8 ms·

Many suspect that ARM Macs are coming, but I would not trust reporting from “The Big Hack” Bloomberg [1]. From the article, Bloomberg reported [2] that Apple w

by tl 6y ago

Many suspect that ARM Macs are coming, but I would not trust reporting from “The Big Hack” Bloomberg [1]. From the article, Bloomberg reported [2] that Apple would also do it in 2020, so they’re planning on being eventually right. [1]: https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack https://daringfireball.net/2018/10/bloomberg_the_big_hack [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/apple-is-said-to-plan-move-from-intel-to-own-mac-chips-from-2020 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/apple-is-...

lowdose 6y ago
Just because other media outlets haven't reported on the big hack, nor the lack of evidence and denial by involved companies is enough to dismiss it. You think Apple can pull their supply chain tomorrow out of China? I don't believe Amazon would give Alibaba et al a better excuse to strong arm Chinese entrepreneurs on their platform because it is losing the battle in every single market Amazon has a real storefront.
Traster 6y ago
I would really love it if we could try not dismissing entire news sources out of how hand based on 1 bad piece of reporting years ago. It's not like this article is even by the same journalists. We should be ignoring Marc Gurman because because John Robertson got something wrong in 2018? Also, if you'd actually read the article instead of dismissing it out of hand, you'd realise your big gotcha in your second citation is actually directly referenced in the article with details about exactly why they made that prediction. Frankly, there's no way even Apple knew whether they'd be shipping ARM macs in 2020 or 2021 back in April of 2018. In fact, this reporting actually backs up that reporting - given where we are now, it seems highly likely that Apple were planning to ship ARM macs in 2020 when that report was done in April 2018.
- klohto 6y ago
  We should do exactly what the OP says because that's the whole point of news outlets. Bloomberg stood by that piece and never commented on it, they just ignored. I don't see a reason why I should trust the same outlet. I'm happy reading their opinion pieces (by matt levine) but I see no reason to not dismiss their usual lets-see-if-we-are-right stuff.
  - ericlewis 6y ago
    In this case, it is Mark Gurman preciously of 9to5mac. He has a very stellar reputation for being correct on this stuff and has for nearly a decade. Bloomberg sucks, but he’s still Mark.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > We should do exactly what the OP says because that's the whole point of news outlets. Not really. The whole point of news outlets is to provide information for you to process. It makes no sense to leave out any objective reasoning from the task to jump into whitelisting or blacklist entire publications based on whether you were able to point any random issue somewhere in the past. Either the information is valid or accurate, or it isn't. It makes zero sense to claim that the work of author X should be blindly ignored just because you found an issue with a single piece written by author Y years ago.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Mistakes will be made. If Bloomberg (or whomever) owned it, and shared their post mortem, I'd applaud their intellectual honesty.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  We should keep highlighting that because the error was so egregious and they failed to apologise or correct themselves when it was shown to be false.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Do you know that it's false that Apple was planning, in 2018, to bring ARM-based Macs to the market in 2020? Product delays are not unheard of.
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      I was talking about the big hack article, the first link.
- ChrisRR 6y ago
  That wasn't just one piece of bad reporting though. That was a piece of bad reporting that claimed widely spread threats to international security
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  The Big Hack story was egregiously bad reporting. So bad you fail to see how any reputable news source could end up publishing such a piece ever. Funny I should run into you again, though. A couple days ago I replied to you when you were arguing Vox is reputable even though their reporting on COVID-19 was just flat out wrong. Looks like you are pretty forgiving to news outlets, if not just gullible.
  - Traster 6y ago
    It's not gullible to read the actual articles and make your mind up about them rather than deciding to be ignorant about what entire swathes of what society are talking about. You can baselessly claim Vox's reporting is wrong until you're blue in the face, but I'm still going to read it and make up my own mind.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > It's not gullible to read the actual articles and make your mind up about them Of course. The thing is we obviously aren’t coming to the same conclusions and it’s hard for me to understand yours. The same seems to go for you, but it appears that’s because you aren’t even trying to understand what I’m saying. You’re just baselessly calling my claims baseless.
      - Traster 6y ago
        You come into this thread trying to re-open an argument you tried and failed to make previously and call me gullible. It's hard for you to understand my conclusions because I've not stated any, I've simply stated we should read and criticise the article rather than writing off an entire news organisation. It's a little bit funny, that we've managed to discover 2 large, diverse news organisations with award winning journalists that you seem willing to entirely write-off in less than a week. This is the entire problem with your position on this, you're just deciding to ignore whole swathes of journalism on some pretence.
        6y ago
fnord123 6y ago
Why post a link to daring fireball? It's just a cheerleader website for apple. Instead, just use the official response from Apple: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got...
- creddit 6y ago
  Why post a link from Apple? They're just trying to make Apple look good. Instead, just use the official response of a random HNer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22954812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22954812
seumars 6y ago
>Bloomberg reports an issue that would mean a serious national security breach and a major loss of market value and credibility for Apple >Apple says it's false so Bloomberg sucks Great logic, what's the point of journalism again?

by tl 6y ago

lowdose 6y ago

Just because other media outlets haven't reported on the big hack, nor the lack of evidence and denial by involved companies is enough to dismiss it. You think Apple can pull their supply chain tomorrow out of China? I don't believe Amazon would give Alibaba et al a better excuse to strong arm Chinese entrepreneurs on their platform because it is losing the battle in every single market Amazon has a real storefront.

