This entry was posted on Friday, December 1st, 2006 at 6:08 and is filed under Analysis & Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Site Search:
Friday, December 1, 2006
When CES announced its dates early last year, many wondered if it would hurt Macworld’s attendance. While Macworld is one of the largest trades shows in California and San Francisco’s largest show of the year, things aren’t what they used to be. Since 2003, the seemingly peek of the trade show with 90,473 people at Moscone that year, the show just doesn’t seem to be as large as it once was. In fact, the once used North Hall has simply been empty the last two years. While there has been a slight increase in attendance the last two years, will the momentum be able to withstand the ultra-popular Vegas-based CES show?
This isn’t the first time CES overlapped a Macworld date. In 2002, CES found itself smack dab in the middle of Macworld week as well. The result? Macworld attendance fell by 5.5 percent. With this years lack of any real juicy rumors with any real merit behind them for Apple’s side, it’s most likely a repeat of 2002 will happen at the 2007 Macworld Conference and Expo. In ‘02, iBook upgrade chatter and iMac G3 towers ruled the rumor mill and when the dust settled, iPhoto’s introduction, and iBook and iMac updates weren’t enough to bring out the people. This years rumors? iPhone and for the millionth time this year, the full-screen iPod. Neither will be enticing enough to draw geeks away from Vegas.
With HD, cell phones, Bluetooth, GPS, plasma, and even with its disappointments, the PS3, to be gawked at, CES just has a higher draw. Every year it gets larger and grander while Macworld shrinks and shrivels. You can bet IDG will be reporting a lower turn out this year no matter what happens at Stevenotes. Sure, the die hards will do both, as this reporter will, but most will have an either or choice and to Apple’s dismay, it’ll be its show that will lose out like it did five year before.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:35
yeah,
Maybe… but generally Apple gets the press coverage it needs from this event – so it’s not just about the attendance it really is about the launching of new stuff and when Apple talks the press covers it… Mainly because it is interesting and frequently different from say all the ipod knockoffs that will be appearing at CES.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:43
It should be noted that the press is included in these attendance figures.
December 1st, 2006 at 13:43
As a member of the analyst community, I’ve been a regular CES attendee for years because of exactly the factors you note. But the reality is that 95% of the new products and announcements at CES don’t measure up to Apple’s smallest announcements at MacWorld — and I expect this year’s MacWorld introductions not to be small (except maybe the iPhones, pun intended). The result: this year, I’m passing on CES and covering MacWorld instead. So count me in the camp betting that CES will have no significant cannibalization of MacWorld attendance.
Carl
December 1st, 2006 at 21:18
I guess it depends on perspective. I think this will be one of the best MacWorlds ever. You’ve got the rumored cell phone, the introduction of Leopard and its secret features, more on what iTV will really do, updates for iWork and iLife and some probable new products not rumored about (collaboration software?, tablet?). In addition to the keynote I like attending the classes. It makes for a great week.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:12
CES are two totally different animals. There are probably 90,000 attendees at CES if you just count the exhibitors while the bulk of MacWorld are consumers/prosumers … and you may have missed the announcement by the North Hall is open again this year.
But you can bet a lot of CES attendees and exhbitors will pause and boot up their computer when a certain CEO in SF takes the stage – whoever is talking at CES that moment is screwed.
The success or non-success of a trade show has very little to do with the actual dynamics of the industry – while there is always some interest – the bottom line to having a successful show requires you to have a lot of middle level exhibitors who are fighting for sales/marketshare – for a while there, Macs were pretty much dominated by Microsoft, Adobe & Macromedia who were less and less interested in spending money selling to cosnumers over 3-4 days when they could run national ads or do press junkets while a company that sells Parellels, Delicious or ipod accessories companies like belkin & kensington cannot afford that – they need a 3 day show to pitch to journalists about themselves and establish relationships. This is why there is no real “Windows” show (there are developer shows) because Windows is dominated by many huge companies and thousands of tiny companies so the big guys aren’t interested because they can do all that in house (or have their won trade show for buyers and IT) and the thousands of small companies can’t afford the 50k to 100k to put up a booth at a real trade show.
MacWorld does have the fan pilgramage but if Steve Jobs didn’t show up most every single year, it would be a much lesser event just like MacWorld Expo was dumb enough to antagonize Steve & Apple by moving the NY show (back) to Boston just to save a few bucks but expecting Apple to follow – idiots.
December 6th, 2006 at 14:03
Wow….what a remarkable piece of writing…and I don’t mean “remarkable” in a Good Way.
“the once used North Hall has simply been empty the last two years.” True…but have you heard the latest (well – latest as of more than a month ago) news? The North Hall will be occupied this year.
“seemingly peek of the trade show with 90,473 people at Moscone that year”. Those numbers were….shall we say…”fudged” by previous IDG World Expo administrations. They shouldn’t be used for comparison of *anything*.
