5 ms·

People compare Microsoft and Apple. They just do. (See: Chart I linked to.) That’s not in any way typical of Siegler. And his prediction is also nothing special

by ugh 16y ago

People compare Microsoft and Apple. They just do. (See: Chart I linked to.) That’s not in any way typical of Siegler. And his prediction is also nothing special at all. It’s just wrong to attack this particular author about this particular question. It’s not typical Siegler. It’s typical many people. Siegler holds a common position on this particular issue. The popular trope that Siegler is defending Apple despite obvious evidence to the contrary which the first commenter seems to be alluding to is certainly not true when it comes to this particular issue. (It is true on other occasions but not this time.)

kenjackson 16y ago
I'm not saying Siegler is unique. There is a whole cottage industry of people who compare Apple to MS about things that have no merit. Like I said before, comparing revenue across industries is just stupid. It makes no sense. But there are some, like Siegler, who will do it. Of those, it is typical of them, and Siegler is in that class. There's an old saying that if you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you're reading. Lets look at the title of the story for when Apple released their earnings, "Apple’s Insane Q1 ’11: $26.7 Billion Revenue, $6 Billion Profit; 7.33 Million iPads, 16.24" He's just an obvious hack. But it gets page views. I think he probably makes a decent living doing it. No complaints about that. But I do think that if you are actually getting news from him, you're getting it from the Fox News of the tech sector. John Gruber is even a little embarrassed at how obvious his bias is.
- ugh 16y ago
  But Siegler is comparing profits, first and foremost. He doesn’t say to look only at the revenue, he clearly recognizes the importance of profits. I could understand you if he had completely ignored profits, but he did not. Profits were the whole point of this article and it’s completely reasonable to compare profits between Apple and Microsoft. (Isn’t the whole premise of this continued horse race coverage that the revenue milestone doesn’t really count and that you still have to look at how profits develop?) Oh, and Apple’s Q1 earnings are actually insane. I don’t know how you could find fault with that particular headline. I think no one could dispute that Apple’s Q1 results were extremely impressive. Can’t we attack people for what they actually say, not for what we think they are saying?
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    If Apple's profits were insane, and Microsoft's higher -- what does that make Microsoft's revenue? How about when MS had even higher profits last year... MG had no article about the "insane" MS profits. And he NEVER says that revenue don't count. When Apple surpassed MS in revenue he says, and I quote, "Naturally, it’s important to note that Microsoft still has a lead in profit, $5.41 billion to $4.31 billion, but that’s because one is mainly a software maker (huge margins), while the other is mainly a hardware maker (lower margins)." So lets be clear, he's saying that earnings need a qualifier due to margins (which is absurd in itself), but he NEVER NEVER says anything about revenue models not being comparable given that Apple is a hardware company and MS is a software company. Do you know who makes more revenue than Apple -- HP, yet MG has never mentioned another hardware company in his revenue posts. I think you'd have to blind to see how MG selectively omits certain key facts from his "articles", in order to create a specific pro-Apple anti-MS spin.
    - ugh 16y ago
      No, you have to have massive prejudices to see what Siegler writes in that way.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        Here's another typical Siegler headline, "Is Android Surging Only Because Apple Is Letting It?" Not surprisingly, no article about how Android blew past Nokia and Apple in Q4 2010 (already past Apple before that, but YoY). It's like watching a basketball game where the announcer only calls baskets made by one team. And then goes on and on about how team Apple just BARELY lost. But actually if you look at timeouts, team Apple used fewer timeouts, so if the game was to minimize timeout usage, Team Apple actually won!!!
        ugh 16y ago
        That’s not what Siegler wrote at all. You are twisting his words. I’m making no claims about other articles by Siegler and don’t want to defend them. He tends to say incredibly stupid or one-sided things about Apple very often. It’s just that I cannot find any fault with this particular article.
brudgers 16y ago
>"It’s just wrong to attack this particular author about this particular question." The headline wasn't "Microsoft Profits Beat Apple's (for the 83rd Time.)" Instead, beating Apple by more than 10% became "barely," lower margins become a justification for lower profits, and more revenue and greater market cap become what really matters anyway when it comes to Apple. That's what makes it typical.
- ugh 16y ago
  Where did Siegler actually say that? I think we are reading different articles. I also don’t understand what this whole margin-profit justification talk is all about. It’s just a consequence – not a justification – of lower margins that a company can have less profit than another company despite having higher revenue. A question for you: Has Apple been getting closer to Microsoft’s profits during the last years or would you see that as a mischaracterization? Also: Why am I getting downvoted?
  - brudgers 16y ago
    "Barely" is in the title of the article.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Barely is appropriate in the context, considering how quickly Apple’s earnings grew in the last quarters.
      - brudgers 16y ago
        Siegler's argument is that a long history supports Apple's revenue dropping less than Microsoft's in the fourth quarter. It's a new argument. The recent pace revenue growth was Siegler's reason that Apple would beat Microsoft in Q1. Rapid growth in no way implies slow decline.
        ugh 16y ago

