I have devoted a lot of my life to responding to some dumb takes by analysts, but I can't remember a single more artificially intelligent comment in my life than to announce that "AI was a failure."
Getting your investment tips from CNBC is a bad idea but not as bad as getting them from an Apple fanboy news blog.
Correction. Getting (and acting on) your investment tips from a single source is a bad idea.
The economic or political leanings of a particular media outlet should not be a determining factor in piecing together a larger picture. A single media outlet might be full of bad or misleading information. But it will have some true data as well. To ignore it entirely is to intentionally deprive yourself of potentially useful data. By cross referencing as many seemingly disparate data points as you can, you’re more likely to arrive at a grounded conclusion.
What I find remarkable about blogs like this, is that on subject you know a lot about (like Apple, and their history, and their day-to-day performance) you can rail against the mainstream media and their outrageous fake news...yet you don't seem to have the faintest clue that this same phony nonsense applies to every single goddamn thing they broadcast.
No. It is insane to simply declaim that everything is a lie and there's no real information out there. There has never been more high quality journalism being done. And more clickbait journalism. Some sources have the sell-quality model, others just yell, "Be angry! Be afraid!" Even those sources trying for quality often contain a lot of inaccuracies and bias. But I can vouch that, in areas that I work in and am intimately familiar with, it's easy to find correct insightful mainstream reporting. If you have first-hand factual knowledge about a subject area, you are well situated to figure out who to listen to. The rejection of all authority and expertise is a road to disaster!
What I find remarkable about blogs like this, is that on subject you know a lot about (like Apple, and their history, and their day-to-day performance) you can rail against the mainstream media and their outrageous fake news...yet you don't seem to have the faintest clue that this same phony nonsense applies to every single goddamn thing they broadcast.
No. It is insane to simply declaim that everything is a lie and there's no real information out there. There has never been more high quality journalism being done. And more clickbait journalism. Some sources have the sell-quality model, others just yell, "Be angry! Be afraid!" Even those sources trying for quality often contain a lot of inaccuracies and bias. But I can vouch that, in areas that I work in and am intimately familiar with, it's easy to find correct insightful mainstream reporting. If you have first-hand factual knowledge about a subject area, you are well situated to figure out who to listen to. The rejection of all authority and expertise is a road to disaster!
The Saurian is mostly right though. The quality of journalism went all the way to the bottom of the hill when it became university trained rather than an apprenticeship. Nowadays it’s write your story based on your own prejudices, and then if you could be bothered to, go and get some sound bites to edit it into your agenda. Otherwise a few quotes that fit your agenda from the Twitter sewer will do. In fact the juniors seem to source their stories from Instagram and what is being said on Twitter. i agree though, you have to go and find credible sources yourself. mainstream media as a general rule is stuffed.
anyway what Metriacanthosaurus was saying was the there is a phenomenon where people know journalists are 90% wrong on subjects the reader knows a lot about, spend time railing about it, and then blithely swallow Journo Pap on subjects the reader knows little about. The default should to assume they are wrong, on everything.
I completely agree with everything said in the article and yes, some of the reporting is so wrong it almost looks intentional. But perhaps the crux of the Ives message is correct, even if the details are totally wrong. iPhone revenue is down this year and wearables/home/accessories + services revenue growth is only just making up for it. If iPhone revenue continues declining but the other two growth categories start flattening off, can Apple keep growing? Or it's possible that iPhone sales only look slow this year because of the large jump last year. At the very least, it's a reasonable question, even if CNBC framed it completely wrong.
Nope. The message, as usual, is myopic, especially since Apple no longer publishes iPhone numbers, thus making the assumption that iPhone sales are permanently declining ridiculous on the face of it.
It doesn’t take much digging to find out that iPhone sales, along with smartphone sales generally, started peaking 4 years ago. A clue to the actual facts about the iPhone's prospects can be found in a more detailed analysis of the one piece of information Apple still supplies: revenue. Apple breaks out revenue for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Other, and Services. I've got a chart that looks at all these areas. Guess what: Yes, there was a big pullback in iPhone revenue in 2019. But that's CLEARLY an outlier, caused by the huge impact of the Trump Trade War on Apple sales in China (a negative $8 Billion in fy '19 comparative revenue). Disregarding that blip, the trajectory of iPhone revenue is up, not flat, and certainly not down!
It is, however, flattening, which is to be expected as we hit peak smartphone.
Sure AppleInsider are Apple fans. They run a blog though where they allow alternative opinions are aired. Try critiquing mainstream media in comments and see what happens.
Oh, calm down.... So, CNBC reported an analyst's remarks who dished on Apple. That's their job -- report what analyst's are saying and thinking.
These are opinions. Instead of getting all in a huff, treat them as such. From my experience, the vast majority of articles from CNBC are favorable to Apple. We have come to think that every media outlet is a FauxNews or MSNBC spinning some agenda.
