OP did not say "mishandling batterygate screwed Apple's earnings", but instead pointed out that something that could have been better handled and would have cost significantly less was considered a big enough mistake to be mentioned.
OP not implying causation, they're calling something interesting out.
I fundamentally disagree with your analysis, as OP helpfully listed their entire thinking out:
> "It went something like this:"
> ....
>- Some people decide that they'll stick with their phone a bit ?longer than they otherwise would have, reducing iPhone sales.
>- Apple misses their earnings target, likely costing them more in value than it would have cost them to address the root issue in the first place.
OP using a list format is implying a causative link between battery issues and earnings targets. OP even suggests that their value would be safe had they simply corrected the battery issue earlier.
You’re misunderstanding the thread here. OP suggested batteries, a minor factor in the report, were the primary cause in the earnings drop. For whatever reason there are people who really badly want to believe this. swish_bob countered, inaccurately, that OP did not claim causation.
Now that we all can agree swish_bob is wrong, the problem remains that OP misrepresented the primacy of the factors stated in the report.
> There's an implicit "because of this" between the two bullet points.
Not about this being the most significant factor. You've decided to infer that from the list - most of us didn't because he _explicitly_ says so in his last sentence. They also had influence over this particular issue, unlike the macroeconomics of China.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills considering how many people are completely ignoring the very obvious connotation here. It's like they're willfully ignoring the Chinese market issue entirely.
OP is attempting to place causation on the battery problem for the earnings miss or the valuation loss.
That is not supported by the evidence, which clearly shows that the primary cause had nothing to do with the Western market at all.
It's fair criticism, OP is discussing 5% of the problem and presenting it as if it's 100%.