or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Pegatron CEO refutes report about waning demand for Apple's iPad mini
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pegatron CEO refutes report about waning demand for Apple's iPad mini

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
While a report about Apple supplier Pegatron this week claimed demand for the iPad mini has been softening, the company's CEO has revealed in a follow-up that he said nothing of the sort.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Apple 2.0 reached out to Pegatron Chief Executive Jason Cheng via e-mail after Bloomberg ran a report claiming demand for the iPad mini was falling. Cheng said after his company's Institutional Investors conference, one reporter from the publication approached him "trying to dig out detail numbers about some specific product."

iPad mini


"I clearly refused to comment on specific products, nor customers, even though he continued with other questions," Cheng said. "I did say those words that he quotes me in the article? but I did not say anything associated with any specific products."

The Pegatron CEO wrote off the piece by author Tim Culpan as "speculation," rather than based on anything he actually said.

The original Bloomberg story gained attention on Wednesday after it claimed that Pegatron said its revenues were negatively affected by waning demand for Apple's iPad mini. Pegatron's first-quarter profits were up more than 80 percent year over year, but Culpan's report focused on the fact that the supplier expects its second-quarter consumer electronics revenue to be down sequentially as much as 30 percent.

The media has been following Apple's key suppliers very closely in recent months as the company's growth has slowed. Market watchers pointed to weak results at companies like Cirrus Logic as negative signs for Apple.

Last month, Apple reported its first year over year profit decline in a decade, falling roughly 18 percent to $9.5 billion.

The intense focus on bits of information from Apple's supply chain led company CEO Tim Cook to warn investors in January that attempting to interpret such data is not a wise approach. Cook noted that the supply chain is complex, as Apple has multiple sources for various components, and that various factors ? such as production yields and supplier performance ? can skew the data.

"Even if a particular data point were factual, it would be impossible to interpret that data point as to what it meant for our business," he said.
post #2 of 32
Does anyone seriously pay attention to this noise?

It's become almost as bad as all the analyst fluff.
post #3 of 32
Wow, you just got love the media, they just make shit up as they go along (I'm referring to Bloomberg here).
post #4 of 32

So much negative press on Apple, and most of it must be either written by idiots or evil stock manipulators.

Like the report in the Wall St Journal in January, where the guy said "iPhone 5 orders in the Christmas quarter cut from 60 to 30 million" when nobody was expecting more than 30 million in the first place, they only sold 47 million total for all the iPhones.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/14/wsj-apple-cuts-iphone-5-component-orders-in-half-due-to-weak-demand

I am starting to move over to the conspiracy theory camp, I think that somebody was trying to manipulate the stock all spring, and despite the terrible job that they did the bovine investors trashed the stock price.  Nice to see that the trend has changed though, I don't think that they can issue reports like this and still get any reaction.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

So much negative press on Apple, and most of it must be either written by idiots or evil stock manipulators.

AppleInsider must share some of the blame, too. After all, there is such a thing as fact checking.
post #6 of 32
Didn't stop AI and others from reporting it and people commenting on it as though it was fact. I was always skeptical because Apple suppliers never mention Apple products by name. If they didn they probably wouldn't be suppliers for much longer. Clearly Bloomberg had a story they wanted to write (iPad demand slowing) and were trying to bait the Pegagtron CEO in to saying something that would fit their meme. He didn't do it, but they were able to twist his words to make it look like he did. Shameful. 1oyvey.gif
post #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Does anyone seriously pay attention to this noise?

It's become almost as bad as all the analyst fluff.
Doesn't help when sites like Apple Insider, Mac Rumors and 9to5Mac pick up on it. Because the wider media (tech/financial/other) are constantly checking rumor sites for the latest "buzz". And if something gets reported here, they're more likely to re-report it.
post #8 of 32
Is it me, or has the amount of articles surrounding Apple, Analysts and Suppliers risen exponentially in the last 12-24months?
post #9 of 32
Negative press sells. Apparently, so do lies.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #10 of 32
The original Bloomberg "report" has this standard contact paragraph:
Quote:
To contact the reporter on this story: Tim Culpan in Taipei at tculpan1@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Tighe at mtighe4@bloomberg.net.

I say drop a note to both him and his editor about this disgusting deceptive fake journalism.