Expect to hear a LOT more trashing of Apple by experts, pundits and analysts in a couple weeks after Apple holds its annual September debacle extravaganza. Yes, Apple will do a great job -- but they will not meet expectations -- they never do. But, not because they didn't do a great job but because they didn't meet those expectations. And the experts, pundits and analysts will be out in force reporting the 'failure' and, yes, the media will report what they say. Deal with it!
I’m not convinced you understood anything this article said.
While I might not agree with this analyst, those complaining about biases or shoddy reporting should consider that Appleinsider rarely (ever?) publishes pieces critical of Apple. Or I should say that I've never read something on this site (other than the forum), which presents a reasonable criticism of anything substantial at Apple.
Oh, calm down.... So, CNBC reported an analyst's remarks who dished on Apple. That's their job -- report what analyst's are saying and thinking.
These are opinions. Instead of getting all in a huff, treat them as such. From my experience, the vast majority of articles from CNBC are favorable to Apple. We have come to think that every media outlet is a FauxNews or MSNBC spinning some agenda.
Expect to hear a LOT more trashing of Apple by experts, pundits and analysts in a couple weeks after Apple holds its annual September debacle extravaganza. Yes, Apple will do a great job -- but they will not meet expectations -- they never do. But, not because they didn't do a great job but because they didn't meet those expectations. And the experts, pundits and analysts will be out in force reporting the 'failure' and, yes, the media will report what they say. Deal with it!
Oh, sure, we shouldn't evaluate accuracy of statements published by others -- because hey "That's their job!". Yes, all opinions are equal, deal with it... Riiiight.
Nope. All ideas are not equal. Lots of opinions are stupid. This guy's are a great example of dumb and low-value information.
I completely agree with everything said in the article and yes, some of the reporting is so wrong it almost looks intentional. But perhaps the crux of the Ives message is correct, even if the details are totally wrong. iPhone revenue is down this year and wearables/home/accessories + services revenue growth is only just making up for it. If iPhone revenue continues declining but the other two growth categories start flattening off, can Apple keep growing? Or it's possible that iPhone sales only look slow this year because of the large jump last year. At the very least, it's a reasonable question, even if CNBC framed it completely wrong.
Nope. The message, as usual, is myopic, especially since Apple no longer publishes iPhone numbers, thus making the assumption that iPhone sales are permanently declining ridiculous on the face of it.
It doesn’t take much digging to find out that iPhone sales, along with smartphone sales generally, started peaking 4 years ago. A clue to the actual facts about the iPhone's prospects can be found in a more detailed analysis of the one piece of information Apple still supplies: revenue. Apple breaks out revenue for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Other, and Services. I've got a chart that looks at all these areas. Guess what: Yes, there was a big pullback in iPhone revenue in 2019. But that's CLEARLY an outlier, caused by the huge impact of the Trump Trade War on Apple sales in China (a negative $8 Billion in fy '19 comparative revenue). Disregarding that blip, the trajectory of iPhone revenue is up, not flat, and certainly not down!
It is, however, flattening, which is to be expected as we hit peak smartphone.
As you say, Apple publishes iPhone revenue figures and that was what I was referring to. I'm not sure how you can call the last data point in the line a blip and disregard it. Besides, even if we assume you are right and iPhone revenue is flattening off, my point still stands. Can Apple's other categories grow fast enough to offset iPhones in the company's next phase?
While I might not agree with this analyst, those complaining about biases or shoddy reporting should consider that Appleinsider rarely (ever?) publishes pieces critical of Apple. Or I should say that I've never read something on this site (other than the forum), which presents a reasonable criticism of anything substantial at Apple.
Entirely incorrect.
However, the column you are commenting on is an opinion column that specifically critiques what are considered misguided media narratives. Familiarize yourself with the concept of editorial.
While I might not agree with this analyst, those complaining about biases or shoddy reporting should consider that Appleinsider rarely (ever?) publishes pieces critical of Apple. Or I should say that I've never read something on this site (other than the forum), which presents a reasonable criticism of anything substantial at Apple.
While there are a few highly partisan outlets out there, for the most part, they are simply trying to report what is going on as accurately and completely as they can -- although some do a better job at that than others.
It seems that those screaming and crying about "biased media" are the biased ones -- they're just unhappy when the media reports something that doesn't support their bias.
Oh, calm down.... So, CNBC reported an analyst's remarks who dished on Apple. That's their job -- report what analyst's are saying and thinking.
These are opinions. Instead of getting all in a huff, treat them as such. From my experience, the vast majority of articles from CNBC are favorable to Apple. We have come to think that every media outlet is a FauxNews or MSNBC spinning some agenda.
Expect to hear a LOT more trashing of Apple by experts, pundits and analysts in a couple weeks after Apple holds its annual September debacle extravaganza. Yes, Apple will do a great job -- but they will not meet expectations -- they never do. But, not because they didn't do a great job but because they didn't meet those expectations. And the experts, pundits and analysts will be out in force reporting the 'failure' and, yes, the media will report what they say. Deal with it!
