5 ms·

It seems like the writer has a personal stake in the idea that Apple can do no wrong, therefor Bloomberg must be lying. As an example they claim 10 reasons not

It seems like the writer has a personal stake in the idea that Apple can do no wrong, therefor Bloomberg must be lying. As an example they claim 10 reasons not to believe Bloomberg and cite two other pieces they have wrote, both proclaiming apples innocence. They literally give the same reason multiple times, and the reason is little more than "Apple wouldn't lie!". Apple has been caught lying in the past about other things like battery life. https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/05/chinese-spy-chip/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/05/chinese-spy-chip/

krn 8y ago
This. Also, Bloomberg's report is not specifically targeted at Apple. It seems, that it's being attacked here only because Apple is mentioned in it, and the author tends to trust Apple more than Bloomberg.
cm2187 8y ago
9to5mac is an apple fanboy website, but it doesn't mean their claims should be ignored.
- Drdrdrq 8y ago
  Well... it does give us a possible motive for not telling the whole truth, or even lying. Not saying this is the case here, but this piece is far from objective.
  - rconti 8y ago
    Well then listen to the original source, the podcast, linked in the article?
jjcc 8y ago
They are not necessary lying. But Journalists (and also politicians, lawyers, etc.) have a tendency to wrap a suspicion into a conclusion. That's more deceptive than propaganda because the authors believe their conclusions. Here the trick is making the evidence unfalsifiable with solid reason. For example: the information source is classified due to national security.
doctorsher 8y ago
The article is a clunky representation of the original material. I would highly recommend listening to the podcast that is being quoted from [0]. It is only 20 minutes long, and both the interviewer and the named source Joe Fitzpatrick have thoughtful commentary on the matter. [0] https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/
- panarky 8y ago
  If the Bloomberg story is wrong then you could make a killing buying Super Micro stock. It's down 50% since the story broke. https://imgur.com/a/Z1v3WgD https://imgur.com/a/Z1v3WgD
dkonofalski 8y ago
>Apple has been caught lying in the past about other things like battery life. That's a stretch to say that they were lying. They weren't lying about the battery life nor did they claim that they weren't changing the clock speed of the device. They simply claimed to have different motivation for doing so (namely, to keep older phones from completely turning off) than what others assume was the motivation (intentionally slowing phones to gain more sales).
- alanbernstein 8y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the response they gave after years of flat-out denials? You may not consider that the same thing as lying, but it's in the same family.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    The "battery slowdown" was only in place for a year or so before it was widely known.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - Angostura 8y ago
    > I don't believe so - I don't think they ever explained that older phones were being throttled, but I don't think they denied it in the face of accusations, did they?
    - alanbernstein 8y ago
      My memory is that it was common knowledge for several years that upgrading the OS to a version more than 3-4 years past the hardware release would cause a dramatic performance hit. For as long as I had access to an iphone, that was a known issue, as in, many people with older iphones would agree, any apple forum would have topics about it. Maybe it got more press coverage in the year leading up to the admission. Maybe there were multiple factors and the one they admitted became prominent in that year.

krn 8y ago

This. Also, Bloomberg's report is not specifically targeted at Apple. It seems, that it's being attacked here only because Apple is mentioned in it, and the author tends to trust Apple more than Bloomberg.

cm2187 8y ago

9to5mac is an apple fanboy website, but it doesn't mean their claims should be ignored.

Drdrdrq 8y ago
Well... it does give us a possible motive for not telling the whole truth, or even lying. Not saying this is the case here, but this piece is far from objective.
- rconti 8y ago
  Well then listen to the original source, the podcast, linked in the article?

jjcc 8y ago

They are not necessary lying. But Journalists (and also politicians, lawyers, etc.) have a tendency to wrap a suspicion into a conclusion. That's more deceptive than propaganda because the authors believe their conclusions. Here the trick is making the evidence unfalsifiable with solid reason. For example: the information source is classified due to national security.

doctorsher 8y ago

The article is a clunky representation of the original material. I would highly recommend listening to the podcast that is being quoted from [0]. It is only 20 minutes long, and both the interviewer and the named source Joe Fitzpatrick have thoughtful commentary on the matter. [0] https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/

panarky 8y ago
If the Bloomberg story is wrong then you could make a killing buying Super Micro stock. It's down 50% since the story broke. https://imgur.com/a/Z1v3WgD https://imgur.com/a/Z1v3WgD

dkonofalski 8y ago

>Apple has been caught lying in the past about other things like battery life. That's a stretch to say that they were lying. They weren't lying about the battery life nor did they claim that they weren't changing the clock speed of the device. They simply claimed to have different motivation for doing so (namely, to keep older phones from completely turning off) than what others assume was the motivation (intentionally slowing phones to gain more sales).

alanbernstein 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the response they gave after years of flat-out denials? You may not consider that the same thing as lying, but it's in the same family.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The "battery slowdown" was only in place for a year or so before it was widely known.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Angostura 8y ago
  > I don't believe so - I don't think they ever explained that older phones were being throttled, but I don't think they denied it in the face of accusations, did they?
  - alanbernstein 8y ago
    My memory is that it was common knowledge for several years that upgrading the OS to a version more than 3-4 years past the hardware release would cause a dramatic performance hit. For as long as I had access to an iphone, that was a known issue, as in, many people with older iphones would agree, any apple forum would have topics about it. Maybe it got more press coverage in the year leading up to the admission. Maybe there were multiple factors and the one they admitted became prominent in that year.