He's expressing an opinion except his style is to state his opinion as fact without providing any evidence at all.
It's not worth reading.
Now if he had predicted this purchase, that would be different.
It's not worth reading.
Now if he had predicted this purchase, that would be different.
Not having that as the default is how we ended up with the terrible popular style "in my opinion it could be argued that for some people it is mostly better if they XYZ, where possible (consult your doctor)".
NB, when I say it's a terrible style, that's my opinion, not a universal truth or peer reviewed fact cited in a published journal.
See?
Some writers online actually do have knowledge of Google's or Microsoft's position with respect to Skype, so when they say "Google/Microsoft wants X," they mean something more factual than "I can speculate that Google/Microsoft wants X."
In particular, I've heard from more informed sources that Google passed on Skype and has its reasons, contradicting one of the post's few concrete assertions.
If I write with the same confidence about two opinions I have, one I am vey sure of and one I am doubtful about, then I have failed to communicate well. Furthermore, writing in a way that expresses complete confidence in your opinions can change the tone of the conversation that it sparks. When you qualify your opinions, you signal that you are more willing to discuss that point. Speaking with complete surety can shut down a comment thread or turn it more antagonistic.
When you qualify your opinions, you signal that you are more willing to discuss that point. Speaking with complete surety can shut down a comment thread or turn it more antagonistic.
OK, I can see that happening.