“With this years lack of any real juicy rumors…” You’re kidding, right? Have you just not been paying attention? iPhone, iTV, Leopard, revs to any number of products….There are rumors coming out the wazoo.
“Neither will be enticing enough to draw geeks away from Vegas.” Finally, you got something right – but for the wrong reasons. The audience for the two shows is *very* different.
“Every year it gets larger and grander while Macworld shrinks and shrivels…” But…you said Macworld’s attendance has been increasing the past 2 years….that’s not exactly “shrinking”, is it?
“You can bet IDG will be reporting a lower turn out this year no matter what happens at Stevenotes…” I’ll take that bet. $500 donated to your favorite charity? Deal? It’s called putting your money where your mouth is. Up for it?
–
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclife.com
December 6th, 2006 at 22:28
I must admit I was quite honored to have a comment from the most honorable Shawn King, a guy I’ve come to really respect, but – ouch! – what a comment.
Shawn, iTV isn’t juicy nor is Leopard. Be true to your profession and try to remove yourself from the frenzy of all things Apple and you’ll realize this. iTV is something that should have been out over a year ago. Jobs pitch of Apple being a digital hub without the hub, iTV, kinda seemed odd especially in light of Microsoft’s Media Center. This isn’t meat, this is left overs.
Leopard’s back-up utility is ingenious but the rest of the “sneak” was ho-hum. Again, Mac fan boys wouldn’t be able to see past the sparkling lights of the demo, but those looking for meat, did. Maybe you’re a vegetarian?
Yes, the iPhone is a juicy rumor, but man, how long can you keep a rumor alive? Dude, over a year now! There’s a point in time you say, “Mmm, CES will have a collection of sweet gadgets and maybe the iPhone will appear this year at Macworld.” There has to be a limit to when something is a rumor and when something is vaporware.
As to shrinking, it was a relative reference to the glory days. Yes, the North Hall is back this year, but in prior years, it was gone and that was my point. In years past, I could barely see you among the crowd, last year I literally bumped into you twice at different times of the day! I guess I had more “elbow” room this time.
Shawn, I’m really humbled by you taking the time to stop by and comment and thank you for your input. This post was merely one to make one think if CES would once again steal numbers from Macworld like it did 2002 and I think it will. If my points above aren’t solid enough for you, then I can give you another development as an example of possible slipping figures for Macworld 2007.
In the past two weeks that I’ve been setting up meetings for CES, I will commonly ask the contact if we can meet at Macworld instead if the product is one that would be a fit for the Apple event (such as iPod and Mac accessories.) Guess what every response has said thus far? No. They won’t be there. I guess I’m not the only one figuring many will be in Vegas instead of the city by the Bay this January.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:59
“but – ouch! – what a comment.”
LOL Well, you get what you paid for.
“Shawn, iTV isn’t juicy nor is Leopard.”
Obviously, it depends on your definition of “juicy” but anything that has people talking about it and anticipating it well in advance certainly qualifies.
“Be true to your profession…”
Ummm…my “profession” is a talk show host. How am I not being “true” to it?
“iTV is something that should have been out over a year ago.”
It doesn’t matter when it will be out. That wasn’t the point you were trying to make.
“Again, Mac fan boys wouldn’t be able to see past the sparkling lights of the demo, but those looking for meat, did.”
Again, not the point you were trying to make. BTW, what *is* the point in trying to insult people in general and me specifically with the “Mac fan boys” dig? Rather childish, isn’t it?
“Yes, the iPhone is a juicy rumor…”
Finally, we get to the real discussion. Keep in mind, you said, “With this years lack of any real juicy rumors…” So, which is it?
“but man, how long can you keep a rumor alive?”
As of this writing – over 5 years. And what difference does it make how long the rumor has been around?
“There has to be a limit to when something is a rumor and when something is vaporware.”
Of course there is. Vaporware is a product that has been announced but never shipped. Apple has never announced *anything* regarding the iPhone. All they have done is registered a domain name. Are you trying to lay the blame for the iPhone hype at Apple’s feet?
“Yes, the North Hall is back this year, but in prior years, it was gone and that was my point.”
Perhaps – but your comment conveniently ignored the fact that the North Hall will be occupied this year. Now, you either ignored the fact because you didn’t know it (in which case, you haven’t been paying attention) or you ignored it because it didn’t fit in with your preconceived notion of what your commentary was going to be. Which is it?
“In years past, I could barely see you among the crowd, last year I literally bumped into you twice at different times of the day! I guess I had more “elbow” room this time.”
You’re kidding, right? *That’s* the “evidence” you used to say the show was smaller? That you “bumped into” a guy who literally stands out in a crowd? Are you saying that if you hadn’t seen me you’d think the show was huge?
“This post was merely one to make one think if CES would once again steal numbers from Macworld like it did 2002 and I think it will.”
I understand that. But the logic you used, the selective facts you used and the words you used were incorrect, faulty and false.