It has to stop. They're creating an atmosphere of anti-Apple FUD that is actually causing harm to the company. It is a daily distraction for Tim Cook and others, I'm sure. So stupid and unnecessary. So American.
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Doesn't help when sites like Apple Insider, Mac Rumors and 9to5Mac pick up on it. Because the wider media (tech/financial/other) are constantly checking rumor sites for the latest "buzz". And if something gets reported here, they're more likely to re-report it.

Yep...fully agree with you. If these sites just stop giving it so much attention it would just die off.

We also have to give a little credence to the stock manipulation theory....they give all this negative Apple press.....stock goes down......they buy stock then release something positive about Apple then the stock goes back up and they have made tons of money....

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 #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Does anyone seriously pay attention to this noise?

Unfortunately, it seems that nearly everyone does pay attention, then they repeat it as if it were verified fact.

Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Wow, you just got love the media, they just make shit up as they go along (I'm referring to Bloomberg here).
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Negative press sells. Apparently, so do lies.

I agree with all three of you 100% — the media has and always will recklessly spread lies for one or two reasons: profit or political agenda (and the second reason is linked to the first in nearly every case: i.e. think about the subsidized corn/HFCS/Ethanol debacle). This is no different than any reportable arena where they distort every happening or just plain make shit up to feed the public thirst.

post #13 of 32

I hope Apple keeps the old ipad mini and do a decent price reduction on it.  Maybe one model at 199$ ?  The problem with Apple being the only makers of iOS hardware is its not covering the entire market. 

 

I know purist dont want Apple to cover the low end, but not doing it hurts the ecosystem because its keeping out a lot people.  If I was Apple, I would push special itunes rebates for buyers on the cheap iphone in both India and China in order to keep them from immediatly jailbreaking there phpne and pirate everything. More itunes income could make up for the lower margins.

 

Regarding the emerging market phone, my hopes are for a $150 cost with a 35% gross margin for a total of $200 per phone. I would only sell this model only in emerging markets at first or until supply is meet. Reminder, current iphone gross margin are between 50% to 70%. 

post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Doesn't help when sites like Apple Insider, Mac Rumors and 9to5Mac pick up on it. Because the wider media (tech/financial/other) are constantly checking rumor sites for the latest "buzz". And if something gets reported here, they're more likely to re-report it.

At the very least, AppleInsider should include a cautionary tagline when they pass on something from Bloomberg or the WSJ, like they do with DigiTimes—"hit-or-miss," or "sometimes accurate."

In the case of Bloomberg et al, they can say "anti-Apple." Caught with their pants down this time, and it ain't a pretty sight.
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Yep...fully agree with you. If these sites just stop giving it so much attention it would just die off.
We also have to give a little credence to the stock manipulation theory....they give all this negative Apple press.....stock goes down......they buy stock then release something positive about Apple then the stock goes back up and they have made tons of money....
It all comes down to page views. Negative Apple stories generate clicks so sites like Forbes, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc.run with them. Rumor sites like AI have nothing to report on since Apple's gone quiet and we're not getting any new product leaks. They know people will stop coming to the site if its not updated with new stuff so they throw anything and everything up just to continue to drive traffic to the site.
post #16 of 32
Apple is the best bug tech company in the world and yet reading stuff here you'd think Apple was about to go bankrupt.
post #17 of 32

Imagine a report made up a story out of a non story. I am glad to see the CEO to call out the reporter and the media who printed his words. Company need to begin doing what Hollywood is doing any time a rag magazine publish false information about an actor or actress. Company can easily prove the false reports has harmed company values. Imagine if a reporter or Trade Magazine has to pay for lost stock value of a company because they reported false negative information.

post #18 of 32
Wow. Analysts fabricate their "reports." In other news, water is wet.
post #19 of 32

OR:

"

Apple supplier Pegatron boosts China workforce by 40 percent in second half"

 

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/17081953/apple-supplier-pegatron-boosts-china-workforce-by-40-percent-in-second-half/


Edited by jfc1138 - 5/9/13 at 10:12am
post #20 of 32
It almost seems as though GOOD Apple news is more likely to be true, yet BAD Apple news is more likely to be spread regardless of reality...
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


It all comes down to page views. Negative Apple stories generate clicks so sites like Forbes, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc.run with them. Rumor sites like AI have nothing to report on since Apple's gone quiet and we're not getting any new product leaks. They know people will stop coming to the site if its not updated with new stuff so they throw anything and everything up just to continue to drive traffic to the site.

