Agree that silence is interpreted as admissions.
Better and more effective rebuttal of thes crappy attacks will serve the company
It's customers the public and the stockholders well.
The same thing is going to happen in 2017. The news media will remain critical of EVERYTHING Apple does or doesn't do. Either Apple has an awful lot of enemies or the news media and the rest of the attention junkies simply like to use Apple's name to get clicks.
The media has evolved to conflate information and entertainment into one. This hasn't just started in 2016, it just had more serious consequences so people are paying more attention to it. There has been tabloid journalism for decades:
The internet is taking it to a new level because old-school publications were at least still separate entities with reputations and people had to pay for each one. Everybody pays the price for 'free' news later on. Information now all gets merged together to the point that a deranged voice on twitter stands side by side with major news outlets. This has upsides in that news reporting is no longer restricted to corporations who may have an interest (or governmental persuasion) in suppressing some news but it removes all editorial standards and it introduces bias towards advertisers.
When people serve to entertain rather than to inform, they play to their audience, which in many cases is a numbers game. Apple's competitors have always outnumbered them. There was no reason for outlets to promote Apple in the face of a 90% Windows audience. That changed into the Android audience. It's slightly different because Apple has a 1 billion+ strong user share now but this just allows the media to kill two birds with one stone. They can annoy the Apple users who are used to having to defend against attacks and at the same time give the haters what they want. If the reporting was the other way round, it wouldn't work because Apple people aren't the hateful, bitter people that Android and Windows people are, Apple people don't infest other discussion groups with hatred, bullying and insults. The only way it works that gets people on both sides riled up is to side with the attacking group, especially when the target is successful.
When an author see the reactions explode, they think it's a job well done. An informative article that in its own right stands up to scrutiny but has no audience fails by these modern standards. The failure here lies just as much with the audience as with the publishers and this is the same thing that has been said about the problem with television. The networks are just giving the audience (the largest portion of it) what they want. A fix will never come from journalists because on the internet, another can simply take their place within minutes, it ultimately has to come from the audience. This always seems like a good idea at the end of every year for people in general to just be a little better and at the end of every year we reach the conclusion that it's too much to expect.
The way the internet is structured is that it gives people a separation from responsibility so it's not an ideal platform to expect journalistic integrity but the upsides of distribution, speed, low barriers to entry are too beneficial so we just have to make the best of it. Having outlets develop a credible reputation can help but it's still not a fix because people will still look for the news they want to hear on each issue and will go to whichever outlet provides it.
This piece is spot on. There's so much media hype and lies about Apple.
However, mis- and dis-information always fills a void. Apple could be doing a better job of countering some of the more egregious nonsense, more often. They have started to do so recently, it seems that the company still lacks a clear communications strategy. It just does not seem to be a part of their DNA. Also, there has been a lot of turnover in their communications staff in the past year, as I recall.
The company's biggest saving grace on this front are a set of dedicated pro-Apple writers like DED and PED, as well as its legion of supporters on forums like these. That kind of passion and commitment from users are assets that other CE firms can only watch and envy.
I hear you...but I think (guessing) Apple's attitude is just keep your head down and do good work. Pay no mind to nonsensical critics as they're just a distraction. Stevo once said, "in tech, you have to be 10 years ahead of the competition, right now Apple is about 5 years ahead." I think he said that a couple of years before he passed.
I don't like to bash journalists, but I think they deserve this hit piece. The problem is that the press needs engaged readers who come back every day to read their articles to sustain their business. With only two (or three) keynotes per year, Apple doesn't provide them with enough material to support their business. So, what do they do, they hype product and initiatives that don't have a chance in the marketplace. One example is Microsoft's Surface, an overpriced, clearly underpowered machine hailed as the next big thing in PCs. The problem is that with each article hyping a product that eventually flops, these journalists are losing their only asset, their credibility. I hope they get to read this article and that they analyze how they can improve in 2017.
I think not responding to fake news is part of Tim Cook's ethos...like not going thermonuclear on Google like Stevo wanted back in the day.
And, on a lesser note, I've noticed the Keynotes start with a lot fewer "charts & graphs" detailing how Apple is doing compared to the competition. Some but not as many.
I think he wants Apple to be above all that. At the last Keynote Tim and the Apple presenters made no mention of Samsung missteps w/ the Galaxy Note 7. Very classy all around.