I have no problem with a well reasoned argument as to why you think CES will take audience away from Expo. That’s why I read the commentary. I happen to think you are completely wrong. As someone who has gone to both shows and talked to *many* people regarding the whys and wherefores of their attendance, I can confidently say that CES does *not* take a significant number of people away from the attendance of Macworld Expo.
The vast majority of people attend one *or the other* show. Very few attend both, even when the shows do not overlap.
Your argument falls down on that fact. By your logic, CES takes audience away from the International Cooking Expo in LA – simply because it happens at the same time. You ignore the fact that the shows serve different audiences.
“In the past two weeks that I’ve been setting up meetings for CES, I will commonly ask the contact if we can meet at Macworld instead if the product is one that would be a fit for the Apple event (such as iPod and Mac accessories.) Guess what every response has said thus far? No. They won’t be there.”
Without context, the above is meaningless. Are they companies that would normally show at a Macworld Expo and are therefore blowing off Expo for CES? Have they attended Macworld Expos in the past? Would they have attended Macworld Expo if CES wasn’t at the same time?
Are you saying that there are some companies that will/would attend CES and not Macworld Expo? Of course there are. I’d venture to say there are *thousands* of companies that will attend a CES over a Macworld Expo – for a lot of companies, there’s more bang for their buck at CES. But, for a lot of companies, there’s more bang for their buck at *Macworld Expo*, too.
Again, your logic is faulty. What if I told you that David Pogue of the New York Times, someone who *did* attend CES last year, wasn’t going this year? That he is attending Macworld Expo instead? Would you use that as “evidence” that for an article called, “Will Macworld Hurt CES Next January?”
And, as an aside, you’ve got this column in your “News” section. This ain’t news – this is commentary.
“I guess I’m not the only one figuring many will be in Vegas instead of the city by the Bay this January.”
Well, if your confidence is so high, take me up on my bet. I noticed you ignored that section of my post. I’m upping the ante to $1000.00, too. We talked about you on last night’s show and the audience said I was aiming too low.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
–
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclife.com
December 7th, 2006 at 9:49
Oh lord, now you’re redefining what a “juicy” rumor is? What’s next, you don’t allow any attendance numbers that weren’t registered six months in advance?
The fact that people who are going to be at CES won’t be at Macworld is not a direct relationship, no matter how hard you try to spin it as one. Like Shawn says, that only works if the company normally WOULD be at Macworld, and the ONLY reason they won’t be is because CES is at the same time, and if it weren’t, then they’d definitely go to Macworld. That would be a causal relationship.
I also find your implication that CES caused a 5.5% reduction in Macworld attendance in 2002 to be specious in the extreme. The article you quote says a number of things about attendance, including this gem:
“CES posted a larger drop of approximately 18 percent from the prior year, according to figures released at the time by the Consumer Electronics Association, which operates the event.”
Using your “logic” I can say with total confidence that Macworld Expo cause an 18% decrease in CES attendance. It’s completely unsupportable, but by your logic of “If two things happen at the same time, they’re in direct competition with each other”, then Macworld hit CES FAR harder than the other way ’round.
Of course, the next paragraph puts it into perspective, not that you bothered to account for that:
“But Arnold noted the decline in 2002 may have been a result of leery travelers after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, rather than any conflict attendees incurred with the Macworld schedule.”
Wow…a decline in attendance for the first conferences after 9/11. No, that couldn’t POSSIBLY be the problem. Here’s a tip Sven, your sources should SUPPORT rather than eviscerate your point. Really.
Your insinuation that “Every year it gets larger and grander while Macworld shrinks and shrivels.” is at odds with reality as well, when you look at the numbers for Macworld 2006, which showed a 7% increase in attendance, a 25% increase in Exhibitors and a 20% increase in conference attendees.
Of course you dismiss the return of Macworld Expo to the North Hall, because that doesn’t gibe with your assertion that Macworld is shrinking and shriveling.
Just because you spout nonsense real loud, that doesn’t actually create the corresponding reality.
December 7th, 2006 at 16:47
Thanks Shawn for your lengthy response. I’ll restrain myself in response to some of the obnoxious rebuttals found above as I don’t want this to become a flame war as it is slowly becoming. If anything, I think John C Welch’s refutation was the one that had real substance to it. Bravo John. It’s only a month before we know if I’m right or not.
As to the bet, yes, I skipped that. Sorry, I’m not a betting man. Never have been. CES is a breeze for me to go to since I can pass the tables and slots without an urge to pull a handle or sit at a chair. So, I only avoided the bet because I don’t take part in that. While I won’t take the bet, I have no problem admitting if I am wrong as I have in the past.
Thanks for the mention on the show. Interesting listen to say the least. I guess he who is the loudest wins.
December 7th, 2006 at 21:53
“I’ll restrain myself in response to some of the obnoxious rebuttals”
Of course you will. Since you started the name calling, Heaven forbid you be held accountable.
