nhughes

avon b7 said:

These are the official Huawei numbers:

2014 - 75 million units 

2015 - 108 million units

2016 - 139.3 million units

2017 - 153 million units (provisional)

Maybe this guy had some WIP accidentally go live. 

Considering the analyst in question fed the numbers to USA Today, I don't think it was a work in progress.

And not to cast stones in a glass house, but why did USA Today run this without questioning the estimates? Same goes for the sites who linked to the story with headlines treating the guesses as gospel.

We get a lot of analyst notes provided to us (daily!), some of which affect the stock price, making them newsworthy. I always try to cover them with some sort of proper and fair context, (for example, making it clear in the headline that the numbers are estimates or guesses or predictions). But the truth is, we pass on the vast majority of analyst notes we receive, for a variety of reasons.

GBH didn't send out a note for this one, they just provided the info direct to USA Today. And, frankly, had it not been covered by a major newspaper, and linked to by a number of our online competitors, I would have just ignored it as the nonsense that I believe it is.

Rayz2016 said:

StrangeDays said:

Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 

Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out. 

As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on. 

But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style. 

You can run iPhone apps on an iPad, all blown up and ugly if you so choose. Obviously Apple would never do that with its own apps on the Mac, but I could see lazy third-party developers doing half-baked ports of iOS apps, for the sake of having a presence on the Mac.

racerhomie3 said:

I have been reading AI since 2011. You guys are my main source of Apple news since ,Walt Mossberg left .
I am not disappointed at all.

Thank you for reading, and for the kind words!

melgross said:

nhughes said:

lkrupp said:

Okay, so here’s the $64K question. Did AppleInsider have to remove editorial content about jailbreaking in order to get the app approved, or as it is suspected, the original rejection was a mistake made by some overzealous reviewer or automated review process. That’s all we need to know.

We did not make any changes to editorial content. The app rejection was an error, and our editorial brought the error to the attention of the powers that be. Our developers received word that very morning. Happy to finally have it available!

Interesting. I don’t suppose Apple told you what that error was? Just an overzealous reviewer, or software that looks for particular terms?

I have no idea whether it was a human or machine error. I know that our developers have been, at times, frustrated by the lack of transparency in the process, and I know that they are not alone in that feeling. Despite what some commenters have assumed, the editorial we published was not written in a vacuum, and the latest issue was not an isolated incident. The only reason I wrote an editorial this time is because the rejection actually involved editorial content — it spilled over into my domain, a subject on which I am qualified to speak. 

lkrupp said:

Okay, so here’s the $64K question. Did AppleInsider have to remove editorial content about jailbreaking in order to get the app approved, or as it is suspected, the original rejection was a mistake made by some overzealous reviewer or automated review process. That’s all we need to know.

We did not make any changes to editorial content. The app rejection was an error, and our editorial brought the error to the attention of the powers that be. Our developers received word that very morning. Happy to finally have it available!