Just let Google, MS, Samsung, Dell, HP, RIM, Nokia, etc., continue to learn just how difficult it is to produce a device w/ outstanding hardware and software together.
Oh, and just let Amazon sell cheap Chinese knockoffs of, say, oh I don't know, Airpods! Yep. Go Amazon!
I think I have this right...About 75% of America's GDP is from consumers, but 50% the economy is made up by the top 10% of consumers. I think Apple knows this.
The other Tech manufactures use the misguided "Walmart" model. Sell a lot of cheap crap products and go after the 90% of consumers that have no money! Those that think a $16 Chinese crappy blender from Walmart is a "good value." And thereby, sell a lot of crap, but make little or no profit. Am I the only one that see's this?
Thoughts?
Additionally,
Walmart, the largest retailer in the world...what do they sell? Crap. McDonald's, the largest restaurant chain in the world...what do they sell? Crap. Coca-Cola, the largest beverage company in the world...what do they sell? Crap. Microsoft, the largest Software company in the world...what do they sell? Crap software (OS's). Google crappy ads Dell, crappy hardware
CR also didn't recommend the iPhone 4. Not too worried about it as Apple is investigating the issue.
No new desktops is a problem but it's not a major problem. I'm thinking a spring release for those items. Apple can weather most challenges it faces.
As for the anti-Apple press. Their whole modus operandii is "Slag off Apple and get more ad revenue". End of story.
There's only one company to blame for this:
Google.
Now I'll explain. Years ago the concept of ads was very simple. A media source (let's use a magazine as an example) would have two key items that made them attractive for advertisers. The obvious one is circulation - the more people that read your magazine the more you could charge for advertising space. The second is demographics. A car magazine like Road & Track would predominantly have a male readership with most readers in the 18-35 range. Magazines used to send out surveys to subscribers about income, education, interests and so on as this was the only way to determine the demographics of your audience. Advertisers would look at this and then decide if their products would be suitable to be advertised in that publication. Hence Road & Track would get ads from car manufacturers, car accessory manufacturers (like radar detectors) or similar products.
There was a problem with this model for both media outlet and advertiser. You had to work for it. Road & Track had to create QUALITY CONTENT that would make people want to continue to buy their magazines. They had to WORK for their readers. If they didn't do this then there were plenty of other magazines that people could turn to (Motor Trend or Car & Driver). Advertisers also had to work. They needed to perform detailed analysis of readership demographics of various outlets and compare it to the demographics of the people who bought their products in order to determine where they should spend their advertising money. And they had to think carefully about their ads. They had to be catchy, informative and have some quality that would entice readers to consider their product.
Now Google has eliminated these problems. Advertising can now be done by monkeys while Googles services to all the hard work of deciding where ads should be placed (based on demographics it creates about its users through the data it collects). And content providers no longer need to worry about content as their number one priority is now clicks/traffic. Quality content is replaced by click-bait headlines and fake news, because this drives traffic. In this way the primary reason for a media outlets existence has been changed. Websites are happy because it's childs play to secure advertising. No more negotiating deals with advertisers directly. Advertisers are happy because they can pay a single entity (Google) and have ads appear on millions of sites. We suffer through endless useless ads, garbage content only designed to drive hits and wasting bandwidth on something people hate (ads).
Which brings up a related point. Google makes 90% of their revenue on something people hate. Nobody likes ads, which is why we install ad blockers or PVR our favorite shows to skip the commercials. Yet they are rewarded for this by Wall Street even though their entire business could come tumbling down by something as simple as a new browser that actually completely blocks ads. If ever a company was on shaky ground as far as their primary product goes, it's Google.
Meanwhile Apple makes all their revenue from products that people actually want. Nobody buys an iPhone or MacBook because it's a necessity (like food or shelter). They buy it because it's DESIRABLE. And for making products that sell in huge numbers to people who WANT them they are punished by Wall Street and chastised by media as "relying too much on iPhone sales".
Agree that silence is interpreted as admissions.
Better and more effective rebuttal of thes crappy attacks will serve the company
It's customers the public and the stockholders well.
