Mar 20 2008, 10:54 PM
QUOTE(stringfellow @ Mar 20 2008, 02:40 AM)
Oh dear where do i start? Please understand that this post is not meant to rip you apart, mybargain, this post is meant as an analysis of what this news broadcast meant to me.I appreciate your work in reporting this in.
Im not surprised that that is your first reaction, because that reaction , being "thrilled" is the very objective this news blurb wants to achieve. Why? Because by "thrilling" you with its headlines, you will pay less attention to the content of the news, and once you analyse the news, you will realise that the news is nothing but rumors and conjectures, and not based on any hard evidence or conclusive sources. Let me explain.
This part alone makes this news article a non-credible source. When you have no confirmation on what you are reporting , your news material loses credibility and is relegated to "gossips and rumors".
This part of the news is aimed to sensationalize and make the news seems big and noteworthy. All you have here are estimates, conjectures and no hard numbers. "Estimates and conjectures" again makes for no credibly news. Statistics does.
A local vendor? Who? This again reinforce the fact that without credible sources, your news becomes rumors and gossip. The reluctance of the vendor to be named here can mean two things, to keep the news worth skepticising over, and to keep the viewers hooked to the later parts of the news. Viewers who are able to read between the lines knows this "keep your sources a mystery" ploy is an age-old tactics to lend your news material credibility, without revealing whether your sources are real or made up. This is called "Plausible deniability". The refusal of the vendor to be named is his escape clause should the claims of his does not come true, so that angry Singaporeans who have waited that long could not track him down adn rain fury on his speculative ass.
More analysis on this later, i will elaborate on why this point is important. Also another point to ponder, who are these "Observers"? Why arent their credentials and names mentioned? Again, the ploy for "plausible deniability" here.
The only part of this news that is possibly right. This is also the basis of all estimations on which telco will get the contract from Apple to partner with, judging from the current pattern Apple is using to launch the iPhone on a particular region/country.
Notice the elaborations stops there. Nowhere here is explained why Apple went "with that (business) model". Partnership with particular telcos here means the said telco bears a portion of the cost of the iPhone, in which they regain that cost by introducing new voice/data packages with contractual agreement to stay with that said telco between 12 to 24 months. The "more familiar relationship where you distribute through operators in Singapore here means that you get those phones tied down again with monthly subscription (based on Singaporean phone operator model) without tying them down to a longer agreement as mentioned before. The phone price, in this case, the iPhone, however will not be priced at the current price seen in the American operator business model, it will be much higher. This piece of information is conveniently omitted to keep the news on high gear, high spirits and warm on sensationalization.
Even a non-informed user here can make that call.
Again i ask, who is this guy? This is like asking the shop manager of Bluecube, the store that operates under Celcom banner here to ask his opinion on what/when he thinks the iPhone is going to be coming locally. iShop has no connections nor sources to higher Apple management to be privy of such knowledge. All this Zachary Wong is saying is that he hopes(from his "never expect" line) the iPhone to come over to Singapore and he wants the 3G version to come, not the current EDGE model. What basis this comment of his is based on? Nothing but hope and wanting.
Very very broad and non-specific, clearly indicating conjectures, speculations and rumor-mongering. The phone? Which model, 8Gb or 16Gb? EDGE or 3G? 3G iPhone at that price, WITHOUT Apple demanding 30% revenue from the awarded telco there? Anyone with a common sense knows that unless some other form of sponsorship is tied into this deal (government subsidy for example), this business model has little to negative profit margin.
Again, all this are word on the street. The news reporter is interviewing people on the street, if you watch the news broadcast, so all this are the hopes and wants of the people, which is not necessarily what Apple wants IF (A very big If) they launch the iPhone there at all.
Unless this is quoted word-for-word, i'd like to slap this Valarie in her face. Anyone who had read Steve Job's aspirations and target for iPhone's sale KNOWS that that 10 million units iPhone sold is for WORLDWIDE, not in Asia. Clerical and in this case, inaccuracy in news reporting indicated that this news reporter has no in-depth knowledge on the focus of the news she is reporting, and is reporting merely out of getting sensational news for the primetime slot.
Now, my reasoning why this news broadcast is inconsequential, and not trustworthy:-
1. Where are the facts? Sources? When your sources are from speculating analyst, a "local vendors who refused to be named" and "nameless observers", and when you take your word on the street as bullet-points for your news, that kind of news is the kind you see repoted in gossip columns about Britney and her antics.
