2 ms·
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 pred
by ken 8y ago
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 if it's so obvious, why can't they ever predict it?
If in Apple's case it's all because of product/market issues with the iPhone line, then why does it happen to correlate almost exactly with the Dow losses? Is this really an Apple error at all? Is Apple failing because they can't weather the same storm as everyone else without even getting wet?
- addicted 8y agoThe author is largely quoting his own historic posts to make his point. 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.