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.

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.

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.

I was talking about the big hack article, the first link.

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.

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.

> 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.

Mistakes will be made.

If Bloomberg (or whomever) owned it, and shared their post mortem, I'd applaud their intellectual honesty.

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

I’m not reopening an old argument (which I didn’t fail to make but you failed to address), I just disagreed with you and mentioned that I recognized your username from a similar discussion.

You didn’t directly state your conclusions but obviously they differ from mine.

It doesn’t matter how large they are if they factually published total bullshit. That’s enough for me to fundamentally distrust them and I do think you’re gullible if you don’t because they are “large and diverse and award winning”.

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...

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