Microsoft Hardware sales are struggling according to Forbes

[Rekkapryde]

Nah. Y'all just roll with whatever it is that makes you feel better. None of you fukked with sterling before or after that video. Had I posted his videos here before it would have been "fat cac this....fat cac that....." But since he's bashing Xbox y'all are all behind him.

I've followed his videos for a long time, and its not just with this latest video. He's gone from a rational voice in the outrage to whipping up the outrage himself.

As for this Forbes article. It's written by a blogger, not a financial analyst, not even an insider that would have access to any numbers we don't. He read the same statements from Microsoft that we did and just added his own spin.

To show how stupid that Forbes site is they are simultaneously running an article about how Xbox sales and Microsoft stock is up. So how can it be both? Microsoft/Xbox thriving and failing at the same time?

 

[The Phoenix]

Nah. Y'all just roll with whatever it is that makes you feel better. None of you fukked with sterling before or after that video. Had I posted his videos here before it would have been "fat cac this....fat cac that....." But since he's bashing Xbox y'all are all behind him.

I've followed his videos for a long time, and its not just with this latest video. He's gone from a rational voice in the outrage to whipping up the outrage himself.

As for this Forbes article. It's written by a blogger, not a financial analyst, not even an insider that would have access to any numbers we don't. He read the same statements from Microsoft that we did and just added his own spin.

To show how stupid that Forbes site is they are simultaneously running an article about how Xbox sales and Microsoft stock is up. So how can it be both? Microsoft/Xbox thriving and failing at the same time?

This nikka with the blanket statements. You the only one that has the internet? I've been a member of the Escapist site for years. Movie Bob and Ben Yahtzee are my main reasons for being on the site but it's hard to get past Jim Sterling. Just because I don't post his videos on this message board doesn't mean that you are somehow the only person that frequents his videos. You can make up whatever reason you want for not liking him, the timing is interesting. But you'd never admit to it so arguing is pointless.

Forbes doesn't post random articles. The author of that article may be a blogger or as they put it, a Contributor, but it still has to go through approvals to get on the site. Or are you claiming these nikkas are just posting random articles? You'd shyt on it even if was a tenured Forbes alum writing though. Why front like you wouldn't? Yes, they posted articles saying the stock was up.....but that same article said profits were down. Which is true. Which is what those investors who were clamoring for the spinoff are concerned about. The OP's story has merit. It holds weight. Only time will tell if those things will come to fruition. Why act like everyone else is a jackass because you are on the other side of this article? Everyone is stupid but you eh? SMH.

You can believe what you want to believe. I really don't give a shyt. But lets stop acting like Forbes is just some po dunk blog that's just posting random stories.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Well they are a software company so... .

The question is who would they sell the XBOX division to? Please don't say Apple.

 

[El Gonzo]

IMO random Coli posters are more reliable than Forbes.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

This nikka with the blanket statements. You the only one that has the internet? I've been a member of the Escapist site for years. Movie Bob and Ben Yahtzee are my main reasons for being on the site but it's hard to get past Jim Sterling. Just because I don't post his videos on this message board doesn't mean that you are somehow the only person that frequents his videos. You can make up whatever reason you want for not liking him, the timing is interesting. But you'd never admit to it so arguing is pointless.

Dude went from video titles like "a different kind of difficulty" where he talks about games and how the difficulty can vary from person to person

To video titles like "an industry full of pitiful cowards" where he just bashes any and every dev he can get his hands on

Dude is riding the flame bate wave like everybody else nowadays. He didn't use to do that.

Forbes doesn't post random articles. The author of that article may be a blogger or as they put it, a Contributor, but it still has to go through approvals to get on the site. Or are you claiming these nikkas are just posting random articles?

They do, it's simply a blog site with the Forbes name on it. It's not really serious financial advice.

You'd shyt on it even if was a tenured Forbes alum writing though.

Yes because it based purely on his own speculation. No real fact and figures. Just some numbers he made up himself.

Why front like you wouldn't? Yes, they posted articles saying the stock was up.....but that same article said profits were down.

No it didn't. Profits are not down

Which is true. Which is what those investors who were clamoring for the spinoff are concerned about. The OP's story has merit. It holds weight. Only time will tell if those things will come to fruition. Why act like everyone else is a jackass because you are on the other side of this article? Everyone is stupid but you eh? SMH.

The OP's story holds no merit. It's speculation, just like courtdog would look at the fact that Sony reports PS2 and PS3 numbers together and make a dumbass thread full of speculation on what that means. Y'all would ridicule such a thread. As you should. But here you defend this dude in full force. I wonder why?

You can believe what you want to believe. I really don't give a shyt. But lets stop acting like Forbes is just some po dunk blog that's just posting random stories.

It is. It's all for clicks and ad money. You think they're giving out the good info for free?

