or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by nhughes

No problems talking about Gazelle on the Gazelle thread, I just didn't want this to drift off into analyst bashing, which is a whole 'nother can of worms. Gazelle is clearly identified in the opening paragraph as a "partner" and the story obviously includes affiliate links, from which the site undoubtedly collects a commission. It is my understanding that Gazelle offered the $10 bonus exclusively to AI (hence the use of "exclusive" in the headline) and the publisher...
The article was not "paid for." Gazelle provided an exclusive 48-hour promotion to AppleInsider and the publisher of the site ran a story promoting it, clearly identifying it as a promotion. Comments on such promotions should be sent the publisher's way.I offered to separately answer any questions you might have about analyst notes and general news coverage because I handle the news side of the operation, not business or advertising. We have a staff that works very hard...
I stand by what I said: Analyst notes directly affect the stock price and are newsworthy, regardless of how much you despise them. We do not cover all analyst notes we receive (far from it, actually). I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about our editorial policies via email or PM, but please keep this thread about the Gazelle offer. I would prefer to keep discussions on topic — I only intervened here to clarify any potential misconceptions about disclosure.
This article clearly states that Gazelle is an affiliate partner offering an exclusive discount — it's plainly disclosed in the first paragraph.  Regarding investor-related news stories, we have no "relationships" with analysts like you are insinuating. Analyst notes are newsworthy because they frequently affect the stock price, and many of our readers are investors. That's it. If there was anything to disclose, we would do so.
We don't do paid articles. We covered this because it's interesting. Staff reports are usually filed when the article is based on info from a press release and little else. It's a standard practice.
Current Lightning cables do feature the official USB "trident" logo on the Type-A connector, making them sanctioned USB accessories. It doesn't appear that Apple would be able to continue using this logo if it switched to an unsanctioned reversible Type-A plug.
I never even remotely suggested that WSJ sources are traditionally accurate. In fact, if you read a few posts later, I very clearly stated that I think the WSJ report is highly suspect.
The way it's worded makes it sound, to me, like the sapphire display would be an optional "upgrade." Kind of like the $50 matte display option Apple used to offer on MacBooks. Frankly I think most of this info sounds bogus, as evidenced by the tone of my report. But I don't have any inside scoop saying the WSJ is definitively wrong, that's just my instinct.
You're wrong. WSJ is attributing this rumor to their own sources, not analysts. Direct quote from the article: "Apple is considering using sapphire screens in more-expensive models of the two new, larger iPhones it plans to debut this fall, if it can get enough of the material, people familiar with the matter say. "
No post-stabilization. It really is that smooth.
New Posts  All Forums: