5 ms·
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 under
by 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 agoIf 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 agoNo, you have to have massive prejudices to see what Siegler writes in that way.
- kenjackson 16y agoHere'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 agoThat’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.
- kenjackson 16y agoThat's how spin works. You don't outright lie, but you "spin" the facts. Fox News doesn't work by lying -- it works by selective reporting. It's not that most of their news reports are lies, but in their totality they have a very clear bias. The fact that I can find, literally about 10 positive articles written about Apple in the past few months by MG, and maybe one (borderline) about MS, is quite telling. Despite the fact that MS generated larger profits than the "Insane" profits of Apple.
- ugh 16y agoWhat, specifically, is wrong with this article? That’s the important question for me. I don’t care about reading tea leaves. Siegler likes to write about Apple? So what, who cares, why does it matter? Do you really believe he should cover Microsoft and Apple equally? There is no need to turn a harmless disagreement into a pointless attack. This applies to Fox News and everything else equally. I will not attack anything someone says just because I think they frequently say stupid stuff.