Microsoft Hardware sales are struggling according to Forbes

[MeachTheMonster]

You have guys complaining about a list with Bill Walton on it and another BLOG not quoting a source and posting parts of an article and so on and so forth. Almost like there is an agenda at hand. Just because some of these guys have bones to pick or have varying opinions doesn't make the Forbes article that they are discussing in their own click-bait article wrong. Again, Forbes being inaccurate at some point doesn't diminish their credibility unless it gets to a point where everyone universally agrees that they can't be relied upon in terms of news. That simply hasn't happened. So far you just have guys poking the bear with one agenda or another.

I've given you people from the tech industry, the games industry, finances, news, politics all saying the site has no credibility. I've shown you the CEO himself saying that the content is not edited for quality or accuracy. I've shown you articles with blatant lies and inaccuracies that were never updated/fixed for accuracy. And you think it's all cause of an "agenda"

At this point if you still believe in the Forbes name then you are being purposefully ignorant.

All I can say is please don't read a Forbes article then go make an important decision.

 

[The Phoenix]

I've given you people from the tech industry, the games industry, finances, news, politics all saying the site has no credibility. I've shown you the CEO himself saying that the content is not edited for quality or accuracy. I've shown you articles with blatant lies and inaccuracies that were never updated/fixed for accuracy. And you think it's all cause of an "agenda"

At this point if you still believe in the Forbes name then you are being purposefully ignorant.

All I can say is please don't read a Forbes article then go make an important decision.

Your articles from these people have mostly been about their business model and how they feel it will lead to writing with a lack of integrity. That in itself does not mean that said writing is without merit. Which is what this about. You attempting to prove that others see Forbes the same way you do. Overall thats just not the case. But there are some people who fall in line with what you think. That doesn't mean that Forbes isn't to be trusted. That simple really.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Your articles from these people have mostly been about their business model and how they feel it will lead to writing with a lack of integrity. That in itself does not mean that said writing is without merit. Which is what this about. You attempting to prove that others see Forbes the same way you do. Overall thats just not the case. But there are some people who fall in line with what you think. That doesn't mean that Forbes isn't to be trusted. That simple really.

No most of the articles I've posted have been about actual articles from Forbes with lies, innacuracies and misinformation. Only one of them was just about the business practices.

Beyond anyone else's opinion on Forbes. If you can look at a place that has an article denying global warming. A writer that admitted he doesn't believe his own shyt and just wrote it for clicks. A writer who tried to proclaim that the entire countries expenditure on healthcare would fall soley on the middle class, and a CEO that admits the articles aren't even proofread unless they cause controversy. And still think they are a credible source. Wow I'm not even sure what to say.

If you had never heard of the Forbes name would you still look to this site for news/advice?

 

[The Phoenix]

No most of the articles I've posted have been about actual articles from Forbes with lies, innacuracies and misinformation. Only one of them was just about the business practices.

Beyond anyone else's opinion on Forbes. If you can look at a place that has an article denying global warming. A writer that admitted he doesn't believe his own shyt and just wrote it for clicks. A writer who tried to proclaim that the entire countries expenditure on healthcare would fall soley on the middle class, and a CEO that admits the articles aren't even proofread unless they cause controversy. And still think they are a credible source. Wow I'm not even sure what to say.

If you had never heard of the Forbes name would you still look to this site for news/advice?

It depends on the site overall. The last few articles made an attempt to call out Forbes for inaccuracies. But we are talking about the overall credibility of a site/publication that has been around for years. And if they are employing that many writers and contributors, you are going to have some shyt that comes out from time to time that is inaccurate. Again, the shyt happens, not just at Forbes. If they correct it or address it then I'm cool with it. Trying to dismiss everything that comes from Forbes simply because some guy who doesn't believe in global warming was able to write an article on the site is an over site. That means just about every site out there I'm going to have to refrain from reading because of something inaccurate our outrageous that has been posted. Thats a no go this day and age.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

It depends on the site overall. The last few articles made an attempt to call out Forbes for inaccuracies. But we are talking about the overall credibility of a site/publication that has been around for years. And if they are employing that many writers and contributors, you are going to have some shyt that comes out from time to time that is inaccurate. Again, the shyt happens, not just at Forbes. If they correct it or address it then I'm cool with it. Trying to dismiss everything that comes from Forbes simply because some guy who doesn't believe in global warming was able to write an article on the site is an over site. That means just about every site out there I'm going to have to refrain from reading because of something inaccurate our outrageous that has been posted. Thats a no go this day and age.

That's the thing. They don't try to correct or update anything. All of those articles I posted pointed out innacuracies and lies on the Forbes site, yet you can go to the Forbes website today and read those stories. Any other site would post updates and corrections if they were wrong. Forbes does not.

