually they hide it behind the paywall though). Honestly, even the WSJ has some duds at times. Depends on the journalist. Forbes varies, and even PED over at Fortune has some stinkers at times.
Great article, Dan!. IDC has a reputation for faulty analysis; just a pity it has influence.
'Faulty' is actually understandable, even acceptable -- we all make mistakes.
At this point, it is difficult to conclude that IDC is anything is other than agenda-driven. It probably has to do with their client base, and what these clients want to hear.
Even when he's just discussing numbers, his pieces are usually written from the viewpoint that the there is an unfair media bias against Apple - that the media tries to undermine Apple and support competing products.
This is just not true. The portrayal of Apple in the mainstream media is, on balance, positive. But pretending it isn't in order to adopt a siege mentality stirs up the hive so much more effectively.
I agree that in the general media, Apple is portrayed in a positive light. But every time you read the comments of one of these positive articles, it's full of people wondering is this was a paid advertising for Apple. Or how much the writer got paid from Apple.
On the otherhand, if you follow Apple (or AAPL) in the business media, it seems 2 to 3 that Apple (AAPL) will be portrayed in the negative light. If Apple reports a record profit earning quarter, the headlines on many of the articles will focus on any negative aspect of the earning report. Things like ....... "iPod sales plummetting" ....... "margins on the decline" ......... "Apple predicts flat earnings going forward" .......... "Profit way up, but earnings up only slightly " ......... "Mac marketshare growth slowing down" ..... etc.
Also, anything postitive articles about AAPL seems to be picked up and rebroadcast by only a few of the media outlets, but anything negative seems be picked up and rebroadcast by every one of the media outlets. Plus negative articles about Apple or AAPL seems to stay in the news for days while positive ones seems to disappear by the next day. It doesn't matter if half or more of the news article portrays Apple or AAPL in the positive light when those articles can't be found the day after it came out, while negative articles about Apple or AAPL can still be found days after it came out.
I'd forgotten that one LOL, no doubt Relic will chime in that you are being unnecessarily negative though.
It was one of their more eyebrow-raising projections. And pure fiction.
What if Apple is secretly paying IDC and Gartner and the like to give everyone else a false sense of where things are headed and their relative marketshare so that they continue to spend money on projects and advertising that prevent them from spending their time and effort and money where it would have the most impact on their ability to actually compete with Apple's products?
Let it go DED, we get it..
You should take your own advice.
You really need to let people be positive about a brand that they passionate about. After all, this is a pro Apple brand forum.
For your own mental health, I urge you to deal with your issue and figure out why need to show your perceived superiority by balancing out common pro Apple viewpoints on here with with your "open minded" negativity. Why can you not let it go?
Let it go Relic, your act is fooling no one and gaining no respect from anyone on a pro Apple site that you are desperately trying to round up for yourself.
If you got something constructive to say, I am sure you are smart enough to do so without coming across like person who is just here to throw shit at positive Apple posters. That starts with actually reading what DED wrote in his editorial. Which you obviously did not even brother to do.
DED has a habit of getting pretty emotional, and could often be called an Apple Fanboi, but how is that relevant when all he is doing here is discussing numbers? The only valid argument against what he is saying here is proving that the numbers used in the original article are in fact correct. If they are not, the person highlighting them - and all his bias - is of no relevance. Sounds like your bias against DED is the issue here - even when he just uses facts, you'd rather not listen.
Actually he's not. He's discussing the numbers in question for about a paragraph then wanders around the landscape using other numbers to muddy the issue.
The fact that Chromebooks went from not all that interesting (essentially 0%) in 2013 to 27.2% of the education market a year later is highly relevant and not surprisingly totally ignored by DED.
Everybody, including Apple, quotes IDC. So obviously calling IDC out today and not a year ago (when the news was very favorable) strikes some folks as hypocrisy.
The fact remains that Chromebooks are gaining traction, more than I expected, given they took 4.5% share this year up from 0.2% share in 2012.
http://www.omgchrome.com/chromebook-sales-37-percent-back-school-2014/
This must worry both MS and Intel. It's too easy to go ARM with Chromebooks and Intel won't subsidize Atom tablets anymore.
Personally, I'm never getting a Chromebook, nor is my family if I can help it. I'd much rather get a Win 8.1 netbook if I had to choose something other than a MBA. Google rubs me the wrong way...dealing with their services gives me hives. So I'm anti-Chrome but I won't deny the reality that Windows is as vulnerable as Nokia and Blackberry was in the sub-$300 arena.
"IDC sure picks a lot of losers"
I think what you really mean is: A lot of losers pick IDC [to try to make themselves look good]
In early 2011, IDC analysts observed that with its Windows Phones, "Microsoft has steadily lost market share while other operating systems have brought forth new and appealing experiences," but turned those facts around with a bold prediction that by 2015, Microsoft would gain significantly greater market share in smartphones (20.9 percent) than Apple (15.3 percent).
With 2015 just a couple weeks away, Windows Phone now has trivial global market share in phones (about on par with Google's Chromebooks among PCs), while Apple's iPhone now has 40 percent or greater share in the U.S., U.K., Australia and Japan and higher share than IDC predicted even in China and across Western Europe.
IDC appeared to be overly optimistic on iPone world wide share for 2015. Isn't it really something like 10% now?
One of the things that went terribly wrong with their prediction was Android vs Windows Phone distribution.
It does, but not to the people that matter.
If IDC, FT or BI, or any other investor clickbait site articles get read, they make money. If Investors subscribe, they make more money. Who cares if the information is useful, or relevant, it just sends their automated HFT computers into a frezny, good news or bad. Feed the HFT systems enough bad data and you see flash crashes.
http://moneymorning.com/2014/12/01/why-aapl-stock-had-a-mini-flash-crash-today/
Nobody knows "why" hmm? Check the date.
http://www.slashgear.com/google-chromebooks-trump-apple-ipads-in-schools-says-idc-01357845/
Regardless of their enjoyment of such reprimand, it was sorely needed and embarassing my obvious that they were simply aiming for a one-two punch of degrading Apple and propping up android while gaining clicks for themselves. The fact that the article title was blatantly and admittedly false simply shows there IS NO JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY in the authors' repertoire.
Great job DED. Thorough and factual as always. Glad someone with the ability is willing to take a stand for truth and exposing the pathetic fabricators.
And yet we see this:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/25/7283509/this-is-googles-massive-android-billboard-in-times-square
http://androidandme.com/2014/10/news/new-android-commercials-show-off-the-fun-side-of-a-diverse-platform/
If anything Google is doubling down on Android and wants Androiod everywhere.