alanaudio

chasm said:

I'm not disagreeing with the premise of this article -- indeed the Macalope makes a career out of it -- but 4740 words to tell us that "Apple doesn't listen to tech pundits and look at them; maybe you shouldn't either"? Really?

Any of us could say something like that and probably with even fewer words than you do, but Dan is not known for writing brief throwaway lines.  One of the reasons why I like reading what he has to say is that he has an opinion and then careful explains how he has reached that opinion, giving reasons and examples to support what he's saying and how he reached that conclusion.  I don't always agree with his conclusion, but I always enjoy hearing what he has to say. At school, it was never enough in science or mathematics to simply come up with the right answer, we had to show our working and demonstrate how we reached that answer.

Obviously there are people who need all information to be presented in brief sound bites, but there are also plenty of people who appreciate a more scholarly approach which obviously involves a lot more reading, but it also helps to educate and inform those who are prepared to put that little more effort.

My beef with the Apple pundits is not so much that they say what they say, but they are invariably wrong and yet those same people are readily given a platform to say something else which is also likely to be just as wrong in the future.  If I see a prediction by an analyst or a suggestion by some self-appointed expert, my first instinct is to check out what that individual has said before and to grade the significance of what they say accordingly.  It's a shame that web sites and newspapers don't also make reference to the past track records of those that they quote.