[jsnell]

You're stating as fact that this kind of reporting happens to Apple and not to other tech companies. But that has hardly been established. I often see dubious news stories about several of the companies on your list, and back and forth discussion about those stories. So I'd add a fifth explanation: You're seeing lots of these stories because you're following people who blog about Apple. If you're bored of bogus Apple controversies and want to see fewer of them, just stop reading the blogs of Apple pundits.

[w0utert]

>> So I'd add a fifth explanation: You're seeing lots of these stories because you're following people who blog about Apple.

Is this your gut saying it can't possibly be true that Apple attracts lots of negative press mainly because it has been King of the Hill for so long, when it comes to fat profit margins and popularity?

I couldn't disagree with you more. Sure enough other companies get unjustified bad press every now and then, but you have to be blind to deny the fact that each and every website, even if it's only remotely related to technology, appears to be populated with people who can't resist the urge to slam Apple for whatever is the popular Apple-fail-du-jour.

It's not unlike the 90', when Microsoft was in the position that Apple is now. No matter what they did, it was bad, evil, anti-competitive, it sucked, they stole the idea, whatever. I'm was guilty of irrational Microsoft hate myself back then. Today, people almost feel pity for poor Microsoft, finally trying to innovate in the smartphone and tablet space, but failing spectacularly to attract people to their platform.

There's really nothing surprising here. In dutch, we have this saying that goes along the lines of 'higher trees catch most of the wind'. I think it has something to do with human nature. People envy success, especially when they don't understand it. Combined with a tendency to herd around the popular opinion, it's not hard to see how successful companies attract most of the bad press. In the last few years I've seen some of the most nonsensical arguments against Apple products you couldn't even make up yourself, almost go viral on the internet.

At some point in time some other company will take Apple's place as the big evil technology corporation that can't do anything right. Facebook would be a pretty obvious candidate, the moment they start getting more successful at monetizing their service, I predict they will become the centre of attention for haters and trolls.

[roc]

> "each and every website, even if it's only remotely related to technology, appears to be populated with people who can't resist the urge to slam Apple for whatever is the popular Apple-fail-du-jour."

Is that because they actually hate Apple, though? Or is it just a function of the emotional attachment Apple creates?

Consider what we'll call "The Oprah Example".

Oprah doesn't remotely write or talk about technology that often. And far more people in Oprah's audience will have Windows PCs and Android phones than Macs and iPhones.

But Oprah is far more justified in talking about Apple. (And she does.) Because those people in her audience who have Apple devices likely have an emotional bond with them. And they will appreciate a story about Apple. Whereas even those people with Android phones and Windows PCs in her audience almost certainly don't give a damn about Microsoft or Samsung. They likely don't even know off-hand who manufactured their devices.

Not that Oprah herself parrots component order stories. But it's the same mechanism in other places that do. People care about Apple. Ergo they will actually read about Apple. Any number of blogs might have a grudge against Sony or Samsung or Microsoft, and repeat negative stories about those companies, but the fact that no-one really cares about those companies means that they necessarily fall flat.

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple.

Indeed what you see as a dog-pile against, many people who dislike Apple see as a mindless cult that gets outsized press because the newspapers and hollywood are full-fledged devotees to the cult.

They're two views on the same mechanism: the emotional reactions Apple generates.

And the proof of this is as simple as looking to the way that Apple has long commanded a slice of the public consciousness that far outweighed its marketplace relevance. It's only fairly recently that their user base was large enough to justify the press they already had.

[GHFigs]

So the "dog pile" on Apple that you perceive doesn't exist because people hate Apple for its success. It's because people have emotional opinions about Apple and thus will actually read stories about Apple.

I don't understand the distinction here. It sounds like you're exempting "hate" from "emotional opinions". Please clarify.

[roc]

The distinction is this: it's not the writers motivations that makes Apple articles different.

A handful of people Hating Apple may well motivate them to write negative things about Apple. A handful of others may reblog it for similar reasons.

But all sorts of people hate all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. And one can easily find examples of similar emotionally-driven negative articles about Sony, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Yet those other articles don't inspire the response an Apple article does. They don't generate huge threads. They don't get reblogged much. They don't often generate many responses.

So Apple can't be different simply because of writers motives.

No, it's different because of the way readers react to it. And, specifically, the very large number of readers (historically out of proportion to Apple's significance) with very strong emotional reactions (both for and against).

[w0utert]

I would even go as far as assuming there are many more reasons why Apple attracts so much criticism, unfounded rumors and hate, besides 'emotional opinions' (which as far as I'm concerned indeed also includes hate). Rational reasons such as trying to make money by manipulating the stock, trying to fit into some kind of peer group that appears to dislike Apple, a general need for attention, a lack of inspiration and creativity when writing blog posts or news articles, etc.

Large successful companies gather mind share, be it positive or negative, which makes them an appropriate subject for all kinds of attention. Just like many people feel Apple gets a disproportionate amount of positive attention (which is probably true), many others feel the get too much bad press (which is also true). Usually hate attracts much more attention though.

[jsnell]

No, I'm saying that the whole premise of this being somehow a unique Apple phenomenon is clearly wrong. I've seen tons of negative press for at least Google, Microsoft, Nokia and RIM.

Further, I'm speculating that the reason the author thinks this is an Apple phenomenon is because his put his head inside the Apple echo chamber. Which is fine, people can get their news from any source they want. It's just that complaining about it makes little sense.

[roc]

Didn't we just see a round of stories about component order cuts indicating Surface sales were tepid?

These stories quite clearly happens to everyone.

That said, there is something unique in the way that Apple stories are linked, repeated and shared, getting visibility of a level that Microsoft, Samsung, et al almost never do.

But that's ultimately just a function of tabloid-style sites trying to make tabloid style-stories out of everything, but only getting traction when they hit companies/services that people actually give a shit about: Apple, Google, etc.