NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- First, I must apologize for the name calling in the headline.
I know ... How can you apologize for something you could have very easily stopped yourself from doing after realizing it was an apology-worthy offense?
That's valid. But sometimes the story just requires strong language to do it justice. They didn't drop the f-bomb 522 times in "The Wolf of Wall Street" just for giggles.
I read a lot of stuff. Everyday. Hundreds of articles. Even some books. I spend a lot of time parsing through pretty horrendous stuff -- some (OK, much) of it my own -- to get to the good stuff. Or at least something I can use.But the "Op/Ed," Mashable's Todd Wasserman wrote -- Google is Eating Apple's Lunch -- might be one of the most myopic, patently ignorant pieces of tech journalism I have ever come across in my life. It's as obvious as it is misguided. And along with much of the rest of the world, it wants to dichotomize the Apple (AAPL - Get Report)/Google (GOOG - Get Report) situation because, of course, a black and white planet is so much easier to navigate. Wasserman leads off by being the 602nd person to tell us that Nest "appear(ed) to be a natural fit for Apple." He recycles the intuitive, but weak reasons why before staking his entire claim that Google is eating Apple's lunch on side-by-side lists showing Google's M&A activity versus Apple's as well as the regurgitated take that Apple doesn't know how or isn't spending its cash properly by not spending enough of it. I pretty much supported my position on this matter in Monday's Why Apple Doesn't Need Nest, but to add a bit and reiterate ... Since when does being a bigger M&A player indicate supremacy? That's just absurd. There's no logic to support the notion that because Google has outspent Apple on buyouts and Apple has allegedly "missed" all of these acquisitions that Google is eating Apple's lunch. If nothing else, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what Apple's "lunch" is. Its lunch is a steady stream of premium-priced, high-margin hardware units sold. That defines Apple's core. As I noted in the above-linked article, there's no indication whatsoever that Apple should abandon its way ... its long-standing strategy. If and when it does, you ought to worry. For instance, when it decided to pay a dividend and do a buyback, that should have given you pause. But to watch Apple operate, silently with its collective head down behind closed doors while everybody else does whatever everybody else does, should, IMNSHO, give you confidence. Because that's what Apple, in recent years, has always done. People speculate. Rumors fly. Apple ignores or, if it responds at all, pacifies. It disrupts and destroys when its ready. It absolutely should not make otherwise intelligent people jump off of a wholly uninformed deep end. But dichotomy has a way of luring the otherwise intelligent in. We can't simply assign Google and Apple different strategies and call them both great -- even though we should. We have to pit them against one another. That's not just idiotic. That's sad. Follow @rocco_thestreet --Written by Rocco Pendola in Santa Monica, Calif.