Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's churning of the gut

eliainsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#21

Post by seanalltogether »

cooldeal wrote: post #12

>What interests me more is why does this stuff keep happening in Apple’s name? No one comes out and says this crap about Samsung, Google, Nokia, RIM, Microsoft or any other big name in technology. It’s all Apple, all the time. Err what? I've seen this happen to every company on that list. For example, lets take Nokia. Three months after launching the Lumia 900, they discounted the price on contract at AT&T from $99 t…

Given the age of the blogger, I'm kinda surprised he so easily dismisses all those years of M$ bashing in the press.

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#22

Post by mikeash »

PaulHoule wrote: post #18

So far as the stock value is concerned, Apple's peak stock value assumed a continued high rate of growth. I don't know if that's possible. In the last few years, Apple dominated (practically created) two product categories: digital music players and smartphones. If Apple is going to keep growing like this it needs something bigger than the iPhone. What's it gonna be? An iTV? An iCar, a complete line of iKitchen appli…

Did it assume growth, though? Even at its peak, their P/E ratio was similar to companies like Microsoft, GE, and IBM. If they just sustained their current profitability they'd still be well worth the peak price and more. One can certainly make arguments about whether they can even sustain, but that peak price didn't require continuing levels of growth similar to the 2007-2012 period.

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#23

Post by GHFigs »

roc wrote: post #13
w0utert wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> So I'd add a fifth explanation: You're seeing lots of these stories because you're following people who blog about Apple . Is this your gut saying it can't possibly be true that Apple attracts lots of negative press mainly because it has been King of the Hill for so long, when it comes to fat profit margins and popularity? I couldn't disagree with you more. Sure enough other companies get unjustified bad press eve…

> "each and every website, even if it's only remotely related to technology, appears to be populated with people who can't resist the urge to slam Apple for whatever is the popular Apple-fail-du-jour." Is that because they actually hate Apple, though? Or is it just a function of the emotional attachment Apple creates? Consider what we'll call "The Oprah Example". Oprah doesn't remotely write or talk about technology…

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple.

I don't understand the distinction here. It sounds like you're exempting "hate" from "emotional opinions". Please clarify.

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#24

Post by w0utert »

GHFigs wrote: post #23
roc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "each and every website, even if it's only remotely related to technology, appears to be populated with people who can't resist the urge to slam Apple for whatever is the popular Apple-fail-du-jour." Is that because they actually hate Apple, though? Or is it just a function of the emotional attachment Apple creates? Consider what we'll call "The Oprah Example". Oprah doesn't remotely write or talk about technology…

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple. I don't understand the distinction here. It sounds like you're exempting "hate" from "emotional opinions". Please clarify.

I would even go as far as assuming there are many more reasons why Apple attracts so much criticism, unfounded rumors and hate, besides 'emotional opinions' (which as far as I'm concerned indeed also includes hate). Rational reasons such as trying to make money by manipulating the stock, trying to fit into some kind of peer group that appears to dislike Apple, a general need for attention, a lack of inspiration and creativity when writing blog posts or news articles, etc.

Large successful companies gather mind share, be it positive or negative, which makes them an appropriate subject for all kinds of attention. Just like many people feel Apple gets a disproportionate amount of positive attention (which is probably true), many others feel the get too much bad press (which is also true). Usually hate attracts much more attention though.

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#25

Post by ceejayoz »

technoslut wrote: post #9
ceejayoz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bigger issue for me is why this story has been so well covered by Daring Fireball, The Loop, MG Siegler and the rest of the Apple blogosphere? Do they really believe that they will affect general opinion of the stock or force an investigation? You're surprised that bloggers who blog about Apple are blogging about Apple? What's the issue here, again?

No, it's one thing to talk about technology. It's another to mount a campaign about how the WSJ got the story wrong about stock prices when it will all be settled within a few days. There are other issues that exist at Apple which are far more important. I could say the same for any tech company but I expect more from those who pretended to be above it all.

> No, it's one thing to talk about technology. It's another to mount a campaign about how the WSJ got the story wrong about stock prices when it will all be settled within a few days.

Daring Fireball isn't a technology blog, it's an Apple blog. Apple's stock price is entirely relevant.

> There are other issues that exist at Apple which are far more important.

Are these issues being ignored? These bloggers tend to post more than once a day on a variety of Apple-related topics.

> I could say the same for any tech company but I expect more from those who pretended to be above it all.

When have folks like Gruber ever pretended to be above covering Apple news and stock prices?

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#26

Post by ajross »

bparsons wrote: post #15

The only option that the author doesn't explore, is the possibility that the WSJ author may be correct in saying that the more robust Android ecosystem is gobbling up market share.

Or even more blandly: Apple overshot estimates for the holidays and has stock on hand they have to sell. There doesn't need to be any "falling off a cliff" or "gobbling up" to explain this. Orders in the just-in-time manufacturing world have always been volatile. That they haven't for Apple is simply because of Apple's extremely rapid growth. Extremely rapid growth isn't sustainable long term. And they're finally leveling off.

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#27

Post by vor_ »

ronnier wrote: post #2

>What interests me more is why does this stuff keep happening in Apple’s name? It's very similar to politics. Apple are the Republicans of tech in that every minor story is major news, all dirty laundry aired by journalists, bloggers, and tweets, and mockery where possible.

Strange analogy. That happens for all politicians regardless of party. Example: Anthony Weiner

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#28

Post by roc »

GHFigs wrote: post #23
roc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "each and every website, even if it's only remotely related to technology, appears to be populated with people who can't resist the urge to slam Apple for whatever is the popular Apple-fail-du-jour." Is that because they actually hate Apple, though? Or is it just a function of the emotional attachment Apple creates? Consider what we'll call "The Oprah Example". Oprah doesn't remotely write or talk about technology…

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple. I don't understand the distinction here. It sounds like you're exempting "hate" from "emotional opinions". Please clarify.

The distinction is this: it's not the writers motivations that makes Apple articles different.

A handful of people Hating Apple may well motivate them to write negative things about Apple. A handful of others may reblog it for similar reasons.

But all sorts of people hate all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. And one can easily find examples of similar emotionally-driven negative articles about Sony, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Yet those other articles don't inspire the response an Apple article does. They don't generate huge threads. They don't get reblogged much. They don't often generate many responses.

So Apple can't be different simply because of writers motives.

No, it's different because of the way readers react to it. And, specifically, the very large number of readers (historically out of proportion to Apple's significance) with very strong emotional reactions (both for and against).

Re: Apple's churning of the gut

#30

Post by Tycho »

This thought just occurred to me. Most companies in the world, the people who care about mundane reports on the company are a subset of the people who own shares in them. With Apple, it's the other way about - the share owners are a small subset of the people who care about these news reports.
Post reply on HN