“As to the bet, yes, I skipped that. Sorry, I’m not a betting man.”
That’s convenient, isn’t it?
“I guess he who is the loudest wins.”
No – he who is the most right wins.
–
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclife.com
December 8th, 2006 at 4:22
Sven, what exactly is a month going to decide? Whether or not you’re redefining the definition of a juicy rumor until it’s impossible for there to be any? That’s a done deal, you’re doing that now. It’s blatant spin, but hey, it gets you hits, and that’s all that counts.
Is a month going to decide if CES hurts Macworld attendance? Well, you’ve already made up your mind that it does, based on…well not facts or reality, since your one cited source actually shows that in the one year you chose to say Macworld’s 5.5% decline was caused by CES (with, I will add, no direct proof whatsoever, only the thinnest circumstantial evidence based on a conflict of dates), CES experienced a decline in attendance that was *three times greater* than Macworld’s and they, quite sensibly attributed it to 9/11 which had happened only four months earlier. You’ve established that you don’t care if your suppositions have any basis in reality, only that people exhibiting or attending CES aren’t going to meet you at Macworld. Um…DUH? They both happen at the same time, and both are not cheap to exhibit at. By your logic, no one will be at Macworld. Well, you’re not using logic, you’re spinning date conflict. But again, it gets you hits, and that’s all that counts, certainly not accuracy.
The worst part is, you contradict *yourself*. You say that it’s experienced a slight increase in attendance the last two years, then say it’s been shrinking in that time. Sven, I gotta tell you, if you’re going to spin something, consistency, even when you’re wrong, is key.
“I’m comparing things to the glory days” is the last dodge of someone who’s only interested in proving their point, accuracy be damned. Every conference took a hit, a serious one, after 9/11. Where’s Comdex? Now THAT is a conference that shrank.
Just admit it, you’re Dvoraking this. Hell, you’re following his formula to the letter.
Congratulations, JD would be proud of you
December 8th, 2006 at 11:55
Finally, a compliment! For a tech writer that’s been around since the 70s and has a solid history in the industry, I’ll take that comparison to John C Dvorak any day.
Welch, as to the aspect of who will be right, this is in reference to the attendance. My piece was an opinion just as your belief that CES will not have an ill effect on Macworld Expo’s visitors as well as Shawn’s obnoxious slander both here and on his show was his bitter assessment. My methods may not be agreeable to you; however, what if numbers are lower this year? Then I guess my opinion of CES and MWCE on the same week had an adverse effect on Apple’s week in the lime light. If figures indicate an increase for Macworld, then I was wrong. Plain and simple. For Shawn’s sake, I wasn’t saying, “Thus says Sven, Macworld is doomed because of CES.”
December 8th, 2006 at 14:57
Dvorak’s a pundit who freely admits that he makes a living via flamebait. If that’s the company you want to keep Sven, that’s your choice, but don’t expect it to heighten your credibility.
As far as opinions go…I’m not the one spinning data to create bogus proof for my opinion. You are. You’re attempting to push your opinion out of the realm of opinion by using b.s. proofs. That’s nonsense, and were you the tech writer you wish you were, you’d have not done that.
But then again, you wish to be Dvorak, so spinning and twisting facts is a part of that goal I suppose.
I would also expect a tech WRITER to know the difference between Slander and Libel. I’m REALLY quite curious as to how Shawn is able to slander you on a web site. Pray, tell us how this can be. Your attention to detail is quite Dvorakian. He is able to, in theory, slander you on his show, however, even a legal amateur would make mincemeat of your rather pathetic attempt to label what he said as slander. Shawn voiced an opinion, (you do remember what those are, right? Here’s a hint…NOT SLANDER) about you based on this article. I find little reason to view that opinion as incorrect, based on your desire to be the next Dvorak.
As well, you have yet to actually *prove* any correlation between CES and Macworld attendance. The first year it happened, your “proof” was that a major terrorist attack shrank the attendance of both shows. But then, by your logic, Macworld caused a much greater decrease in CES attendance than vice – versa.
Unless there is a decrease in attendance, AND you can CLEARLY show that said decrease is due to CES being the same week, then what you have is a coincidence, not a causal relationship, and you are still wrong. Coincidence and causal relationships are not in fact the same thing. A tech *writer* would know such things. But then again, you’re following the Dvorakian code, so such things matter not to you.
Dude, just admit it. You wrote this article to play Dvorak’s game, only you’re not nearly as good at it as he is, and you’re looking like a fool doing it. Just stop. really.
December 8th, 2006 at 15:39
John, take a listen to Shawn’s show (and I use show in the utmost sense of the word) and you’ll here some wonderful slander ala Junior High School banter. It does take one back to wonderful childhood days, really. I guess you can say he really isn’t applying full out slander in his comments here, but it’s difficult to weed through his venomous and repugnant script.