Oh, sure, we shouldn't evaluate accuracy of statements published by others -- because hey "That's their job!". Yes, all opinions are equal, deal with it... Riiiight.
Nope. All ideas are not equal. Lots of opinions are stupid. This guy's are a great example of dumb and low-value information.
Don't get yourself all worked up because you disagree with an analyst's opinion. That's silly. If you disagree, just say so and why. Or, ignore it.
I completely agree with everything said in the article and yes, some of the reporting is so wrong it almost looks intentional. But perhaps the crux of the Ives message is correct, even if the details are totally wrong. iPhone revenue is down this year and wearables/home/accessories + services revenue growth is only just making up for it. If iPhone revenue continues declining but the other two growth categories start flattening off, can Apple keep growing? Or it's possible that iPhone sales only look slow this year because of the large jump last year. At the very least, it's a reasonable question, even if CNBC framed it completely wrong.
Nope. The message, as usual, is myopic, especially since Apple no longer publishes iPhone numbers, thus making the assumption that iPhone sales are permanently declining ridiculous on the face of it.
It doesn’t take much digging to find out that iPhone sales, along with smartphone sales generally, started peaking 4 years ago. A clue to the actual facts about the iPhone's prospects can be found in a more detailed analysis of the one piece of information Apple still supplies: revenue. Apple breaks out revenue for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Other, and Services. I've got a chart that looks at all these areas. Guess what: Yes, there was a big pullback in iPhone revenue in 2019. But that's CLEARLY an outlier, caused by the huge impact of the Trump Trade War on Apple sales in China (a negative $8 Billion in fy '19 comparative revenue). Disregarding that blip, the trajectory of iPhone revenue is up, not flat, and certainly not down!
It is, however, flattening, which is to be expected as we hit peak smartphone.
As you say, Apple publishes iPhone revenue figures and that was what I was referring to. I'm not sure how you can call the last data point in the line a blip and disregard it. Besides, even if we assume you are right and iPhone revenue is flattening off, my point still stands. Can Apple's other categories grow fast enough to offset iPhones in the company's next phase?
Does the iPhone need to be offset? Isn't it OK that the rocket ran out of fuel and we're back to travelling at a speed that is still quite fast?
There seems to be an assumption that growth rates will, can and must continue indefinitely for a company to remain "successful." That assumption doesn't seem sound, to me.
And yet people will still trust these people with their money
The not educated taking advice from the deliberately clueless.
It’s why I don’t play in the market. Its a losers game where the house holds the cards and always wins.
1. Analysts do not handle investments nor do they manage portfolios so your concerns about “trusting hem with your money” needn’t trouble you.
2. Intelligent investors who are patient normally succeed. Greedy retail investors who fantasize they are hedge fund traders get slaughtered. The house does not hold all the cards. Your lack of knowledge betrays your swagger.
Quiet down.
Comments
Correction. Getting (and acting on) your investment tips from a single source is a bad idea.
The economic or political leanings of a particular media outlet should not be a determining factor in piecing together a larger picture. A single media outlet might be full of bad or misleading information. But it will have some true data as well. To ignore it entirely is to intentionally deprive yourself of potentially useful data. By cross referencing as many seemingly disparate data points as you can, you’re more likely to arrive at a grounded conclusion.
But could you compare CNBC articles before and after Steve Jobs?
i agree though, you have to go and find credible sources yourself. mainstream media as a general rule is stuffed.
anyway what Metriacanthosaurus was saying was the there is a phenomenon where people know journalists are 90% wrong on subjects the reader knows a lot about, spend time railing about it, and then blithely swallow Journo Pap on subjects the reader knows little about. The default should to assume they are wrong, on everything.
It doesn’t take much digging to find out that iPhone sales, along with smartphone sales generally, started peaking 4 years ago. A clue to the actual facts about the iPhone's prospects can be found in a more detailed analysis of the one piece of information Apple still supplies: revenue. Apple breaks out revenue for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Other, and Services. I've got a chart that looks at all these areas. Guess what: Yes, there was a big pullback in iPhone revenue in 2019. But that's CLEARLY an outlier, caused by the huge impact of the Trump Trade War on Apple sales in China (a negative $8 Billion in fy '19 comparative revenue). Disregarding that blip, the trajectory of iPhone revenue is up, not flat, and certainly not down!
It is, however, flattening, which is to be expected as we hit peak smartphone.
Nope. All ideas are not equal. Lots of opinions are stupid. This guy's are a great example of dumb and low-value information.
However, the column you are commenting on is an opinion column that specifically critiques what are considered misguided media narratives. Familiarize yourself with the concept of editorial.
It seems that those screaming and crying about "biased media" are the biased ones -- they're just unhappy when the media reports something that doesn't support their bias.
There seems to be an assumption that growth rates will, can and must continue indefinitely for a company to remain "successful." That assumption doesn't seem sound, to me.