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.
>Apple was the underdog for so long and now that it is one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world, well, we can’t root for them anymore.<p>Uh... I think the patent abuse, App Store censorship, and attempting to normalize a paradigm where one needs the hardware vendor's permission to run software have something to do with antipathy towards Apple.
This article is the opposite of what I think it should be.<p>>I think the right answer is that Apple just fails to pass the gut test for most people.<p>This is no surprise. Apple holds no significant monopoly so AAPL is volatile. The stock is ripe for manipulation with a P/E that is far lower than many other tech companies while almost one-third of the company's value is in cash on hand.<p>The bigger issue for me is why this story has been so well covered by Daring Fireball, The Loop, MG Siegler and the rest of the Apple blogosphere? Do they really believe that they will affect general opinion of the stock or force an investigation?<p>What screams out to me is that this is about favoritismm but coming from intelligent people whom can deny it in a way that sounds reasonable to the average person.
><i>" There is no way, the gut tells folks, that Apple can continue growing at the current rate. There’s no way! "</i><p>Apple's stock price was on a parabolic growth trend. Sure, this time <i>could</i> be different, but history says that such growth is unsustainable. Combine that with the "intangibles" (Jobs' death) and the recent price correction isn't shocking.<p>Why is every movement in Apple news? Because it's one of the planet's most recognizable brands and biggest companies. Those are things that make news.
It goes both ways.<p>Until recently, there were an avalanche of positive stories about Apple. Some of it are overstated.<p>What did the author think of too much positive news about Apple back then? He's only reacting now because it's negative.
So far as the stock value is concerned, Apple's peak stock value assumed a continued high rate of growth.<p>I don't know if that's possible.<p>In the last few years, Apple dominated (practically created) two product categories: digital music players and smartphones.<p>If Apple is going to keep growing like this it needs something bigger than the iPhone. What's it gonna be? An iTV? An iCar, a complete line of iKitchen appliances? A Buckminister Fuller-style iHouse?<p>I just don't see how they can find an opportunity like that without losing focus.
>What interests me more is why does this stuff keep happening in Apple’s name?<p>It's very similar to politics. Apple are the Republicans of tech in that every minor story is major news, all dirty laundry aired by journalists, bloggers, and tweets, and mockery where possible.
The only option that the author doesn't explore, is the possibility that the WSJ author may be correct in saying that the more robust Android ecosystem is gobbling up market share.
The author forgets one other factor that has become significant: the death of Steve Jobs.<p>So it's the "law or large numbers" and the "doomed without Steve" arguments that impact the news of Apple these days, but hopefully some of that will fade with time.
This thought just occurred to me. Most companies in the world, the people who care about mundane reports on the company are a subset of the people who own shares in them. With Apple, it's the other way about - the share owners are a small subset of the people who care about these news reports.
>What interests me more is why does this stuff keep happening in Apple’s name? No one comes out and says this crap about Samsung, Google, Nokia, RIM, Microsoft or any other big name in technology. It’s all Apple, all the time.<p>Err what? I've seen this happen to every company on that list.<p>For example, lets take Nokia. Three months after launching the Lumia 900, they discounted the price on contract at AT&T from $99 to $49. This led to a huge cacophony all over the internet with a lot of publications reporting "Nokia discounts phone by half", totally ignoring the fact that it was on contract price, so the price discount was closer to 10% and was totally normal. There was no such hype when other Samsung, HTC etc. phones were dropped in price as part of the normal pricing cycle of such phones.<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/9402618/Nokia-cuts-Lumia-900-price-in-half-just-three-months-after-launch.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnol...</a><p>Nokia, RIM and Microsoft are some of the most beat down companies in analysis and news. The "news" is universally junk and has more to do with attention grabbing headlines and flamebait, regardless of the companies involved.<p>I think the author is suffering from a huge selection bias.