by ugh 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago

I'm not saying Siegler is unique. There is a whole cottage industry of people who compare Apple to MS about things that have no merit. Like I said before, comparing revenue across industries is just stupid. It makes no sense. But there are some, like Siegler, who will do it. Of those, it is typical of them, and Siegler is in that class. There's an old saying that if you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you're reading. Lets look at the title of the story for when Apple released their earnings, "Apple’s Insane Q1 ’11: $26.7 Billion Revenue, $6 Billion Profit; 7.33 Million iPads, 16.24" He's just an obvious hack. But it gets page views. I think he probably makes a decent living doing it. No complaints about that. But I do think that if you are actually getting news from him, you're getting it from the Fox News of the tech sector. John Gruber is even a little embarrassed at how obvious his bias is.

ugh 16y ago
But Siegler is comparing profits, first and foremost. He doesn’t say to look only at the revenue, he clearly recognizes the importance of profits. I could understand you if he had completely ignored profits, but he did not. Profits were the whole point of this article and it’s completely reasonable to compare profits between Apple and Microsoft. (Isn’t the whole premise of this continued horse race coverage that the revenue milestone doesn’t really count and that you still have to look at how profits develop?) Oh, and Apple’s Q1 earnings are actually insane. I don’t know how you could find fault with that particular headline. I think no one could dispute that Apple’s Q1 results were extremely impressive. Can’t we attack people for what they actually say, not for what we think they are saying?
- kenjackson 16y ago
  If Apple's profits were insane, and Microsoft's higher -- what does that make Microsoft's revenue? How about when MS had even higher profits last year... MG had no article about the "insane" MS profits. And he NEVER says that revenue don't count. When Apple surpassed MS in revenue he says, and I quote, "Naturally, it’s important to note that Microsoft still has a lead in profit, $5.41 billion to $4.31 billion, but that’s because one is mainly a software maker (huge margins), while the other is mainly a hardware maker (lower margins)." So lets be clear, he's saying that earnings need a qualifier due to margins (which is absurd in itself), but he NEVER NEVER says anything about revenue models not being comparable given that Apple is a hardware company and MS is a software company. Do you know who makes more revenue than Apple -- HP, yet MG has never mentioned another hardware company in his revenue posts. I think you'd have to blind to see how MG selectively omits certain key facts from his "articles", in order to create a specific pro-Apple anti-MS spin.
  - ugh 16y ago
    No, you have to have massive prejudices to see what Siegler writes in that way.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      Here's another typical Siegler headline, "Is Android Surging Only Because Apple Is Letting It?" Not surprisingly, no article about how Android blew past Nokia and Apple in Q4 2010 (already past Apple before that, but YoY). It's like watching a basketball game where the announcer only calls baskets made by one team. And then goes on and on about how team Apple just BARELY lost. But actually if you look at timeouts, team Apple used fewer timeouts, so if the game was to minimize timeout usage, Team Apple actually won!!!
      - ugh 16y ago
        That’s not what Siegler wrote at all. You are twisting his words. I’m making no claims about other articles by Siegler and don’t want to defend them. He tends to say incredibly stupid or one-sided things about Apple very often. It’s just that I cannot find any fault with this particular article.

brudgers 16y ago

>"It’s just wrong to attack this particular author about this particular question." The headline wasn't "Microsoft Profits Beat Apple's (for the 83rd Time.)" Instead, beating Apple by more than 10% became "barely," lower margins become a justification for lower profits, and more revenue and greater market cap become what really matters anyway when it comes to Apple. That's what makes it typical.

ugh 16y ago
Where did Siegler actually say that? I think we are reading different articles. I also don’t understand what this whole margin-profit justification talk is all about. It’s just a consequence – not a justification – of lower margins that a company can have less profit than another company despite having higher revenue. A question for you: Has Apple been getting closer to Microsoft’s profits during the last years or would you see that as a mischaracterization? Also: Why am I getting downvoted?
- brudgers 16y ago
  "Barely" is in the title of the article.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Barely is appropriate in the context, considering how quickly Apple’s earnings grew in the last quarters.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      Siegler's argument is that a long history supports Apple's revenue dropping less than Microsoft's in the fourth quarter. It's a new argument. The recent pace revenue growth was Siegler's reason that Apple would beat Microsoft in Q1. Rapid growth in no way implies slow decline.
      - ugh 16y ago