As for the global warming thing, for me any site that has something that idiotic instantly looses all credibility regardless of their past. The fact that the article is still there unedited unchanged should tell you all you need to know about the site.

And I'm not saying that EVERYTHING from the site is instantly nonsense. I'm saying you can't look at the Forbes name and automatically assume accurate information, because they don't even make that claim anymore. It's all unedited opinions from bloggers now.

 

[The Phoenix]

That's the thing. They don't try to correct or update anything. All of those articles I posted pointed out innacuracies and lies on the Forbes site, yet you can go to the Forbes website today and read those stories. Any other site would post updates and corrections if they were wrong. Forbes does not.

As for the global warming thing, for me any site that has something that idiotic instantly looses all credibility regardless of their past. The fact that the article is still there unedited unchanged should tell you all you need to know about the site.

And I'm not saying that EVERYTHING from the site is instantly nonsense. I'm saying you can't look at the Forbes name and automatically assume accurate information, because they don't even make that claim anymore. It's all unedited opinions from bloggers now.

I disagree, the brand isn't what it was but from what I can see they still employ a host of credible writers that contribute to them and other publications as well as editors that have been there for a time that have a hand in choosing who gets to write for Forbes online. In my view that sustains the brand. They couldn't be what they were 15 years ago so that needs to be taken into account. I'm not dismissing the site as a glorified blog though.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I disagree, the brand isn't what it was but from what I can see they still employ a host of credible writers that contribute to them and other publications as well as editors that have been there for a time that have a hand in choosing who gets to write for Forbes online. In my view that sustains the brand. They couldn't be what they were 15 years ago so that needs to be taken into account. I'm not dismissing the site as a glorified blog though.

They have 1200 contributors. Even if you believe they were chosen carefully you can't believe that all of them are writing accurate informative content. The CEO admitted that they are a blog that allows people to use the Forbes name. Don't know why you'd disagree with the CEO

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

Does @MeachTheMonster ever actually talk about games?

 

[Liquid]

I disagree, the brand isn't what it was but from what I can see they still employ a host of credible writers that contribute to them and other publications as well as editors that have been there for a time that have a hand in choosing who gets to write for Forbes online. In my view that sustains the brand. They couldn't be what they were 15 years ago so that needs to be taken into account. I'm not dismissing the site as a glorified blog though.

Don't you understand that everyone is wrong/lying about Microsoft except for the enlightened*?

Spoiler: ..

enlightened* = employees/fanboys

 

[MeachTheMonster]

And the Stans come in spewing nonsense as usual

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Don't you understand that everyone is wrong/lying about Microsoft except for the enlightened*?

Spoiler: ..

enlightened* = employees/fanboys

so you missed the story from playstation lifestyle saying that Forbes is full of shyt?

 

[The Phoenix]

They have 1200 contributors. Even if you believe they were chosen carefully you can't believe that all of them are writing accurate informative content. The CEO admitted that they are a blog that allows people to use the Forbes name. Don't know why you'd disagree with the CEO

Of course not. I'm sure there are some fukkups in there. But as I've stated. That goes for any other site as well. If they have fewer writers, then it may result in less. The CEO didn't call Forbes.com a blog. He said that the contributors blog and then Forbes will decide if they want to publish the article. But yes, they do have a section for blogs.

 

[Poppa_Dock]

Funny because i was hoping to buy a bunch of 360 shyt because i assumed it would all marked down becuase you can't use shyt from the 360 on the xbox 1 i don't think. These clowns still selling xbox 360 controllers for full price . You would think they woudl want to get rid of all the 360 shyt and then drop prices on the 1 so people would buy it.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Of course not. I'm sure there are some fukkups in there. But as I've stated. That goes for any other site as well. If they have fewer writers, then it may result in less. The CEO didn't call Forbes.com a blog. He said that the contributors blog and then Forbes will decide if they want to publish the article. But yes, they do have a section for blogs.

You asserted that the Forbes name ensures accuracy. I've proven that not to be the case. And the Forbes CEO did not claim that they decide what they want to publish. You pulled that out of your ass just like Forbes contributers do their "news"

 

[Killer Instinct]

Despite MS's focus to deal on #'s shipped, unbundling what supposedly couldn't be unbundled, completely backtracking on all of their policies, dropping the price by a hundred bucks less than a year into the generation and giving away their blockbuster title for FREE, dudes have a rational explanation for everything. Every single source reporting that these guys are in trouble are wrong despite all signs alluding to the contrary. Is Microsoft cutting some of you guys checks? If they fold, are you out of a job? Possibly under an embargo and you can't divulge much else, but the amount of spin and denial could be rationalized if that's in fact the case.