“For reasons that defy explanation, The Guardian recently ran an article from Mike Daisey who posits that we’ve hit ‘Peak Apple,'” Yoni Heisler writes for BGR. “Hot on the heels of Apple’s most successful fiscal year in company history, Daisey employs the same recycled lines about how Apple, by mere virtue of its success, is destined to fall.”
“As Horace Dediu once pointed out, Apple is curiously looked upon as a ‘company that is in a perpetual state of free-fall,'” Heisler writes. “What makes The Guardian piece so jarring is that no one at the revered publication saw anything wrong with running a piece penned by someone who, not that long ago, was embarrassingly outed as a liar and shameless self-promoter who completely fabricated stories about working conditions at Foxconn in order to paint Apple in an unflattering light.”
“But maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to shoot the messenger in this case. Perhaps we should give Daisey a second chance and examine the reasons why he believes we’ve hit ‘Peak Apple,'” Heisler writes. “After all, people have been predicting Apple’s impending decline for years on end. Is it possible that they may finally be right? Well, let’s dive in and take a look, shall we?”
Sad to see the Guardian resorting to click-whoring. It’s a side show. As long as a company like Apple continues to grow its earnings and cash, over the long term, investors will be rewarded. That is true for any publicly traded company. If I had to pick between Warren Buffett or Mike Daisy on which to base my investment strategy, I think the choice would be obvious.
Tune out the noise. Watch the numbers. They tell a more insightful story.
It was entertaining to read the comments on BGR. The Apple haters are out in full force over there. They are so blinded by their senseless hatred that they can’t see facts.
Most are unemployed IT doofuses that categorically refuse to work on any non-microsoft product. They’re bitter at their obsolescence and angry at their unsightly gorilla arms they got from using windows 8.
They converged some time ago, in the law of large numbers, in reversion to the mean, and other mathematical fallacies. The fact is that there is no mathematical structure to success or failure in business or economics, despite the intense efforts of prominent disruption theorists like Clayton Christiansen to specify what can and cannot happen, and why. As postmodern analyst Horace Dediu has pointed out, Apple has doomed all those theories, and engendered new ones. Journalists will need to find new inspiration somewhere else. I suggest Jules Verne.
I always find it amusing that what we’re talking about here is a GAME. Call it economics, finance, business… It is all set up by humans for humans and has NO relationship to the real world at large. (Although THE LOST attempt to believe that the GAME is the ‘real world’. Sad on them).
I look on Apple as the [mostly] ideal capitalist institution or business. I cynically laugh at all THE LOST who attempt to tear Apple down to their slithering, parasitic level.
As for Jules Verne, you’ll find the core of his personal view of it all in his posthumous book “The Survivors of the Jonathan”. It resonates with my own POV as well. It’s about what I call a ‘Positive Anarchist’ who is stuck in a situation where the positive thing to do is to help a mass of shipwrecked people who have inadvertently intruded into his ideal domain. One way to view it is of the artificial massing its way in to the natural and the ramifications. It is rich with many other levels of thought as well. It is my very favorite Verne book, no sci-fi at all, entirely about human behavior.
It was of course very strange that the Guardian chose to publish Daisey’s article without mentioning his previous attacks which he eventually had to admit were fictitious. However the sinister aspect of this story was the way that the Guardian systematically deleted comments that pointed out Daisey’s previous lies. They even deleted comments mentioning that previous comments had been moderated.
If you read the comments after DED’s piece about that article, you will be able to see some of the comments that I copied and pasted into AppleInsider before they were deleted by the Guardian.
Exactly what were the Guardian trying to achieve with this article and why did they moderate the comments so aggressively? The Guardian frequently publishes comments that criticise the writer, why did they decide to censor critical comments when it comes to a contentious article written by a self-confessed liar?
What size bra does daisy wear?
Toss is impossible. Lift would be hard enough. Maybe roll or drop.
Fork Lift///!
Man Bra®. Size 36DD for Double Doofus.
Are those food stains on his shirt near the microphone. Looks like a pig that’s just been eating from a trough.
It’s fat that’s leaked out of his head.
Sad to see the Guardian resorting to click-whoring. It’s a side show. As long as a company like Apple continues to grow its earnings and cash, over the long term, investors will be rewarded. That is true for any publicly traded company. If I had to pick between Warren Buffett or Mike Daisy on which to base my investment strategy, I think the choice would be obvious.
Tune out the noise. Watch the numbers. They tell a more insightful story.
It was entertaining to read the comments on BGR. The Apple haters are out in full force over there. They are so blinded by their senseless hatred that they can’t see facts.
I wonder how their stock portfolio looks.
Most are unemployed IT doofuses that categorically refuse to work on any non-microsoft product. They’re bitter at their obsolescence and angry at their unsightly gorilla arms they got from using windows 8.
Oh great. Now the ‘Apple Is Doomed‘ era of tech journalism idiocy is over. It is now the era of ‘Apple Has Peaked‘. 😛
*yawning* 💤
They converged some time ago, in the law of large numbers, in reversion to the mean, and other mathematical fallacies. The fact is that there is no mathematical structure to success or failure in business or economics, despite the intense efforts of prominent disruption theorists like Clayton Christiansen to specify what can and cannot happen, and why. As postmodern analyst Horace Dediu has pointed out, Apple has doomed all those theories, and engendered new ones. Journalists will need to find new inspiration somewhere else. I suggest Jules Verne.
I always find it amusing that what we’re talking about here is a GAME. Call it economics, finance, business… It is all set up by humans for humans and has NO relationship to the real world at large. (Although THE LOST attempt to believe that the GAME is the ‘real world’. Sad on them).
I look on Apple as the [mostly] ideal capitalist institution or business. I cynically laugh at all THE LOST who attempt to tear Apple down to their slithering, parasitic level.
As for Jules Verne, you’ll find the core of his personal view of it all in his posthumous book “The Survivors of the Jonathan”. It resonates with my own POV as well. It’s about what I call a ‘Positive Anarchist’ who is stuck in a situation where the positive thing to do is to help a mass of shipwrecked people who have inadvertently intruded into his ideal domain. One way to view it is of the artificial massing its way in to the natural and the ramifications. It is rich with many other levels of thought as well. It is my very favorite Verne book, no sci-fi at all, entirely about human behavior.
Dilger at AppleInsider already ripped the Daisey opinion piece to shreds.
Fat Bastard
It was of course very strange that the Guardian chose to publish Daisey’s article without mentioning his previous attacks which he eventually had to admit were fictitious. However the sinister aspect of this story was the way that the Guardian systematically deleted comments that pointed out Daisey’s previous lies. They even deleted comments mentioning that previous comments had been moderated.
If you read the comments after DED’s piece about that article, you will be able to see some of the comments that I copied and pasted into AppleInsider before they were deleted by the Guardian.
Exactly what were the Guardian trying to achieve with this article and why did they moderate the comments so aggressively? The Guardian frequently publishes comments that criticise the writer, why did they decide to censor critical comments when it comes to a contentious article written by a self-confessed liar?