Bob,
The thing that bothered me most about the WSJ article was that the only piece of "news" in it was the lame comment about Rhapsody. A comment that was false as it turns out. The rest of the piece was a rehash of the usual anti-Apple cant that has been a staple of the WSJ's coverage of the company for two years.
Investors try to look to the future. Rhapsody looms large in Apple's future as anyone with any real knowledge of the company knows. The WSJ covered the whole subject with a throw-away comment, filler really, without a shred of research behind it.
Does Apple deserve a lot of the criticism it receives? Of course it does. But it has taken tremendous strides to get its costs down, improve the quality of its products, getting product (hardware and software) out on time, shoring up its core markets and now, finally, getting rid of that old, odious Board of Directors responsible for many of the tactical and strategic mistakes of the past. This story has been under-reported in the main stream business press, partcularly the WSJ. This is why so many Mac loyalists hold such a dim view of the biz press and WSJ in particular.
Another reason is that the coverage of Apple has been, to a very large degree, a perpetuation of the "big lie" when discussing the Mac OS vis a vis Windows, or the Mac platform vis a vis the PC. For example:
-Windows is as easy to use as the Mac OS. One variation on this is that Windows has "caught up" to the Mac OS.
-Macs are more crash prone than PCs.
There are plenty of others.
More often than not, these bits of "received wisdom" get repeated in stories as if they were obvious truths. Studies that show they are false are mostly ignored. So, I guess us Mac loyalists tend to be suspicious of the biz press.
As for your motivations, well, you've certainly expended a lot of energy on this board criticizing Apple over the past few days. I was just wondering why. Trying to get us to see the light? Embrace the Borg, er Microsoft?
Bob
|