2. Anyone who keeps up with the Singaporean telcos and their connections with who will get the iPhone contracts, knows that the rumors flipflops between Singtel and Starhub. I see this news blurb as merely ammunition for the profiting side(in this case, Singtel) to sway Apple's vote to award them the contractual agreement instead of Starhub. By sensationalising and reporting the what seems to be overblown needs of Singaporeans to get the iPhone and how their Singtel "connection" is much more intimate with Apple, this bolsters the public conception on which telco in Singapore is a telco of choice. Remember, iPhone is a huge deal, and whichever telco who got this lucrative deal could possibly hold sway a large majority in subscriber numbers.
3 . This next point is also common sense. We all heard Apple's desire to launch the iPhone to the rest of Asia Pacific in 2008. What countries are most likely gets launch news first compared to the other. We have all heard Apple's negotiation with China Mobile that went on and off and then on again (latest news still no go), and rumblings from down under in Australia, for Telstra coming up strong to be the likely awarded contracted telco. These two market alone should and must get news first before other smaller region gets any notice from Apple. Look at how Apple handled Europe. UK with O2 and CarPhoneWareHouse, Germany and France with Orange and T-Mobile, Italy...then we move to smaller countries like Switzerland, and latest is Austria and Ireland. See the pattern here? Bigger to smaller countries. Would it make more sense that larger countries in Asia Pacific region, like China, India and Australia would get their launch news first, than a country with an aggregate of 1 million cellphone subscriber like Singapore? Hell, i'd say even Thailand, Phillipines , Hong Kong and even Malaysia should get launched first if Apple is really serious about Asia, since these countries hold larger subscriber base numbers, than tiny Singapore. But have we heard any news other than rumors, at this points, about likely awarded candidates in Australia or China? What's so special about Singapore that likens Apple to award or announce their awarded contract first before these other larger telcos in larger countries? Think about it that way, and you will see , all there is to this news broadcast in Channel 5 in Singapore is nothing but the attempt to keep the public interest in the iPhone high, as well as the agenda i've explained in #2.
I dont know about any of you guys, but the reason why i stopped reading local newspapers and watching local terrestrial primetime news here is the same reason why i abhorred and disgusted with the kind of news i read and watch about this so called "Singtel in September" news : Zero substance, all conjectures. There is little to zero information that can be gleaned from that news article quoted by Mybargain, and im sure if i do watch the news broadcast on Channel 5, i would already have switched channel the very moment the reporters says "Local vendors refused to be named". When the anchor of your news, the very pillar of your broadcast, the material of your article is based on vague and non-sbubstantive sources and anecdotal evidences, your news no longer deserve to be called "news", it is now "gossips" to my eyes.
i think you should become a lawyer or even a politician instead of a bus driver....Im not surprised that that is your first reaction, because that reaction , being "thrilled" is the very objective this news blurb wants to achieve. Why? Because by "thrilling" you with its headlines, you will pay less attention to the content of the news, and once you analyse the news, you will realise that the news is nothing but rumors and conjectures, and not based on any hard evidence or conclusive sources. Let me explain.
This part alone makes this news article a non-credible source. When you have no confirmation on what you are reporting , your news material loses credibility and is relegated to "gossips and rumors".
This part of the news is aimed to sensationalize and make the news seems big and noteworthy. All you have here are estimates, conjectures and no hard numbers. "Estimates and conjectures" again makes for no credibly news. Statistics does.
A local vendor? Who? This again reinforce the fact that without credible sources, your news becomes rumors and gossip. The reluctance of the vendor to be named here can mean two things, to keep the news worth skepticising over, and to keep the viewers hooked to the later parts of the news. Viewers who are able to read between the lines knows this "keep your sources a mystery" ploy is an age-old tactics to lend your news material credibility, without revealing whether your sources are real or made up. This is called "Plausible deniability". The refusal of the vendor to be named is his escape clause should the claims of his does not come true, so that angry Singaporeans who have waited that long could not track him down adn rain fury on his speculative ass.
More analysis on this later, i will elaborate on why this point is important. Also another point to ponder, who are these "Observers"? Why arent their credentials and names mentioned? Again, the ploy for "plausible deniability" here.
The only part of this news that is possibly right. This is also the basis of all estimations on which telco will get the contract from Apple to partner with, judging from the current pattern Apple is using to launch the iPhone on a particular region/country.
Notice the elaborations stops there. Nowhere here is explained why Apple went "with that (business) model". Partnership with particular telcos here means the said telco bears a portion of the cost of the iPhone, in which they regain that cost by introducing new voice/data packages with contractual agreement to stay with that said telco between 12 to 24 months. The "more familiar relationship where you distribute through operators in Singapore here means that you get those phones tied down again with monthly subscription (based on Singaporean phone operator model) without tying them down to a longer agreement as mentioned before. The phone price, in this case, the iPhone, however will not be priced at the current price seen in the American operator business model, it will be much higher. This piece of information is conveniently omitted to keep the news on high gear, high spirits and warm on sensationalization.
