Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:16 UTC
Apple Earlier this week, Ars Technica's Jon "Hannibal" Stokes published an article which claimed to show the *real* reason why Apple went Intel. In his article, 'Hannibal' says that part of the reason for IBM and Apple's failed business relationship was that Apple tried to pull 'stunts' to get more out of IBM than they were entitled. David K. Every begs to differ.
Permalink for comment 3969
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

> I asked you what was wroing with the articles and you asked me if I had read them. I said I did and asked... what's youir point.

No you didn't.

> > What makes you think that he is saying that Intel is catering to Apple other than to give good prices?

Despite that I didn't say anything about him claiming that Intel was catering to Apple at all (least of all outside of volume and exclusivity prices which wouldn't even be catering since Intel makes such arrangements with its partners like any supplier)

"unsubstantiated article written by an Apple zealot that claims that Intel will cater to the needs of Apple"

(You'll notice the tense of my statement)

I responded to you by giving you locations in the article where he suggests possible favorable treatment to Apple without any real basis for expecting it.

> From what I saw, the links were demonstrating US sales and did put Apple int he top 5.

So what you're saying that on top of making up Apple's ranking you didn't bother to read the links I provided before telling me that they didn't show that Apple wasn't fifth in world sales? You know, despite that placement being completely inconsequential to whether Apple is in a position in terms of sales that makes them more than "comparatively low volume" as you claimed.

> I don't care if I have your validation. Why should I?

If you don't care if you have any credibility, then being involved in journalism is a spectacular idea.

> Again... Apple isn't demanding special treatment from Intel.

Who said Apple was demanding special treatment from Intel? Neither you nor I know whether Apple is demanding any favors from Intel. The implication that Apple would receive any favors sans evidence is silly, which was my point.

> They needed to from IBM and Moto because Apple were these companies sole desktop CPU supplier. Now with
> Intel, the potential may not be as large as it was with IBM, but now nobody will question performance
> because its what most people are using anyways.

This is all speculation that has nothing to do with this conversation.

> But you are taking a massive leap by saying that I go out of my way to publish flaimebait. That certinly wasn't the case.

I didn't say that you went out of your way to post flamebait, I said that the links posted here from osViews are frequently flamebait. You may go out of your way to post it to attract traffic to your site, or you may not. I have no idea, and I don't really care either way. That article was just speculative flamebait that had no sources to use to call into question the veracity of the article it criticized.

> And showed examples

I have no interest in debating with you whether noting that iPod sales are rapidly outgrowing Apple's personal computer sales constitutes a long-standing x86 bias. You are obviously biased. The author of the editorial is obviously biased. He has not a single sourced fact, and trails off into all manner of speculation that directly parallels his behavior viz-a-vis IBM/Apple in the article I linked. Despite this you point to the article on your site as superior to the one Hannibal wrote citing his long-standing bias. The point is that you're a hypocrite, and attacking the integrity of someone that has a much more objective track record than his attacker. Provide evidence of where Hannibal is incorrect, not speculation of a zealot.

> DKE's editorial was about putting things into perspective. He didn't state any facts that required sourcing though he did point out examples where Ars made massive leaps.

You're right, he didn't state any actual facts. He also didn't put anything into perspective, because he isn't in a position to. He has no idea what Apple's motives are, and he's provided no source material, interviewed no employees, and done no investigative journalism. About the only real point he has in the entire article is that no sources were cited from Apple's perspective.

> Sigh... whatever.

Oh, I urge everyone to read some of David K. Every's other writing.

> The fact that you don't recognise this and feel more inclined to point to a few retractions we've had
> recently tells me more about your biases than anything else.

Yes, because I've expressed the opinion that your website's track record here is bad, and because I think that an Apple zealot's speculative article sans any sort of actual information fits the normal pattern that I've come to expect from it, I have exposed my terrible ulterior motives. They happen to include desiring a higher standard of journalism.

This is honestly not the place for this sort of conversation.

Reply Parent Score: 1