 

[The Phoenix]

Dude went from video titles like "a different kind of difficulty" where he talks about games and how the difficulty can vary from person to person

To video titles like "an industry full of pitiful cowards" where he just bashes any and every dev he can get his hands on

Dude is riding the flame bate wave like everybody else nowadays. He didn't use to do that.


They do, it's simply a blog site with the Forbes name on it. It's not really serious financial advice.


Yes because it based purely on his own speculation. No real fact and figures. Just some numbers he made up himself.


No it didn't. Profits are not down


The OP's story holds no merit. It's speculation, just like courtdog would look at the fact that Sony reports PS2 and PS3 numbers together and make a dumbass thread full of speculation on what that means. Y'all would ridicule such a thread. As you should. But here you defend this dude in full force. I wonder why?


It is. It's all for clicks and ad money. You think they're giving out the good info for free?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/22/5925947/microsoft-q4-2014-financial-earnings

Just because I don't shyt on Jim Sterling, does not mean I'm defending him. Especially in full force. I'm just stating that he hasn't changed much in the years he has been doing his show, and you are trying your damdest to paint him as volatile and some guy that's just in it for the clicks. Again bro, I think the majority would probably disagree with you, but it really doesn't matter. You are going to shyt on him because he's bashing the Xbox and then say that isn't the case, but instead its for some OTHER holier than thou reason. Do we really need to do this dance?

As far as Forbes is concerned, again bro I feel the onus is on you to prove those claims. Forbes is about reporting in the financial sector while WSJ is more about advice. Until you can show me where these guys are dropping the ball and posting fluff, I'm labeling your discourse in regards to them as BS. I have no dog in the fight though so hey if you can show me where they have been consistently wrong, then I'll agree to agree and move on.

If its all about cash and no one is reporting anything of any worth, then you can no longer post ANYTHING in regards to layoffs, or selloffs or anything of that nature in regards to the PS4 when some site "reports" on it.

IMO random Coli posters are more reliable than Forbes.

Honestly, thats not impossible.....but is there a reason for this. I know Forbes by reputation, but that doesn't mean they can't fall off. Have they fallen off? If so, state your case.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/22/5925947/microsoft-q4-2014-financial-earnings

Just because I don't shyt on Jim Sterling, does not mean I'm defending him. Especially in full force. I'm just stating that he hasn't changed much in the years he has been doing his show, and you are trying your damdest to paint him as volatile and some guy that's just in it for the clicks. Again bro, I think the majority would probably disagree with you, but it really doesn't matter. You are going to shyt on him because he's bashing the Xbox and then say that isn't the case. Do we really need to do this dance?

He wasn't in the past. He is now

You think with titles like "the unholy trinity of greedy b*stards" he isn't trying to cash in on Internet outrage?

This is the type of hyperbole that he used to speak out against. Now he's producing it himself

As far as Forbes is concerned, again bro I feel the onus is on you to prove those claims. Forbes is about reporting in the financial sector while WSJ is more about advice. Until you can show me where these guys are dropping the ball and posting fluff, I'm labeling your discourse in regards to them as BS. I have no dog in the fight though so hey if you can show me where they have been consistently wrong, then I'll agree to agree and move on.

http://m.cjr.org/303546/show/f034eb05c41acc1a630d68b08095ac0f/?

It may be hard to recall now, but Forbes was ajournalistic force not so long ago. Now it has a boss who says things like "content marketing just might be the full employment act for journalists."

Four years ago, Forbes acqui-hired Lewis DVorkin and installed him as chief product officer. DVorkin implemented the model he had pioneered at True/Slant, where writers get paid by the traffic they bring, particularly repeat visitors.

This model allows Forbes to have a far larger stable of writers than it could ever employ under more traditional models of work that are subject to things like minimum wage laws. It's sharecropper journalism. Writers effectively are tenants on Forbes.com, and Forbes gets a big cut of what they bring in. Or it gets everything: The median Forbes writer gets zip.

Forbes has just 40 staff reporters, but it churns out 400 pieces of content a day thanks to its 1,200 contributors. Four hundred of those are"paid freelance contributors," who must write at least five times a month and interact with commenters. Sixty of them make more than $45,000 a year from Forbes, which means 85 percent of them make less than that. Throw in the unpaid contributors and that moves to 95 percent.

Effectively, Forbes has been paying people with its brand equity. But when you do too much of that, you dilute the brand.

Forbes has blurred the lines more than any other mainstream publisher between journalistic content and marketing/PR. Flacky garbage written by marketing executives and consultants is barely distinguishable at first glance from reported stories written by staff writers. This effect reached its nadir in this exchange reported by Pando Daily's Erin Griffith:

A curious "interview request" arrived in my inbox today: A Forbes contributor would like to include my opinions in his post about equity crowdfunding. I was flattered for a minute, but then I realized what was really happening here: An executive who has been given a journalist's platform is now asking -- through a publicist -- for a journalist to do his work.


I love the irony. Forbes has outsourced the production of content to non-journalists, who are now turning to actual journalists for content. And the topic? Crowdfunding. It's a snake eating its own tail.