No, I didn’t set out to write this to troll hits or play Dvorak’s game. As I first stated in the comment thread, I was honored that Shawn would comment here. If I had intent of just throwing out a story for reason of hits, my honor would rather have been horror as a seasoned professional would reveal my scheme. But that wasn’t the case.
You keep saying I am playing the spin game. The reason I linked to that article without concern is because it can not *prove* 9/11 was the reason for the decline in show attendance for both shows. It was speculation. You, too, agree with its speculation but truth is, you have no hard proof as you accuse me. Unless we poll those that registered to either show and did not attend, we have no real answer for the decline in figures. It’s exactly like you said, “Coincidence and causal relationships are not in fact the same thing.” 9/11 could have been that coincidence.
I really to appreciate your comments, John, but I tell you honestly that I only proposed this idea based on what I had seen in the past and what I am seeing with vendors that I know would fit in with MWCE but won’t be there this year. I’ll give you and Shawn the logic for “shrinking Macworld” doesn’t make too much sense since it has had a small rise in those years, but still, I meant the show did in fact seem to be still shrinking hence the North Hall example. Yes, it’s there THIS year, but my point was how it wasn’t in the PAST and thus the shrink effect. Even with less floor space, I was able to roam easier than years past, furthering my thought of the “shrink” effect.
I don’t try to spin things. Maybe I should have better presented myself and took some more time with this opinion, I’ll say that, but spin was not the intention. I don’t do this for a living like others and I haven’t been doing it for too long. I’m learning and constructive criticism helps me improve my skills. This very post has taught me to be keener to details and more expressive in my thought. For me, it has been a good thing.
So you’re right, even if CES figures are high and Macworld’s declines, I’ll still need to have better proof of the correlation between the two shows than I did here. Agreed. That’s my challenge I gleeful accept if it comes to be so.
December 9th, 2006 at 13:53
It does take one back to wonderful childhood days, really. I guess you can say he really isn’t applying full out slander in his comments here, but it’s difficult to weed through his venomous and repugnant script.
“Waaah! I said something kind of stupid, contradicted myself in my own article, my proof proved me wrong, and my entire point is based on mad data spinning, and someone called me on it. Shawn King is a big meany.”
Be glad he didn’t ask me about it on the air, I’d have drove you back into the womb.
No, I didn’t set out to write this to troll hits or play Dvorak’s game. As I first stated in the comment thread, I was honored that Shawn would comment here. If I had intent of just throwing out a story for reason of hits, my honor would rather have been horror as a seasoned professional would reveal my scheme. But that wasn’t the case.
BS. You followed the Dvorak playbook to the letter. Make vague specious claims as flamebait, then when you’re called on it with proof, spin your vague claims to mean something else, and keep changing direction until people stop reading the article. Classic Dvorak. To the friggin’ LETTER man.
“You keep saying I am playing the spin game. The reason I linked to that article without concern is because it can not *prove* 9/11 was the reason for the decline in show attendance for both shows. It was speculation. You, too, agree with its speculation but truth is, you have no hard proof as you accuse me. ”
Let’s see. Who should I trust here. You or the people from CES. Hmm. I wonder who has more credibility here. Wow, that’s pretty tough. Wait, no it isn’t. You lose. I’m going to go with the logic of “CES has better information on WHY their attendance dropped than Sven does”, and also point out that the article supports my position far better than it supports yours, because it doesn’t support yours at all.
I’ll give you and Shawn the logic for “shrinking Macworld” doesn’t make too much sense since it has had a small rise in those years, but still, I meant the show did in fact seem to be still shrinking hence the North Hall example. Yes, it’s there THIS year, but my point was how it wasn’t in the PAST and thus the shrink effect. Even with less floor space, I was able to roam easier than years past, furthering my thought of the “shrink” effect.
Oh lord. Now the actual numbers that prove your “Macworld is shrinking” point don’t matter, because you didn’t mean it actually WAS shrinking, you meant it SEEMED to be shrinking? That’s funny, because Macworld in 2006, last year, filled up all but about ten yards of available space in the south hall. They had two vendors pull a no show. The reason it was easier to get around was they managed the traffic better. But according to you, because of that, in spite of all proof to the contrary, it SEEMED to be smaller, and that’s what you were talking about. Hmm…let’s read that article again…no, there’s no “seems” in there. You said point blank, and I quote:
Every year it gets larger and grander while Macworld shrinks and shrivels.
I’m sorry Sven, where’s the “seems”? I don’t see it. Could that be because it is not there? Why, yes, I will go with that reason. You didn’t say “seems”, did you. You didn’t say any of the things you’re saying while you backpedal faster than a clown in a lion cage. You’re only saying that now, because someone pinned you to a wall on your spin, and isn’t letting you wiggle. Pedal faster Sven, it’s not working so well.