Traster 6y ago

I would really love it if we could try not dismissing entire news sources out of how hand based on 1 bad piece of reporting years ago. It's not like this article is even by the same journalists. We should be ignoring Marc Gurman because because John Robertson got something wrong in 2018? Also, if you'd actually read the article instead of dismissing it out of hand, you'd realise your big gotcha in your second citation is actually directly referenced in the article with details about exactly why they made that prediction. Frankly, there's no way even Apple knew whether they'd be shipping ARM macs in 2020 or 2021 back in April of 2018. In fact, this reporting actually backs up that reporting - given where we are now, it seems highly likely that Apple were planning to ship ARM macs in 2020 when that report was done in April 2018.

klohto 6y ago
We should do exactly what the OP says because that's the whole point of news outlets. Bloomberg stood by that piece and never commented on it, they just ignored. I don't see a reason why I should trust the same outlet. I'm happy reading their opinion pieces (by matt levine) but I see no reason to not dismiss their usual lets-see-if-we-are-right stuff.
- ericlewis 6y ago
  In this case, it is Mark Gurman preciously of 9to5mac. He has a very stellar reputation for being correct on this stuff and has for nearly a decade. Bloomberg sucks, but he’s still Mark.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > We should do exactly what the OP says because that's the whole point of news outlets. Not really. The whole point of news outlets is to provide information for you to process. It makes no sense to leave out any objective reasoning from the task to jump into whitelisting or blacklist entire publications based on whether you were able to point any random issue somewhere in the past. Either the information is valid or accurate, or it isn't. It makes zero sense to claim that the work of author X should be blindly ignored just because you found an issue with a single piece written by author Y years ago.
- specialist 6y ago
  Mistakes will be made. If Bloomberg (or whomever) owned it, and shared their post mortem, I'd applaud their intellectual honesty.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
We should keep highlighting that because the error was so egregious and they failed to apologise or correct themselves when it was shown to be false.
- foldr 6y ago
  Do you know that it's false that Apple was planning, in 2018, to bring ARM-based Macs to the market in 2020? Product delays are not unheard of.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    I was talking about the big hack article, the first link.
ChrisRR 6y ago
That wasn't just one piece of bad reporting though. That was a piece of bad reporting that claimed widely spread threats to international security
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
The Big Hack story was egregiously bad reporting. So bad you fail to see how any reputable news source could end up publishing such a piece ever. Funny I should run into you again, though. A couple days ago I replied to you when you were arguing Vox is reputable even though their reporting on COVID-19 was just flat out wrong. Looks like you are pretty forgiving to news outlets, if not just gullible.
- Traster 6y ago
  It's not gullible to read the actual articles and make your mind up about them rather than deciding to be ignorant about what entire swathes of what society are talking about. You can baselessly claim Vox's reporting is wrong until you're blue in the face, but I'm still going to read it and make up my own mind.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > It's not gullible to read the actual articles and make your mind up about them Of course. The thing is we obviously aren’t coming to the same conclusions and it’s hard for me to understand yours. The same seems to go for you, but it appears that’s because you aren’t even trying to understand what I’m saying. You’re just baselessly calling my claims baseless.
    - Traster 6y ago
      You come into this thread trying to re-open an argument you tried and failed to make previously and call me gullible. It's hard for you to understand my conclusions because I've not stated any, I've simply stated we should read and criticise the article rather than writing off an entire news organisation. It's a little bit funny, that we've managed to discover 2 large, diverse news organisations with award winning journalists that you seem willing to entirely write-off in less than a week. This is the entire problem with your position on this, you're just deciding to ignore whole swathes of journalism on some pretence.
      - 6y ago

fnord123 6y ago

Why post a link to daring fireball? It's just a cheerleader website for apple. Instead, just use the official response from Apple: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got...

creddit 6y ago
Why post a link from Apple? They're just trying to make Apple look good. Instead, just use the official response of a random HNer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22954812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22954812

seumars 6y ago

>Bloomberg reports an issue that would mean a serious national security breach and a major loss of market value and credibility for Apple >Apple says it's false so Bloomberg sucks Great logic, what's the point of journalism again?