Look at tabloids like the National Inquirer. How many stupid articles do they publish about celebrities? Celebrities ignore them and don't respond because responding means you took the bait and adds credibility to their garbage (why respond unless there was some truth in it, they always say). On rare occasions when they make a mistake and cross the line a celebrity will speak out or sue them, but for the most part they just keep silent.
I think TIm Cook is right by not responding to every single hit piece on Apple.
man... Joanna Stern from WSJ... I could not stand that woman, she is obnoxious... a 40 years woman trying to be cute as a 14 year old teenage girl makes me want to puke.
She's awful on Gruber's podcasts as well. It's really hard to listen to her.
Like a previous commenter I felt slightly uncomfortable reading this. I am a big fan of Apple and have been for a very long time, but I thought that 2016 was a very poor year for them. There were more disappointments than positives: a non-S iPhone with few improvements; no desktop Macs; a MacBook Pro that can’t handle 32Gb; dongles required to connect the latest iPhone to the latest laptop etc.
There were highlights too, such as AirPods, but generally their core products were either given only minor improvements or none at all. The only exception was the MacBook Pro, and that seems to have been rushed out too soon.
I have high hopes for 2017 for all the reasons that Daniel mentions: good underlying technology; lack of decent competition; etc. However, in terms of actual products released (which is the key metric for me) I think that 2016 was the worst year for Apple in a very long time.
- the 7 had many improvements - a dongle isn't needed to connect a 7 to the MBP, just the proper cable - real life users have shown the 16gb on the MBP is not a problem, just a story - 2016 was a great year for Apple
The root cause of these fake news are human psychology. There is a very clear distinction of desire of using personal computers. For most people choosing between Windos PC and Macintosh is very personal thing. For Windows users this is especially true. The Windows users have especially harsh altitudes toward Apple. Psychologically this is a hatred. Apple has a status of elite. This makes Windows users have an inferior altitude. Now since Macs has less than 10% of market share. It is very high probability these journalists are using Windows PC to vent out their hatred toward Apple is disgust as news.
Like a previous commenter I felt slightly uncomfortable reading this. I am a big fan of Apple and have been for a very long time, but I thought that 2016 was a very poor year for them. There were more disappointments than positives: a non-S iPhone with few improvements; no desktop Macs; a MacBook Pro that can’t handle 32Gb; dongles required to connect the latest iPhone to the latest laptop etc.
There were highlights too, such as AirPods, but generally their core products were either given only minor improvements or none at all. The only exception was the MacBook Pro, and that seems to have been rushed out too soon.
I have high hopes for 2017 for all the reasons that Daniel mentions: good underlying technology; lack of decent competition; etc. However, in terms of actual products released (which is the key metric for me) I think that 2016 was the worst year for Apple in a very long time.
- the 7 had many improvements - a dongle isn't needed to connect a 7 to the MBP, just the proper cable - real life users have shown the 16gb on the MBP is not a problem, just a story - 2016 was a great year for Apple
The 7 did not have the usual major improvements that a non-S iPhone usually has. In this case a much needed new form factor with smaller bezels. It looks like that is coming next year, which is fair enough if that’s how the timing works, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that the 7 was less of a step forward than usual for a non-S year. Especially if, like me, you didn’t want the bigger version with the twin cameras.
You need to buy an extra component (a dongle or a cable or whatever) in order to connect the latest iPhone to the latest MacBook Pro. This goes completely against the “it just works” philosophy that I usually love about Apple. I don’t mind them using the latest USB-C standards to be as future proof as possible, but at least try and ease the pain by including a dongle with the MBP.
When you say "real-life" users don’t need 32Gb I assume that you mean most users don’t need 32Gb, which is probably true (at the moment). However this is supposed to be a Pro machine and a lot of Pro users (myself included) need 32Gb for some tasks. We will have to stick to using desktop Macs for such tasks, which is why it is a bit worrying that none of them were replaced in 2016.
I understand Apple’s reasoning for all these things (apart from no dongle with the MacBook Pro). Basically the components weren’t available for desktop Macs, and for 32Gb in the MBP, and OLED screens weren’t available in enough quantities yet for a new OLED iPhone. However the end result was a set of relatively disappointing products (IMHO).
I don’t think that Apple has any long term problems. Quite the reverse in fact because I think that 2017 is looking like it could be one of Apple’s best years in ages. I just feel that 2016 was a poor year by their standards.
