

Apple's churning of the gut - eliajf
http://eliainsider.com/2013/01/16/apples-churning-gut/

======
jsnell
You're stating as fact that this kind of reporting happens to Apple and not to
other tech companies. But that has hardly been established. I often see
dubious news stories about several of the companies on your list, and back and
forth discussion about those stories. So I'd add a fifth explanation: You're
seeing lots of these stories because you're following people who blog about
Apple. If you're bored of bogus Apple controversies and want to see fewer of
them, just stop reading the blogs of Apple pundits.

~~~
w0utert
>> _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 every now and then, but you have to be blind to deny the fact that
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.

It's not unlike the 90', when Microsoft was in the position that Apple is now.
No matter what they did, it was bad, evil, anti-competitive, it sucked, they
stole the idea, whatever. I'm was guilty of irrational Microsoft hate myself
back then. Today, people almost feel pity for poor Microsoft, finally trying
to innovate in the smartphone and tablet space, but failing spectacularly to
attract people to their platform.

There's really nothing surprising here. In dutch, we have this saying that
goes along the lines of 'higher trees catch most of the wind'. I think it has
something to do with human nature. People envy success, especially when they
don't understand it. Combined with a tendency to herd around the popular
opinion, it's not hard to see how successful companies attract most of the bad
press. In the last few years I've seen some of the most nonsensical arguments
against Apple products you couldn't even make up yourself, almost go viral on
the internet.

At some point in time some other company will take Apple's place as the big
evil technology corporation that can't do anything right. Facebook would be a
pretty obvious candidate, the moment they start getting more successful at
monetizing their service, I predict they will become the centre of attention
for haters and trolls.

~~~
roc
> _"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 that often. And far more
people in Oprah's audience will have Windows PCs and Android phones than Macs
and iPhones.

But Oprah is far more justified in talking about Apple. (And she does.)
Because those people in her audience who have Apple devices likely have an
_emotional_ bond with them. And they will appreciate a story about Apple.
Whereas even those people with Android phones and Windows PCs in her audience
almost certainly don't give a damn about Microsoft or Samsung. They likely
don't even _know_ off-hand who manufactured their devices.

Not that Oprah herself parrots _component order_ stories. But it's the same
mechanism in other places that do. People _care_ about Apple. Ergo they will
actually read about Apple. Any number of blogs might have a grudge against
Sony or Samsung or Microsoft, and repeat negative stories about those
companies, but the fact that no-one really cares about those companies means
that they necessarily fall flat.

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.

Indeed what you see as a dog-pile against, many people who dislike Apple see
as a mindless cult that gets outsized press because the newspapers and
hollywood are full-fledged devotees to the cult.

They're two views on the same mechanism: the emotional reactions Apple
generates.

And the proof of this is as simple as looking to the way that Apple has _long_
commanded a slice of the public consciousness that far outweighed its
marketplace relevance. It's only fairly recently that their user base was
large enough to justify the press _they already had_.

~~~
GHFigs
_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.

~~~
roc
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).

------
mcantelon
>Apple was the underdog for so long and now that it is one of the biggest and
most successful companies in the world, well, we can’t root for them anymore.

Uh... I think the patent abuse, App Store censorship, and attempting to
normalize a paradigm where one needs the hardware vendor's permission to run
software have something to do with antipathy towards Apple.

------
technoslut
This article is the opposite of what I think it should be.

>I think the right answer is that Apple just fails to pass the gut test for
most people.

This is no surprise. Apple holds no significant monopoly so AAPL is volatile.
The stock is ripe for manipulation with a P/E that is far lower than many
other tech companies while almost one-third of the company's value is in cash
on hand.

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?

What screams out to me is that this is about favoritismm but coming from
intelligent people whom can deny it in a way that sounds reasonable to the
average person.

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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?

~~~
technoslut
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.

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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?

------
tatsuke95
> _" There is no way, the gut tells folks, that Apple can continue growing at
> the current rate. There’s no way! "_

Apple's stock price was on a parabolic growth trend. Sure, this time _could_
be different, but history says that such growth is unsustainable. Combine that
with the "intangibles" (Jobs' death) and the recent price correction isn't
shocking.

Why is every movement in Apple news? Because it's one of the planet's most
recognizable brands and biggest companies. Those are things that make news.

------
dannyr
It goes both ways.

Until recently, there were an avalanche of positive stories about Apple. Some
of it are overstated.

What did the author think of too much positive news about Apple back then?
He's only reacting now because it's negative.

------
PaulHoule
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
appliances? A Buckminister Fuller-style iHouse?

I just don't see how they can find an opportunity like that without losing
focus.

~~~
mikeash
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.

------
ronnier
>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.

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

------
bparsons
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.

~~~
ajross
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.

------
chucknelson
The author forgets one other factor that has become significant: the death of
Steve Jobs.

So it's the "law or large numbers" and the "doomed without Steve" arguments
that impact the news of Apple these days, but hopefully some of that will fade
with time.

~~~
technoslut
AAPL has seen serious fluctuations during the Jobs era as well when everyone
thought he was healthy. The day that Jobs showed off the iPad the stock had a
serious drop as well. The same goes for the day he shoed off the Macbook Air
as well.

In fact, Apple has better The Streets for most of the past six years.

------
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.

------
cmsj
blogger complains about linkbait apple stories in a linkbait apple story :)

------
cooldeal
>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 to $49. This led to a huge
cacophony all over the internet with a lot of publications reporting "Nokia
discounts phone by half", totally ignoring the fact that it was on contract
price, so the price discount was closer to 10% and was totally normal. There
was no such hype when other Samsung, HTC etc. phones were dropped in price as
part of the normal pricing cycle of such phones.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnol...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/9402618/Nokia-
cuts-Lumia-900-price-in-half-just-three-months-after-launch.html)

Nokia, RIM and Microsoft are some of the most beat down companies in analysis
and news. The "news" is universally junk and has more to do with attention
grabbing headlines and flamebait, regardless of the companies involved.

I think the author is suffering from a huge selection bias.

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

