Tag: tech

Matt D. and I don’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of things outside the realm of technology. But when it comes to an intense loathing of the rumor sites, which continue to cost Apple money, Matt and I are blood brothers:

Any writer who believed that rumor sites were “cowed” into not reporting items that might adversely affect Apple should have checked the news from Friday, 2005.06.03 – the stuff everyone forgot that same night when CNet broke the Intel story as a done deal. The previous day, AppleInsider reported that Apple was “seemingly overstocked on most iPod models with about a month remaining in its third fiscal quarter.” Attributing the information only to “one source” and “reliable sources of information,” the rumor site said Apple’s sales “appear flat or declining” because none of Apple’s products appears constrained. Yes, read it for yourself – the site said that not having a shortage was, in itself, a sign of weak sales.

Despite both the flimsy sourcing and the site’s complete unawareness of the impending Intel transition, the market acted. To quote Reuters, “Shares of Apple Computer Inc. fell 5% Friday [2005.06.03], fueled by an Internet report of swelling inventory of its iPod digital music players.” When a rumor site can cost Apple’s shareholders 5% of their value in one day by printing an unsourced report based on specious inventory logic, it’s hard to call that being “cowed into silence,” and it just doesn’t have the same ring to say the rumor sites have been “cowed into incompetence.” (If your stock in trade is “inside” or “secret” information, and you have no sources on the biggest Apple-related story of the next two years before the mainstream media does, you’re losing your touch.)
A subscription to MDJ or MWJ isn’t cheap, but it’s the best money you’ll spend on Apple and Macintosh-related news you won’t get any where else. I’m not affiliated with MacJournals, just a happy subscriber.

There are many reasons why I read Jeff’s blog as often as possible. Brother, I need to buy you a beer some time.

Does that mean that Apple will never go after the commercial-computing market? No, I don’t think so. I think that as Apple continues to own the creative-professional market, reasserts its dominance over the mobile-user market, gains momentum among home users and makes incremental moves into sci-tech, demand in the commercial-computing market will grow all on its own. Sooner or later, folks are going to start asking why salesmen or accountants or factory managers aren’t using Macs. And when that happens, Apple will be there, ready to make small advances with sure footing, working its way into the commercial market a little at a time.

But you know what? Maybe that’ll never happen. Maybe by 2010, Apple will own as much as 25 or 30 percent of the computer market, but still show no sign of making a move into commercial computing. Would that be seen as success or failure? I guess it depends on who you ask. Which brings us back to the three blind guys with the elephant. The guy who looks at the computer industry and sees only commercial computing would see an Apple that doesn’t compete in the commercial space as being a failure. Somebody who sees only the home market would see an Apple that dominates that space as a shining success.

Me? I just sit back and think about what it would be like for Apple to own thirty percent of a multi-billion-dollar global industry. And then I consider calling my broker.