Even a non-informed user here can make that call.
Again i ask, who is this guy? This is like asking the shop manager of Bluecube, the store that operates under Celcom banner here to ask his opinion on what/when he thinks the iPhone is going to be coming locally. iShop has no connections nor sources to higher Apple management to be privy of such knowledge. All this Zachary Wong is saying is that he hopes(from his "never expect" line) the iPhone to come over to Singapore and he wants the 3G version to come, not the current EDGE model. What basis this comment of his is based on? Nothing but hope and wanting.
Very very broad and non-specific, clearly indicating conjectures, speculations and rumor-mongering. The phone? Which model, 8Gb or 16Gb? EDGE or 3G? 3G iPhone at that price, WITHOUT Apple demanding 30% revenue from the awarded telco there? Anyone with a common sense knows that unless some other form of sponsorship is tied into this deal (government subsidy for example), this business model has little to negative profit margin.
Again, all this are word on the street. The news reporter is interviewing people on the street, if you watch the news broadcast, so all this are the hopes and wants of the people, which is not necessarily what Apple wants IF (A very big If) they launch the iPhone there at all.
Unless this is quoted word-for-word, i'd like to slap this Valarie in her face. Anyone who had read Steve Job's aspirations and target for iPhone's sale KNOWS that that 10 million units iPhone sold is for WORLDWIDE, not in Asia. Clerical and in this case, inaccuracy in news reporting indicated that this news reporter has no in-depth knowledge on the focus of the news she is reporting, and is reporting merely out of getting sensational news for the primetime slot.
Now, my reasoning why this news broadcast is inconsequential, and not trustworthy:-
1. Where are the facts? Sources? When your sources are from speculating analyst, a "local vendors who refused to be named" and "nameless observers", and when you take your word on the street as bullet-points for your news, that kind of news is the kind you see repoted in gossip columns about Britney and her antics.
2. Anyone who keeps up with the Singaporean telcos and their connections with who will get the iPhone contracts, knows that the rumors flipflops between Singtel and Starhub. I see this news blurb as merely ammunition for the profiting side(in this case, Singtel) to sway Apple's vote to award them the contractual agreement instead of Starhub. By sensationalising and reporting the what seems to be overblown needs of Singaporeans to get the iPhone and how their Singtel "connection" is much more intimate with Apple, this bolsters the public conception on which telco in Singapore is a telco of choice. Remember, iPhone is a huge deal, and whichever telco who got this lucrative deal could possibly hold sway a large majority in subscriber numbers.
3 . This next point is also common sense. We all heard Apple's desire to launch the iPhone to the rest of Asia Pacific in 2008. What countries are most likely gets launch news first compared to the other. We have all heard Apple's negotiation with China Mobile that went on and off and then on again (latest news still no go), and rumblings from down under in Australia, for Telstra coming up strong to be the likely awarded contracted telco. These two market alone should and must get news first before other smaller region gets any notice from Apple. Look at how Apple handled Europe. UK with O2 and CarPhoneWareHouse, Germany and France with Orange and T-Mobile, Italy...then we move to smaller countries like Switzerland, and latest is Austria and Ireland. See the pattern here? Bigger to smaller countries. Would it make more sense that larger countries in Asia Pacific region, like China, India and Australia would get their launch news first, than a country with an aggregate of 1 million cellphone subscriber like Singapore? Hell, i'd say even Thailand, Phillipines , Hong Kong and even Malaysia should get launched first if Apple is really serious about Asia, since these countries hold larger subscriber base numbers, than tiny Singapore. But have we heard any news other than rumors, at this points, about likely awarded candidates in Australia or China? What's so special about Singapore that likens Apple to award or announce their awarded contract first before these other larger telcos in larger countries? Think about it that way, and you will see , all there is to this news broadcast in Channel 5 in Singapore is nothing but the attempt to keep the public interest in the iPhone high, as well as the agenda i've explained in #2.
I dont know about any of you guys, but the reason why i stopped reading local newspapers and watching local terrestrial primetime news here is the same reason why i abhorred and disgusted with the kind of news i read and watch about this so called "Singtel in September" news : Zero substance, all conjectures. There is little to zero information that can be gleaned from that news article quoted by Mybargain, and im sure if i do watch the news broadcast on Channel 5, i would already have switched channel the very moment the reporters says "Local vendors refused to be named". When the anchor of your news, the very pillar of your broadcast, the material of your article is based on vague and non-sbubstantive sources and anecdotal evidences, your news no longer deserve to be called "news", it is now "gossips" to my eyes.
Quote
0.0166sec
0.60
6 queries
GZIP Disabled