It’s not our job, as readers, to read anything but what you write. If you can’t be bothered to say what you mean, then stop whining about the results, and definitely stop using that as an excuse. (That’s not “professional” experience. You should have learned that by the time you graduated high school. Hell you should have learned it by Jr. High)
December 9th, 2006 at 14:14
“For a tech writer that’s been around since the 70s and has a solid history in the industry, I’ll take that comparison to John C Dvorak any day.”
Really? Wow? As JD’s rep is simply that of a crotchety old man who’s wrong most of the time and rails on about how no one listens to him anymore, I don’t think you should be grabbing for that cloak.
“My piece was an opinion…”
Then why is listed under the heading of “Today’s News”?
And while it’s true that this *is* you opinion, our point all along is that your opinion is based on poor logic, selective facts and simple misinformation.
“as well as Shawn’s obnoxious slander both here and on his show”
LOL You still haven’t seen that punchline, have you? Sven, look it up. “Slander” is *spoken* false utterances”. Obviously, as this is the written word, I couldn’t possibly have slandered you on this site.
And, as my statements on my show were not false – they were my opinion and opinions can’t be false by their very nature – there was no slander there, either.
“My methods may not be agreeable to you;”
Your methods are immaterial to the discussion. It’s your logic and facts that are indefensible.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:39
“I have no problem admitting if I am wrong as I have in the past.”
Well?
January 15th, 2007 at 12:56
Damn! I forgot that I subscribed to this…
Well we are waiting…
March 14th, 2007 at 9:06
“Well we are waiting…”
still waiting…
March 14th, 2007 at 14:45
The results are in and yes, BPA World Wide has certified “record attendance” to Macworld this year with a 19% increase. Clearly my prediction was wrong and as stated above, I have no problem admitting that. Speculation is not fact and I never provided my prediction as fact. I only used previous data to surmise what may be as many others in the past have done such as well respected reporters from the media at large.
I guess a few commenters here will like to make this an object lesson for discrediting a “hunch” and I hope before they do, they search real hard and think if they have ever been wrong themselves.
March 14th, 2007 at 21:06
Dude come one. You took a single data point, spun it like a top, ignored the parts that made your conclusion from that data point utter garbage, then sat here and danced around trying to defend it.
It wasn’t a hunch, hunches have at least SOME real-world basis. You wanted to be the first on the “MACWORLD IS GOING DOWNHILL” bandwagon, and made the data fit your conclusion. The “reports” you had from the show bear out that you had decided well before the show that it was going to suck, and you made sure to report it that way.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:52
Interesting, John, how you knock me for “spinning” things and here you are spinning my reasons for my post. Macworld Is Going Downhill bandwagon? Mmm, I didn’t find that anywhere in the original post. It’s going suck? Missed that, too. It would be safe to discredit anything you posted now since your treading the great waters of the Sea of Hypocrisy.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:28
Cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine.
Let’s look at the basis for my hypothesis shall we?
My hypothesis is that you decided to do a hatchet job on the 2007 Macworld Expo over a month before it started.
My evidence:
First, this post. Let’s see. Your entire statement was based on deliberately ignoring data that showed how CES had little to do with a reduction in attendance at the 2002 Macworld Expo, since CES lost a greater percentage of its attendance last year than Macworld Expo did, and people in the expo industry, *including people from CES* said that the 9/11 attacks which had happened just three or so months earlier were the cause of this.
Yet you ignored those statements, you ignored the CES attendance drop, took the Macworld Expo attendance drop completely out of context and decided that the reason for it was CES, in spite of rather compelling and obvious evidence to the contrary. The fact that CES and Macworld have different attendee profiles didn’t make it into your “analysis” either.
So right there, it’s obvious that you weren’t letting the evidence show what it showed, and basing your conclusions on that. Instead, you discarded all evidence that didn’t support your theory, including the article you linked to, and used one number out of context to say, and I quote:
“This isn’t the first time CES overlapped a Macworld date. In 2002, CES found itself smack dab in the middle of Macworld week as well. The result? Macworld attendance fell by 5.5 percent. ”
Nothing you cited says that at all. Obviously, you weren’t interested in anything but your conclusion: CES will hurt Macworld.
Second bit of evidence:
Your “hot or not” CES vs. Macworld article, http://svenontech.com/2007/01/07/hot-or-not-ces-or-macworld/, where you’re still beating this drum. Again, your words:
“Don’t worry about if CES steals attendance from Macworld this year due to both happening on the same week or not.”
That’s not the statement of someone approaching Macworld with a neutral attitude. That’s you still trying to drive home the baseless hypothesis that CES will hurt Macworld.
Now let’s go to your articles from Macworld. “Macworld Highlights” was a beaut. The entire thing is a paen to bad counting skills:
“I’ve also noticed the crowds to be much less than last year. It’ll be interesting to see the figures on that.”
Sven on Math is evidently worse than Sven on Tech. However, it’s pretty clear that you ignored everything else going on at the show, including the conference program because Apple didn’t give you enough new toys. In fact, it appears that you ignored everything that wasn’t from Apple or about iPods. Hmm…no, no preconceived notions there. Obviously everyone else only goes to Macworld for Apple and iPods. No conference programs, no other products.
