“Across 2016, ostensibly legitimate journalists and research firms gravely warned that Apple was in trouble on every front–from low cost wearables to Microsoft’s 2-in-1 notebooks, to Google’s new Pixel Phone and a resurgent Samsung — as well as falling behind everyone else in the emerging, very promising field of Virtual Reality,” Daniel Eran Dilger writes for AppleInsider. “They were all so incredibly wrong we can now have a good end-of-year laugh at their expense.”
“Throughout the year a variety of critics worked hard to invent competition for Apple. But no amount of advocacy or propaganda has shifted the reality that’s readily apparent,” Dilger writes. “Entering 2016, Apple earned virtually all of the profits in smartphones, in tablets, in PCs and had introduced the only successful smartwatch — capable of not just stomping out Android Wear and Samsung Tizen as competitors but also taking a large bite out of premium Suisse watch sales — even as its rivals struggled in every product category.”
“What changed this [in 2016]?” Dilger writes. “Apple’s weak competitors lost more ground and suffered more failures, setting Apple up against an even weaker competitive threat in 2017.”
Tons more in the full article – recommended – here.
MacDailyNews Take: There are only three things certain in this life: Death, taxes, and anti-Apple FUD.
How long would the Jobs’ inertia last, in your estimation?
I hope you’re getting paid for all these vacuous “contributions”.
My civic duty. And you’re welcome.
Remind us what contributions have you made, Sean?
It’s not me, but I’ll respond anyway: What does it matter what his contributions are if the OP’s contributions are vacuous?
Umm….. no comment !
Sigh.
Analists, pundits, and tech prognosticators should be required to disclose: 1. Accuracy of predictions for company, or technology, or product 2. Percentage, on average, of the articles they’ve written that can be classified as FUD 3. Payments accepted from company whose tech, or product is being reviewed 4. Credibility of predictions made
My guess is that there would be fewer fake news articles if the above disclosures were made mandatory. 🖖😀⌚️
Fake news is good for low information people. They can free themselves from facts and logical thinking. The population is divided neatly in two: those with triple digit IQs and those with double digit IQs. The people with triple digit IQs are less likely to believe the fake news but more likely to not act on it. The other half of the population is more likely to not question the fake news and more likely to act on it or make opinions based on it.
Lethargy is our enemy and those who have triple digit IQs must start doing something to educate and help the rest. Trump is the champion of low info voters and even uses a 4th grade vocabulary to address them.
Too bad you weren’t smart enough to see that coming.
As always Daniel is well researched and points out the nonsense.
MDN Take…”were..”??
My condolences.
It gets worse every year and the fools continue to believe the bull.
Apple was saved by the Samsung exploding phone screw-up.
Fake News???
Most of the NYT, HuffPo, CNN and WaPost headlines on Apples own “News” app….it’s GawdAwful pathetic.
To me, the sickness of the human race is evident in the men they defer to, the principles they agree to, and the shackles they allow, in order to be left alone.
There is a fundamental difference, which many here, including some quite intelligent people, often ignore (or don’t realise), between fake news (i.e. lies) and politically biased information.
When a news article claims that Pope endorsed Trump, that qualifies as fake news, since it never happened (and Vatican quickly denied it). When an article claims that Clinton Foundation was selling political influence by soliciting donations, and corroborates that statement with evidence (specific amounts, from specific donors, which then coincided with specific action related to those donors), then it is politically biased news based on facts.
Biased news is perfectly legitimate. Mainstream media outlets, such as Fox, WSJ, NY Post (as well as NY Times, CNN, Washington Post) do this all the time. Traditional journalism requires corroborating any statement with sources and/or evidence, and they all can provide it.
Outlets such as Breitbart have no such internal rules. If the story fits their political narrative, it goes out, regardless of how fictitious it is. The plausible excuse may be that the public will always find a way to filter out what is obviously incorrect, and people will simply dismiss stories that are fake. The obvious reality is that the preponderance of fake news stories, based on nothing but fiction, provided actionable information to many voters seeking information before making their decisions.
Research indicates that voters with lower education tend to more easily accept fake news stories that align with their political preferences than those with higher education. Some evidence also suggests that fake news stories targeting conservative audiences (i.e. with story lines favourable to the conservatives, or critical of liberals) were much more likely to be shared online than fake stories with the pro-liberal spin. The connection between the two seems quite obvious.
The point here is, the existence of fake news wouldn’t have any significance if it were politically neutral, but apparently it isn’t. Bottom line is, some of those deciding on the destiny of America are making their decisions based on information that is simply fiction, and one side of the American political duality is the beneficiary. This isn’t really all that good for democracy.
You’re familiar with Veles, Macedonia?
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/14/505547295/fake-news-expert-on-how-false-stories-spread-and-why-people-believe-them
Let’s bring that trolling board to an all new level of FUD in 2017.
I’ll be the first : 2017 + Apple = doomed. Bam! In your teeth!
Happy New Year to everyone! Even the trolls!
“There are only three things certain in this life: Death, taxes, and anti-Apple FUD.” ….. the reason for the anti-Apple FUD is clearly driven by the many competitors that are continuously experiencing “near Death” scenarios as they try in vain to generate morsels of profit from their lack lustre products!