I don't know. This article makes me slightly uncomfortable. It's all technically true, but DED turns a blind eye to recent events that cause deep concern among mac fans. A new MacBook Pro that was panned by CR? A Mac Pro with no updates since 2013? I don't think people are looking for unreasonable levels of innovation when they talk about how "Apple has left them" before buying a Windows machine, and I'm pretty sure Apple could have led in BT headphones without the Beats purchase.
I think, on balance, Apple does get the shaft by many so-called journalists; but this is not a religion, and Apple faces challenges that, when ignored by the author, make it difficult to take his writing seriously.
A couple of points First, Consumer Reports did not "pan" the new MacBook Pro. They in fact said "the laptops did very well in measures of display quality and performance, " The sole reason they said they could not "currently" recommend the new laptop was the inconsistent battery performance on their testing results. Indeed, it ties right into DED's point that Consumer Reports testing found the MBR battery life to be wildly high, up to 19 hrs, but the articles on it primarily focused on the tests where it was below Apple's stated range. (As an aside, I'm a long time CR subscriber, but reluctantly observe that their testing protocol seems as suspect as the Macbook Pro's battery test results in this case).
The other issue is that you try and discredit the point about the Beats purchase by saying "I'm pretty sure Apple could have led in BT headphones without the Beats purchase." That's actually ludicrous because before the Beats purchase, Apple didn't have any BT headphones, and just now has released the first non-Beats wireless headphones, the Airpod. Objectively, despite the criticism that Apple overpaid, the Beats purchase is making Tim Cook look ingenious as it has now grown to the point where Apple is the largest seller of wireless headphones in the world and owns 60% of the premium headphone market. This past summer wireless sales exceeded wired headphone sales in terms of dollars for the first time and the wireless market is growing at an amazing rate. Undoubtedly based on this quarter, wireless has now left wired in the dust for good. Beats headphones have a very large reported mark up over costs. Once again, Tim Cook financial guru. (Oh, and there was that little thing about the streaming service everyone was focused on )
Good piece. I think Apple's threats are not so much in the technology or media realm, but political. It will be interesting to see how Apple deals with the political hoops in China, US and India.
Like a previous commenter I felt slightly uncomfortable reading this. I am a big fan of Apple and have been for a very long time, but I thought that 2016 was a very poor year for them. There were more disappointments than positives: a non-S iPhone with few improvements; no desktop Macs; a MacBook Pro that can’t handle 32Gb; dongles required to connect the latest iPhone to the latest laptop etc.
There were highlights too, such as AirPods, but generally their core products were either given only minor improvements or none at all. The only exception was the MacBook Pro, and that seems to have been rushed out too soon.
The only people disappointed in the MacBook Pros are stat chasers. They look at a stat checklist and go down the list. They don't care about experience. I havent read a review by anyone that has used it that laments the memory limitations. Plus the complaints about the new MBPs are similar to the complaints of the old MBPs.
Like a previous commenter I felt slightly uncomfortable reading this. I am a big fan of Apple and have been for a very long time, but I thought that 2016 was a very poor year for them. There were more disappointments than positives: a non-S iPhone with few improvements; no desktop Macs; a MacBook Pro that can’t handle 32Gb; dongles required to connect the latest iPhone to the latest laptop etc.
There were highlights too, such as AirPods, but generally their core products were either given only minor improvements or none at all. The only exception was the MacBook Pro, and that seems to have been rushed out too soon.
I have high hopes for 2017 for all the reasons that Daniel mentions: good underlying technology; lack of decent competition; etc. However, in terms of actual products released (which is the key metric for me) I think that 2016 was the worst year for Apple in a very long time.
You're proving DED's point. Apple had a record setting iPhone 6s and then in just twelve months they came out with a whole new operating system for it and an iPhone 7 that had what you laughably state had "few improvements" even though it had an impressive list of new features.
1) New record setting performance chip
2) New larger low light camera lens
3) New duo lens system for iPhone 7 plus
4) Waterproof !
5) New duo stereo speaker system
6) New Optical image stabilization on iPhone 7
7) New wide color gamut screen
8) Larger battery
9) New larger Taptic engine
10) New virtual home button
You see why you have no credibility with your statements when you parrot anti-Apple propaganda like "it had few improvements." Also, you mimic the click bait press when you first lament that Apple was taking too long to issue new Macbook Pros and then you claim they were "Rushed out too soon."