It’s funny comparing your attempts to make the show sound half empty with the lines and crowds I saw around the Adobe and Microsoft booths, around the non-iPhone Apple gear, hell, even Quark had a crowd. But maybe you were in the bathroom for most of the show, there was a rather vicious flu going around. Oh wait, looking at the date, that was posted on Tuesday at 3pm. Wow. You were there for five hours, and had already decided the show sucks.
I am in AWE of your mad evidence-gathering and analysis skills.
Now on to my last bit of evidence:
“The Most Disappointing Macworld In a Long Time”
Really. Because from what anyone can tell, you were only on the show floor, and not even there for terribly long. But let’s see:
“What happened? We finally got the iPhone and the previously announced iTV, now Apple TV, but that was it. No new iWorks. No new iLife. No new iMacs. No new Mac minis. No new MacBooks with updated Airport to match the speed of the quietly announced Airport Extreme with 802.11n Draft 1.0 support. Nope, nothing but the iPhone which no one could touch or buy until about the end of the year. I mean, it was so out of place walking to the massive Apple area and see, nothing. Some Apple TV demos and two iPhones behind a guarded case. What a let down.”
So *Apple* didn’t give you the toys you wanted, Macworld sucks. Misplaced expectations much? Of course, you’re making yourself out to be some kind of braveheart for saying this:
“I’m not the only one brave enough to make public statement with the disappointment of Apple’s showcase expo. Macworld’s Rob Griffiths agrees with me and has already been blasted with hate mail for his honesty.”
Except, Rob didn’t blast the SHOW in the article you quoted, he said he was disappointed in the KEYNOTE. Don’t take my word, re-read the article yourself. http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/01/keynotereax/index.php
Here’s the pertinent quote, since you aren’t so good at the whole “comprehension” thing:
“Beyond that, though, I was terribly disappointed by this year’s keynote. We had a two-hour presentation that basically covered two devices (and of those, the Apple TV had maybe 15 minutes of attention).”
*Keynote* Sven, not show. Of course, had you noted when Rob wrote the article, (4pm on the day of the keynote), then the fact that he was only talking about one part of the show may have been more obvious. Not that you’d care, we’ve already seen that you happily ignore evidence that doesn’t match your conclusion. Now, why would you say that if you’d had an open mind going into the show? It would make no sense. However, if you had already decided to slam the show, then your selective analysis makes sense.
The second article you used to support you, http://www.disgruntled-dutch.com/2007/rants/steves-macworld-07-keynote/ was also ONLY talking about the keynote.
you’re new at this “analysis” thing, aren’t you. Unless of course, you had you conclusion in place before hand, and simply wanted to get some quick quotes to “support” it, and figured that no one would call you out on it. Sucks to be you.
Another quote from your “Most disappointing…” tripe:
“I left for BART that bitter cold day in San Francisco last Tuesday thinking, “What was that? It started off with the most incredible announcement I’ve ever witnessed and then like a big thud, the rest of the show, well, just sucked. What happened?””
You are at the show for ONE DAY, looked at perhaps 20% of the show, and yet, were able to completely predict the show from that. No preconceived notions there, not even the POSSIBILITY. Right.
Dude, you went in there determined to be disappointed, and you succeeded. That’s not “spin” by a long shot. That’s just reading what you wrote.
Next time, try:
a) some real reading comprehension
b) actually going to more of macworld than what you can cover in a couple hours
c) not deciding it’s going to suck beforehand
March 15th, 2007 at 13:12
Wow, John, the blood really drips from your fangs. I can’t believe you’d spend this much time on this post. You’re like a bully on the playground that isn’t satisfied with himself until his victim is on the ground unconcious and bleeding.
I admit I was wrong, but no, not good enough for you. You have to even dissect that. How gracious of you. Like that bully, I see very little in your character that appeals to me and I’m sure may readers would agree. In fact, I have been told that privately by many since your little tirade has begun.
Again, you spin as you accuse me of saying something I never did. Yes, I was *disappointed* by Macworld. I never said it sucked. compared to years before, it didn’t have the same vibe and excitement. Sure, the iPhone excited many, but the fire wasn’t as strong as previous years where you could actually touch and play with the various exciting announcements. Maybe you’re on Apple’s payroll and thus you are committed to paint every picture of Apple a golden one (no pun attended.)
Why one needs to spend more the majority of the day, or the entire week, at a trade show to get an overall feeling for it, I don’t know. Last I remember, nothing else big happened the rest of the week, but I’m sure that still makes me the idiot in your book for not being there. I guess all the polls we see that use SAMPLE data can be discounted because they didn’t stay and ask everyone, huh?
