Abalos65
About
- Username
- Abalos65
- Joined
- Visits
- 13
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 100
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 64
Reactions
-
Why Apple's guidance correction is causing less panic versus 2019
This editorial seems to have little to do with the question in the title of this editorial. "They became aware Apple is great". I mean, really, that is all? And no, linking to your own editorials is not a source to substantiate that.
The rest is just mindless fanboy venting on the bad bad media, not remotely related to Apples altered guidance or the reaction on the stock market, as is typical for DED editorials. It could have been copy pasted from any of his editorials. I mean, what has the Galaxy Z Flip to do with this current situation for example? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Oh, and if I had to answer the question in the title; there is less panic because this was expected to happen, is not happening to Apple alone and most importantly is not caused by a lack of demand as was the case last year. That last one is more reason to panic as investor. This current setback in the Chinese market and supply issues is known to be temporary.
And you were wrong about Apple's supply chain being prepared for the coronavirus, not more so than other companies. Are you willing to admit that?
-
Highly suspect benchmarks stoke rumors of Apple-designed ARM chips for Mac
franco borgo said:
I agree. I know that for Linux, we will probably have it soon after losing intel CPU, but losing Windows compatibility will hurt many people.
Yes, this will be important for certain users. Although Windows 10 can already be run on ARM with x86 emulation for programs not recompiled, maybe it would be possible to bootcamp with this version of Windows 10.
-
Editorial: Why Apple's first port of the new TV app isn't to Android, but to Samsung's ant...
But just below that you mention that this 40% isn't totally relevant, as the official Android TV only has 10% market share, with the majority of this 40% being customized versions of Android (most likely without a central App Store or even the same API's). I agree with that. But than the point of MAU47 still stands, Android TV is third according to market share, so an app for this platform doesn't have the highest priority.corrections said:
-
Editorial: Are Apple's incremental iOS 13 & macOS Catalina updates enough?
Most of the time I am able to detect and skip a DED editorial just by the title, but due to this title being a less obvious DED over-the-top headline (a really pathetic way to get clicks by the way) I was suckered in this time. I again come to the same conclusion; obsessive fanboying.
The editorials are always the same; Journalists suck. Apple sells more (or makes more money if that is not the case) and is therefore always right. All competitions are copycats or their original idea sucks, because it doesn't sell as much (or makes less money if that is not the case). Ooh and Ecosystem. What is the point of writing the same 'argument' time and time again? The only difference in these editorials is the first paragraph. All other sections can be copy pasted between the editorials without any difference in the overall 'thesis'. Nothing useful or interesting is conveyed. No new insights after reading the first editorial. And I am not even talking about all the incorrect information within these editorials.
It is just for here for generating clicks by being as provocative as possible. And unfortunately this time I am participating in the problem.
I will try skipping these crappy editorials again in the future and hope that AppleInsider reconsiders posting these. There are lots of nice editorials written on this website, DED editorials just aren't one of those.
-
Editorial: Another F for Alphabet: Google's Android Wear OS still 'half baked' after five ...
Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension.tenthousandthings said:
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension here — “entirely new features” describes those features relative to the earlier wearable iPod nano. It doesn’t describe those features relative to Wear OS devices. Corrections was being polite as he ignored this error on your part and directed you to his actual point about how the relationship between iOS and Watch OS isn’t one-way and that’s a sign of Apple’s good health. Yes, it’s “simply written” — but it doesn’t say what you said it does. Once could be a misreading of a long and complicated editorial, twice is either sloppiness or trolling.Abalos65 said:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.corrections said:
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.Abalos65 said:While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch.
The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/14/editorial-when-apple-is-2-years-behind-you-put-your-things-in-order
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
The editorial is about the workings of Apple? The title seems to be slightly wrong then. I see an article which half is about Google & Android (not WearOS). Some about the simple point that Apple was not first but better, and then a paragraph about how mean the press is. Concluding with how Android Wear is directed to nerds, while Apple watch is great, followed by AGAIN whining about the press talking about the headphone jack this time and saying that because the AirPods sync seamlessly between Apple product it is somehow an invalid complaint (who doesn't want AirPods, right?). Again, from the title I was under the impression it would be about WearOS, or is that because of my lack of reading comprehension?
-
Apple will miss quarterly guidance & iPhone sales estimates because of coronavirus
Well, this DED editorial hasn’t aged well: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/10/why-apples-supply-chain-is-prepared-for-chinas-coronavirusIn the end Apple’s supply chain is not magically different than all others it seems. Not to say that that is a knock towards Apple somehow, quite the opposite. -
Why Apple's guidance correction is causing less panic versus 2019
C'mon. The title was "Why Apple's supply chain is prepared for China's coronavirus". Not how Apple can weather sales disruptions/reductions. The supply chain. Purely the manufacturing and supplying of products.corrections said:
There was never any claim that Apple wouldn't be affected at all.Abalos65 said:And you were wrong about Apple's supply chain being prepared for the coronavirus, not more so than other companies. Are you willing to admit that?
Instead, I noted that Apple is well positioned to get through a temporary problem, and contrasted that with the situation for Huawei and other Android makers who are seeing not only sales disruptions, but are desperately dependent on year-round volume sales, trade shows, retail discounting, and Chinese sales to a far greater degree than Apple.
It is impossible to argue that Apple is not prepared for crisis after turning around sales in China last year and surviving previous supply chain disasters such as the devastation in Japan.
On the other hand, the wild media narratives of doom described in the article have been wrong, wrong, wrong over the last year. Point your waging finger where it belongs.
In the editorial:
"But all that mysterious complexity serves a critically important function. It makes Apple resilient to crisis." Again, about the supply chain, not sales. Also note the absolute of resilient.
"If there's any need to be concerned about who will be affected by any global event—including the most recent coronavirus in China—it's certainly not Apple that anyone needs to voice concerns about." This is below a large portion of text praising Apple's supply chain as magical (Japan, smelters, previous virus, the whole nine yards), clearly implying the supply chain will be unaffected, not sales.
How hard is it to admit you were wrong?
-
Coronavirus to hit Android's hopes for 5G, folding screens the hardest
Not that it should matter, but I love my iPhone 6s and iPad Pro 10.5. I like Apple. This is why I visit AppleInsider for some time now. I do not like the DED editorials, they are the most blatant form of blind fanboyism. If other tech sites would post these kind of editorials I would comment the same. I am not a Android/Samsung fanboy for simply finding these editorials tasteless. This is not a sports game.hentaiboy said:
Well, luckily you admit you are just assuming based on nothing. Makes it easier to dismiss.
Nope, I dont mind at all. I passionately dislike Android and I dont mind reading about its failures from time to time. I dont visit any Android forums, so I have no other way to hear about the most recent Android fiascos, and there is no shortage of those.hentaiboy said:
What is tiring is when Fandroids come to an Apple forum to bash Apple. You dont really see any Apple fans doing the opposite, because why would they ever want to visit an Android forum?
We all know who the most hateful and delusional fans are, and its not Apple fans.