I don't like to bash journalists, but I think they deserve this hit piece. The problem is…
The problem is that they are not journalists.
As the article states, "Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen. The problem is that few modern tech writers are actually journalists. Many are casual bloggers from vendor advocacy sites with a grudge against Apple. Journalists are supposed to report what's happening, not invent a narrative they want to happen."
And perhaps, if we keep identifying them as such, and quoting their rhetoric, we only perpetuate their existence.
Comments
Took these aholes apart like
an old trial lawyer.
From an old trial lawyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism
The internet is taking it to a new level because old-school publications were at least still separate entities with reputations and people had to pay for each one. Everybody pays the price for 'free' news later on. Information now all gets merged together to the point that a deranged voice on twitter stands side by side with major news outlets. This has upsides in that news reporting is no longer restricted to corporations who may have an interest (or governmental persuasion) in suppressing some news but it removes all editorial standards and it introduces bias towards advertisers.
When people serve to entertain rather than to inform, they play to their audience, which in many cases is a numbers game. Apple's competitors have always outnumbered them. There was no reason for outlets to promote Apple in the face of a 90% Windows audience. That changed into the Android audience. It's slightly different because Apple has a 1 billion+ strong user share now but this just allows the media to kill two birds with one stone. They can annoy the Apple users who are used to having to defend against attacks and at the same time give the haters what they want. If the reporting was the other way round, it wouldn't work because Apple people aren't the hateful, bitter people that Android and Windows people are, Apple people don't infest other discussion groups with hatred, bullying and insults. The only way it works that gets people on both sides riled up is to side with the attacking group, especially when the target is successful.
When an author see the reactions explode, they think it's a job well done. An informative article that in its own right stands up to scrutiny but has no audience fails by these modern standards. The failure here lies just as much with the audience as with the publishers and this is the same thing that has been said about the problem with television. The networks are just giving the audience (the largest portion of it) what they want. A fix will never come from journalists because on the internet, another can simply take their place within minutes, it ultimately has to come from the audience. This always seems like a good idea at the end of every year for people in general to just be a little better and at the end of every year we reach the conclusion that it's too much to expect.
The way the internet is structured is that it gives people a separation from responsibility so it's not an ideal platform to expect journalistic integrity but the upsides of distribution, speed, low barriers to entry are too beneficial so we just have to make the best of it. Having outlets develop a credible reputation can help but it's still not a fix because people will still look for the news they want to hear on each issue and will go to whichever outlet provides it.
Good points.
And, on a lesser note, I've noticed the Keynotes start with a lot fewer "charts & graphs" detailing how Apple is doing compared to the competition. Some but not as many.
I think he wants Apple to be above all that. At the last Keynote Tim and the Apple presenters made no mention of Samsung missteps w/ the Galaxy Note 7. Very classy all around.
Just let Google, MS, Samsung, Dell, HP, RIM, Nokia, etc., continue to learn just how difficult it is to produce a device w/ outstanding hardware and software together.
Oh, and just let Amazon sell cheap Chinese knockoffs of, say, oh I don't know, Airpods! Yep. Go Amazon!
I think I have this right...About 75% of America's GDP is from consumers, but 50% the economy is made up by the top 10% of consumers. I think Apple knows this.
The other Tech manufactures use the misguided "Walmart" model. Sell a lot of cheap crap products and go after the 90% of consumers that have no money! Those that think a $16 Chinese crappy blender from Walmart is a "good value." And thereby, sell a lot of crap, but make little or no profit. Am I the only one that see's this?
Thoughts?
Additionally,
Walmart, the largest retailer in the world...what do they sell? Crap.
McDonald's, the largest restaurant chain in the world...what do they sell? Crap.
Coca-Cola, the largest beverage company in the world...what do they sell? Crap.
Microsoft, the largest Software company in the world...what do they sell? Crap software (OS's).
Google crappy ads
Dell, crappy hardware
Best
There's only one company to blame for this:
Google.
