or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Cold water poured on report of Apple TV-related media event next month
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cold water poured on report of Apple TV-related media event next month

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
A proven Apple insider has just shot down Wednesday morning's report from Jefferies Equity Research suggesting Apple was preparing for a television-related media event next month.

Apple TV


The Loops Jim Dalrymple, who has proven to be extremely reliable when commenting on Apple's plans for media events and product introductions, refuted Jefferies' claim with a tersely-tailored blog post stating: "Nope."

In a report on Apple's product road map issued to clients earlier in the day, Jefferies analyst Peter Misek said his channel checks suggested Apple was gearing up to host a media event related to its television initiative next month.

Details in the original report were extremely limited, with Misek stating only that he'd heard Apple was preparing for the event to possibly distribute tools to developers to take advantage of a new version of Apple TV that would launch this fall.
post #2 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


The Loops Jim Dalrymple, who has proven to be extremely reliable when commenting on Apple's plans for media events and product introductions, refuted Jefferies' claim with a tersely-tailored blog post stating: "Nope."

there we have it....irrefutable evidence.....nope....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #3 of 43
Run these analysts through the Dalrymple meat grinder. Every one of 'em.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 43

Neither of them actually knows anything. Why would we listen to either of them?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #5 of 43
Too bad that these people can't be held liable for spreading lies.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #6 of 43

Dratts! :)

post #7 of 43
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Too bad that these people can't be held liable for spreading lies.

 

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

 

This is true, but likely to have about as much success as their suits against Samsung.  

 

Stock manipulation is part and parcel of what analysts and stock traders do for a living.  Insider information and promulgation of fake news reports is pretty much standard operating procedure as far as I can see. I can't remember anyone important being successfully prosecuted for anything like that for many years.  

 

If they stopped this kind of thing they'd have to arrest most of the major players in the stock market. 

post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Neither of them actually knows anything. Why would we listen to either of them?

What has Dalrymple been wrong about with his "yep"s and "nope"s?
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

Apple can't sue because the key words "allegedly, rumor, suggested, predict" are used. None of those are absolute. However, the SEC should investigate analysts if their rumors are untrue and cause a drastic rise/fall in stock price.
post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Neither of them actually knows anything. Why would we listen to either of them?

 

Jim's track record for accuracy speaks for itself.  He never breaks scoops, but when he confirms or deny's them, you can take them to the bank.

post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

Not a chance. The burden of proof would be immense. Apple would have to prove:

1. That the lies were known to be lies at the time that they were promulgated.
2. That they were spread with malicious intent.
3. That the lies directly caused a drop in Apple's stock or a loss of business for Apple.
4. That Apple suffered harm.
5. That Apple can quantify the amount of harm that came directly from one media report.

It's not obvious that Apple would suffer any harm from a drop in stock prices (in fact, since they're buying stock back, they might actually benefit). And tying lost sales to the rumor mill would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There's almost no chance that Apple could ever prove those things in court, so the media and stock manipulators get away with it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #13 of 43
There has been an increase in efficiency in reporting a story and then debunking it. The Internet must be using Intel's new Core-BS processors.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Neither of them actually knows anything. Why would we listen to either of them?

In all seriousness... it sounds exactly like a response you would say.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This is true, but likely to have about as much success as their suits against Samsung.  

Stock manipulation is part and parcel of what analysts and stock traders do for a living.  Insider information and promulgation of fake news reports is pretty much standard operating procedure as far as I can see. I can't remember anyone important being successfully prosecuted for anything like that for many years.  

If they stopped this kind of thing they'd have to arrest most of the major players in the stock market. 

That part is not true.

While Apple doesn't have a chance of stopping the media from publishing these silly rumors (for the reasons given above), there HAVE been a number of high profile cases where companies, shareholders, and the SEC have one insider trading cases for things like this.

If the people foisting these rumors received substantial benefit from driving Apple's stock in one direction or the other and it can be shown that their story was false and if they can't prove that they heard it from someone else, an insider trading suit is well within the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, Apple can't be the one to bring that suit since they are not harmed by falling share prices. It would have to be a shareholder or the SEC.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #16 of 43

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:27pm
post #17 of 43
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
2. That they were spread with malicious intent.

 

Oh, right. I forgot it's just the UK where you don't have to do that… 

 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are pretty easy, though.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #18 of 43
The beard is talking again!?
post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, right. I forgot it's just the UK where you don't have to do that… 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are pretty easy, though.

No, they're not.

For example, Apple failed to gain an injunction in the Samsung case because they were not able to quantify the extent of harm caused by Samsung's theft of their IP. If they were unable to prove the extent of the harm there, how do you expect them to prove how much harm was caused by a random rumor on the Internet?

You obviously don't understand the law or business, so please stick to predicting Apple's future products. You're not any good at that, but since no one else is, either, it's not a big problem.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

 

I don't think slander is the proper word here. First, it would be libel (for something written or broadcast). Second, slander and libel are about defamation of a entity's image or reputation. This would be more like... I have no idea, stock manipulation? What Gazoobee said.

2011 Macbook Pro, 2012 Macbook Air, iPhone 5, iPad 4

Reply

2011 Macbook Pro, 2012 Macbook Air, iPhone 5, iPad 4

Reply
post #21 of 43
Originally Posted by guaihu View Post
I don't think slander is the proper word here. First, it would be libel (for something written or broadcast).