If its all about cash and no one is reporting anything of any worth, then you can no longer post ANYTHING in regards to layoffs, or selloffs or anything of that nature in regards to the PS4 when some site "reports" on it.

I read the things I post. I don't just post shyt cause the title sounds good. If its a dumb article full of speculation I don't post. Doesn't matter which site it comes from.[/quote]

 

[ORDER_66]

And he is right its coming from Forbes every time they let a contributor write an article they put there reputation on the line. Ain't nothing worse than a historic publication making a retraction. This so called blogger might have insight to real problems within Microsoft inc and is it that hard to fathom since Xbox one is not selling they are costing the parent company millions in being an albatross. They gave away titanfall for free. Price cut. Unbundled kinect. Come on. Man.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

And he is right its coming from Forbes every time they let a contributor write an article they put there reputation on the line. Ain't nothing worse than a historic publication making a retraction. This so called blogger might have insight to real problems within Microsoft inc and is it that hard to fathom since Xbox one is not selling they are costing the parent company millions in being an albatross. They gave away titanfall for free. Price cut. Unbundled kinect. Come on. Man.

Anyone who knows anything about money, knows the Forbes name is already ruined.

But keep showing how misinformed y'all are. I won't stop you anymore

 

[ORDER_66]

Anyone who knows anything about money, knows the Forbes name is already ruined.

But keep showing how misinformed y'all are. I won't stop you anymore

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Did you read the story I posted above you?

Forbes is owned by a Chinese media/advertising company. The stories are written by bloggers who get paid by the click. Their biggest money makers are shows on MTV

Take Forbes seriously brehs

 

[The Phoenix]

He wasn't in the past. He is now

You think with titles like "the unholy trinity of greedy b*stards" he isn't trying to cash in on Internet outrage?

This is the type of hyperbole that he used to speak out against. Now he's producing it himself


http://m.cjr.org/303546/show/f034eb05c41acc1a630d68b08095ac0f/?





I read the things I post. I don't just post shyt cause the title sounds good. If its a dumb article full of speculation I don't post. Doesn't matter which site it comes from.

But ummm....they've described just about every online media outlet. I'm not asking you to go get a collection of Forbes articles and then shyt on them one by one. I'm saying, show me where they are posting articles and then having to consistently post retractions because they are reporting false information. Pointing out how they are paying journalists based on the amount of traffic they are generating, as if they are the only ones doing it, is disingenuous.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

But ummm....they've described just about every online media outlet. I'm not asking you to go get a collection of Forbes articles and then shyt on them one by one. I'm saying, show me where they are posting articles and then having to consistently post retractions because they are reporting false information. Pointing out how they are paying journalists based on the amount of traffic they are generating, as if they are the only ones doing it, is disingenuous.

They are OPINION articles. You never have to retract them because they are merely opinions.

Ask anyone who's seriously into investing and financials and they will tell you Forbes is no longer respected. They are owned by a Chinese media company. They are more an entertainment company than one for serious financial info.

And if you can't see how paying "contributers" for clicks would compromise the validity of the information, then I don't know what to tell you

 

[Hood Critic]

Nadella is all about trimming fat. He just trimmed the Windows RT brand. The commitment for the XBox division will shrink.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

@The Phoenix here's another one

http://wonkette.com/529563/forbes-c...e-will-steal-7450-from-typical-family-of-four



Random speculation with no regard for accurate info and a click bait title.

oh no, it was a Forbes! Did Forbes used to be good? We vaguely remember them being good once. Anyway, yes it’s pure nonsense

As I said nobody really respects them anymore.

Here is more

On the other hand, Forbes is no longer principally a paper magazine. Rather, it has transformed itself into a state-of-the-art digital publishing model, one that strains for traffic and revenue growth while minimizing the cost of content. Most of its "contributors" are paid nothing at all. A portion of its content, in fact, comes from organizations that pay Forbes to post it — and Forbes has been caught in several embarrassing conflicts.


Most native digital content sites (sites not just importing content from old-media properties) are doing some form of this sleight of hand, generally in a less blatant fashion than Forbes, but all with an eye on the brutal economics of rising costs of traffic and lower advertising rates. In this storm, Forbes' particular shamelessness is something of a beacon.

But looked at another way, Forbes is an obvious fraud. It is not a magazine or editorial operation at all. It is just, in effect, a user comment site that allows commenters the pretense of saying they have written forForbes. Or, even, for paid promoters to write laudatory articles for Forbesabout whatever they are promoting, then to say, in further promotions, thatForbes lavishly endorses such-and-such complete baloney.

Forbes itself can defend what it is doing by saying publishing has always been supported by a commercial ecosystem and that within this, Forbesdoes maintain a discrete staff producing actual journalism. And, indeed, that is the defense, albeit an uneasy one, of most of the new digital content businesses: They are trying to figure out a balancing act between earnestness and shamelessness.