Now I'll explain. Years ago the concept of ads was very simple. A media source (let's use a magazine as an example) would have two key items that made them attractive for advertisers. The obvious one is circulation - the more people that read your magazine the more you could charge for advertising space. The second is demographics. A car magazine like Road & Track would predominantly have a male readership with most readers in the 18-35 range. Magazines used to send out surveys to subscribers about income, education, interests and so on as this was the only way to determine the demographics of your audience. Advertisers would look at this and then decide if their products would be suitable to be advertised in that publication. Hence Road & Track would get ads from car manufacturers, car accessory manufacturers (like radar detectors) or similar products.
There was a problem with this model for both media outlet and advertiser. You had to work for it. Road & Track had to create QUALITY CONTENT that would make people want to continue to buy their magazines. They had to WORK for their readers. If they didn't do this then there were plenty of other magazines that people could turn to (Motor Trend or Car & Driver). Advertisers also had to work. They needed to perform detailed analysis of readership demographics of various outlets and compare it to the demographics of the people who bought their products in order to determine where they should spend their advertising money. And they had to think carefully about their ads. They had to be catchy, informative and have some quality that would entice readers to consider their product.
Now Google has eliminated these problems. Advertising can now be done by monkeys while Googles services to all the hard work of deciding where ads should be placed (based on demographics it creates about its users through the data it collects). And content providers no longer need to worry about content as their number one priority is now clicks/traffic. Quality content is replaced by click-bait headlines and fake news, because this drives traffic. In this way the primary reason for a media outlets existence has been changed. Websites are happy because it's childs play to secure advertising. No more negotiating deals with advertisers directly. Advertisers are happy because they can pay a single entity (Google) and have ads appear on millions of sites. We suffer through endless useless ads, garbage content only designed to drive hits and wasting bandwidth on something people hate (ads).
Which brings up a related point. Google makes 90% of their revenue on something people hate. Nobody likes ads, which is why we install ad blockers or PVR our favorite shows to skip the commercials. Yet they are rewarded for this by Wall Street even though their entire business could come tumbling down by something as simple as a new browser that actually completely blocks ads. If ever a company was on shaky ground as far as their primary product goes, it's Google.
Meanwhile Apple makes all their revenue from products that people actually want. Nobody buys an iPhone or MacBook because it's a necessity (like food or shelter). They buy it because it's DESIRABLE. And for making products that sell in huge numbers to people who WANT them they are punished by Wall Street and chastised by media as "relying too much on iPhone sales".
The whole thing is ridiculous.
/rant
Look at tabloids like the National Inquirer. How many stupid articles do they publish about celebrities? Celebrities ignore them and don't respond because responding means you took the bait and adds credibility to their garbage (why respond unless there was some truth in it, they always say). On rare occasions when they make a mistake and cross the line a celebrity will speak out or sue them, but for the most part they just keep silent.
I think TIm Cook is right by not responding to every single hit piece on Apple.
- a dongle isn't needed to connect a 7 to the MBP, just the proper cable
- real life users have shown the 16gb on the MBP is not a problem, just a story
- 2016 was a great year for Apple
The other issue is that you try and discredit the point about the Beats purchase by saying "I'm pretty sure Apple could have led in BT headphones without the Beats purchase." That's actually ludicrous because before the Beats purchase, Apple didn't have any BT headphones, and just now has released the first non-Beats wireless headphones, the Airpod. Objectively, despite the criticism that Apple overpaid, the Beats purchase is making Tim Cook look ingenious as it has now grown to the point where Apple is the largest seller of wireless headphones in the world and owns 60% of the premium headphone market. This past summer wireless sales exceeded wired headphone sales in terms of dollars for the first time and the wireless market is growing at an amazing rate. Undoubtedly based on this quarter, wireless has now left wired in the dust for good. Beats headphones have a very large reported mark up over costs. Once again, Tim Cook financial guru. (Oh, and there was that little thing about the streaming service everyone was focused on
1) New record setting performance chip
2) New larger low light camera lens
3) New duo lens system for iPhone 7 plus
4) Waterproof !
5) New duo stereo speaker system
6) New Optical image stabilization on iPhone 7
7) New wide color gamut screen
8) Larger battery
9) New larger Taptic engine
10) New virtual home button
You see why you have no credibility with your statements when you parrot anti-Apple propaganda like "it had few improvements." Also, you mimic the click bait press when you first lament that Apple was taking too long to issue new Macbook Pros and then you claim they were "Rushed out too soon."