Ya, I say Adobe’s booth and even laughed that Quark was still trying after snubbing OS X with it’s very late Express update (which gave Adobe the edge on them.) Maybe you were there when those booths were giving away blinking pens or something because while full, they weren’t packed to the point it was difficult to maneuver around.
I’ve read your site in the past John and you seem like a really bright guy. Why you find purpose to have to drag me through the mud after being the gentleman I said would be in admitting my wrong, I don’t know. Maybe not all bright people have the ability to unlock compassion from their locked heart.
March 15th, 2007 at 13:54
Wow, John, the blood really drips from your fangs. I can’t believe you’d spend this much time on this post. You’re like a bully on the playground that isn’t satisfied with himself until his victim is on the ground unconcious and bleeding.
Oh, is it time for this phase. Very well then, you’re like the annoying little kid yelling at people from his mommy’s bedroom window, yet never willing to fully accept responsibility for his words or actions, and always making sure he’s got an open door back into the house if he ventures outside. Maybe if you stop trying to justify your mistake with feces like:
” I only used previous data to surmise what may be as many others in the past have done such as well respected reporters from the media at large.
I guess a few commenters here will like to make this an object lesson for discrediting a “hunch” and I hope before they do, they search real hard and think if they have ever been wrong themselves.”
it would be possible to take your admittance of said mistake easier. But no, you still try to justify your manipulation of data, even though it’s obvious that no one bought it.
I admit I was wrong, but no, not good enough for you. You have to even dissect that. How gracious of you. Like that bully, I see very little in your character that appeals to me and I’m sure may readers would agree. In fact, I have been told that privately by many since your little tirade has begun.
“You’re a big meanie poopy-head and, and, LOTS OF PEOPLE THINK SO!”
Man, what are you, twelve? You tried to mitigate your mistake by clinging to the stupid manipulation of data you got *busted* on in this very article, and then, when that didn’t work, you now tell me that lots of people don’t like me? Are you lucid?
Again, you spin as you accuse me of saying something I never did. Yes, I was *disappointed* by Macworld. I never said it sucked. compared to years before, it didn’t have the same vibe and excitement. Sure, the iPhone excited many, but the fire wasn’t as strong as previous years where you could actually touch and play with the various exciting announcements. Maybe you’re on Apple’s payroll and thus you are committed to paint every picture of Apple a golden one (no pun attended.)
Why, that would be an astoundingly stupid thing to say since I :
a) Never said what I thought about the keynote. This would be because I wasn’t AT the keynote, so therefore it would be poor form for me to talk about it.
b) Don’t work, nor have i ever worked for Apple.
c) The KEYNOTE is not the CONFERENCE.
That last part is important. Say it until you understand: “The keynote is not the conference. The keynote is not the conference.”
There has been more than one blah keynote in front of a successful conference, both at Macworld and other shows. What, the keynote sucked for you, so the entire show sucks? Had you been more clear that it sucked for YOU, then less problem. But your comments on the crowd size, (totally incorrect), and your (again), manipulation of other people’s words to say what you wanted them to say, rather than what they did say shows your true colors Sven. I can indeed be quite heartless, but you’re absolutely untrustworthy, based on the way you “report” data and other people’s words.
On the whole, I’d rather be a jerk than a weasel.
Why one needs to spend more the majority of the day, or the entire week, at a trade show to get an overall feeling for it, I don’t know. Last I remember, nothing else big happened the rest of the week, but I’m sure that still makes me the idiot in your book for not being there. I guess all the polls we see that use SAMPLE data can be discounted because they didn’t stay and ask everyone, huh?
No, you’re an idiot for seeing less than 10% of the conference and trying to extrapolate that to cover the entire show. Show floor metadata is incapable of applying to the conference sessions. If a poll ONLY sampled the show floor, and then tried to apply those results to the conference, they’d be every bit as silly as you are for doing that. Samples have to SAMPLE across the ENTIRE data range, otherwise the results aren’t applicable.
Oh, and are you sure you didn’t learn your strawman tactics from Scoble? You’re about as good at it as he is.
I’ve read your site in the past John and you seem like a really bright guy. Why you find purpose to have to drag me through the mud after being the gentleman I said would be in admitting my wrong, I don’t know. Maybe not all bright people have the ability to unlock compassion from their locked heart.
Oh lord, the attempt at being noble. Is there any form of manipulation more doomed to failure? Sven, you didn’t admit your mistake. You ALMOST did, but then tried to justify it, and your misuse of other people’s words and data to make it sound like it really wasn’t your fault.
It’s the “near” apology, and it’s a sign that you don’t really think you made a mistake, but are being “big” about it. Bah. A true gentleman would admit to being wrong and not attempt to justify it.
Well, a true man would.
March 15th, 2007 at 15:25
A true gentleman would admit to being wrong and not attempt to justify it.
Okay, John, no spin, no justification, nothing but the plain and simple: I was wrong.
March 15th, 2007 at 20:44
See…that wasn’t so hard now was it.