Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect you haven't read the article and stopped after glancing at the first graph. While the graph was, as you say, without context, the point was to illustrate numerous other stock hits due to iPhone misses.
No, I never comment without reading the article. But it strikes me as no different from any other divination. If it's true that "these errors really were predictable", why are they writing only after the fact, and why only about Apple? Every time a stock goes up, down, or stays level, journalists and bloggers come up with some justification for it, and say that it was obvious in hindsight. It's usually plausible, but…
Whatever flaws the author's argument may or may not have, all the 3 points he presents were points he had made in the past, and not after the fact.