 

Right, I always confuse those two.

 


Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
If they were unable to prove the extent of the harm there, how do you expect them to prove how much harm was caused by a random rumor on the Internet?

 

Measure the rate of transaction on the day of release before the rumor comes out. Measure the drop in stock between its release and debunking. Use the pre-rumor rate to determine what the stock would have done without it, the remainder lost is the damage.

 

But you're right. It's the stock market, so claiming anything is easy is laughable.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That part is not true.

While Apple doesn't have a chance of stopping the media from publishing these silly rumors (for the reasons given above), there HAVE been a number of high profile cases where companies, shareholders, and the SEC have one insider trading cases for things like this. ...

 

This is encouraging news if true, but I can't say that I've ever heard of any.  One is more likely to hear of some Wall Street criminal that got off than one that actually went to jail or had any kind of a downside to their actions.  

 

I realise I'm speaking in gross generalities, but most of what happens on Wall streets is technically criminal and most of the time there is no punishment, no downside etc. 

post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Neither of them actually knows anything. Why would we listen to either of them?

Dalrymple is pretty well connected I guess, he has been reliable in the past. First example that comes to mind is his "nope" on NFC last year when everyone was sure the iPhone 5 had it, and even leaked pics seemed to indicate so as well.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

there we have it....irrefutable evidence.....nope....

When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?

post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This is encouraging news if true, but I can't say that I've ever heard of any.  One is more likely to hear of some Wall Street criminal that got off than one that actually went to jail or had any kind of a downside to their actions.  

I realise I'm speaking in gross generalities, but most of what happens on Wall streets is technically criminal and most of the time there is no punishment, no downside etc. 

Sounds about right, a WS organization can launder money for drug cartels and terrorist states without prosecution. The organization might be fined about a month's earnings, which is hardly a deterrence.
post #26 of 43
Disappointing.
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

How does Apple show tangible damages from fall in stock price?

 

And it is not slander because (a) the Jeffries report was written and (b) the rumor (true or false) does not directly damage Apple's reputation.

post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This is true, but likely to have about as much success as their suits against Samsung.

 

Oh, I don't know for sure but a billion dollar judgment isn't doing too bad.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?

i have no idea....my comment was sarcasm on his one word he used to refute the rumor....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Right, I always confuse those two.


Measure the rate of transaction on the day of release before the rumor comes out. Measure the drop in stock between its release and debunking. Use the pre-rumor rate to determine what the stock would have done without it, the remainder lost is the damage.

Wrong - for two reasons:

1. Simply showing that the stock price fell after a rumor isn't proof that the rumor caused the price drop. Apple would have to prove causation - which would be nearly impossible.

2. Even if Apple could prove that the rumor caused the price to fall, that doesn't harm Apple, so proving damages would be impossible. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the defense could argue that since Apple's buying stock back that a price drop is actually good for them.

Again, your claims aren't even close to what the law is required. Stick to predicting the size of future iPads.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?

 

Never.

 

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Wrong - for two reasons:

1. Simply showing that the stock price fell after a rumor isn't proof that the rumor caused the price drop. Apple would have to prove causation - which would be nearly impossible.

2. Even if Apple could prove that the rumor caused the price to fall, that doesn't harm Apple, so proving damages would be impossible. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the defense could argue that since Apple's buying stock back that a price drop is actually good for them.

Again, your claims aren't even close to what the law is required. Stick to predicting the size of future iPads.

 

A civil suit might do the trick.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 43
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
2. Even if Apple could prove that the rumor caused the price to fall, that doesn't harm Apple

 

… I was right with your condescension and snobbery via improper quote trimming RIGHT up until this. Then you lost me.

 

So Apple stock being driven to $0.01 per share doesn't harm Apple?


In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the defense could argue that since Apple's buying stock back that a price drop is actually good for them.

 

I'm still tongue-in-cheek in favor of the theory that Apple is the catalyst behind these price cutting rumors in an effort to lower their market cap to a level where they can take themselves private.


Stick to predicting the size of future iPads.

 

Sure. They'll get bigger. In before "that's not a prediction; it's a given".

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

Except it wasn't slanderous.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This is encouraging news if true, but I can't say that I've ever heard of any.  One is more likely to hear of some Wall Street criminal that got off than one that actually went to jail or had any kind of a downside to their actions.  

I realise I'm speaking in gross generalities, but most of what happens on Wall streets is technically criminal and most of the time there is no punishment, no downside etc. 

You forgot bailouts and very large bonuses.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Run these analysts through the Dalrymple meat grinder. Every one of 'em.

I agree. What a job to have though. Make crap up all day, get paid for it, and with no accountability. Love it.

post #37 of 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonky View Post

What has Dalrymple been wrong about with his "yep"s and "nope"s?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post
When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Never.

 

 

Wow. You guys must be some serious Insiders. I've never even heard of the guy.

 

Care to enlighten us on why he is so great?

post #38 of 43
SDK would be launched at WWDC 2013 anyway. 1wink.gif
post #39 of 43

Lots of cold water today

post #40 of 43
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post
Lots of cold water today

 

Is a lot of cold water better or worse than a single glass of ice water when you're in Hell? 1wink.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Cold water poured on report of Apple TV-related media event next month