 

It also comes down to reporters, bloggers, et al. wanting a dramatic story, combined with some negative aspects of human nature. The only thing that people love more that the rise of a hero is to watch the hero fall. So, while the rise of Apple was a great story, people get tired of hearing the same story over and over, and they love to tear down heroes, or watch them be torn down. It makes for a dramatic story. It makes for dramatic reading. And, as you point out, it sells newspapers and generates page views.

post #22 of 32
no class, just like the Samsung adds
post #23 of 32

Well that puts Bloomberg on the same turd list as the NYT, and Digitimes. They all three of them could not tell what the truth was if it hit them square in the face.

Lol and they give pulitzers out to these monkeys.

post #24 of 32
The comments after Elmer-DeWitt's story take AppleInsider to task for slavishly copying the Bloomberg story.

See the discussion around Sacto Joe on the first page of comments:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/09/apple-ipad-mini-pegatron-bloomberg/

Also, note that PED says that Culpan is a respected reporter, and that it might have been his editor.
Edited by Flaneur - 5/11/13 at 8:48am
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Imagine a report made up a story out of a non story. I am glad to see the CEO to call out the reporter and the media who printed his words. Company need to begin doing what Hollywood is doing any time a rag magazine publish false information about an actor or actress. Company can easily prove the false reports has harmed company values. Imagine if a reporter or Trade Magazine has to pay for lost stock value of a company because they reported false negative information.
You might have something there! Let us not just stop there! Companies should be allowed to sue not just the media company for false reporting and asking them to pay for the lost market value, but they should be able to so the same to all those analyst who have caused the market value down. Make few big examples of that and they all will stop!
post #26 of 32

The question becomes, where do you stop?

 

What about sites like AppleInsider, that are sometimes quoted in the news?  Should they share the blame for spreading false gossip without first checking it out completely?

 

For that matter, what about forum posts?   We constantly see misunderstandings and myths being repeated across the web.  The damage they do to someone's or a company's reputation can be considerable.

 

The real problem is similar to what Winston Churchill said: " A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."   In today's world, the problem is that many repeat the lie, but very few repeat the correction... or even change their headlines.

 

If corrections were as quick and widespread as falsehoods, it would make today's "print it before checking" philosophy.. which we seem stuck with.. more palatable.

post #27 of 32
It appears like Bloomberg News has Murdoch-ish ethical problems generally. Gruber links to a "serious scandal" developing.

They've lost all credibility.
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

It appears like Bloomberg News has Murdoch-ish ethical problems generally. Gruber links to a "serious scandal" developing.

They've lost all credibility.

I think it's partly just the state of modern journalism. It's not really there to tell the truth but to monetize content. Digitimes is certainly being paid off by Samsung. Bloomberg recently posted a review that puts down the Galaxy S4:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/samsung-stumbles-with-galaxy-s4-phone-rich-jaroslovsky.html

The comments section is funny. Android fans don't see the irony in commenting about Apple like that when someone doesn't like an Android product. They get all the sales figures out to try and prove how much of a fanboy everybody else is.

The effect of course is clear - they get people interested in the articles so more ad impressions. Gruber is part of that too btw:

http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/02/20/daring-fireball-money-machine/
post #29 of 32
@Marvin, you are right, writing for page views, never mind the truth, is the new bane of "journalism."

How is it different from the yellow journalism of the last hundred-plus years to drive circulation and thus ad sales? Somehow seems more of a personal betrayal when it's Internet-based.

Maybe because I don't see what The Star or the NY Post is doing because I would never buy their papers. What the online liars are doing at the WSJ, Forbes and now Bloomberg are doing is in everybody's face now, and it gets spread around by link sharing. Different.

Gruber is in a different class, though. He doesn't twist the truth for page views.
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I think it's partly just the state of modern journalism. It's not really there to tell the truth but to monetize content. Digitimes is certainly being paid off by Samsung. Bloomberg recently posted a review that puts down the Galaxy S4:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/samsung-stumbles-with-galaxy-s4-phone-rich-jaroslovsky.html

The comments section is funny. Android fans don't see the irony in commenting about Apple like that when someone doesn't like an Android product. They get all the sales figures out to try and prove how much of a fanboy everybody else is.

The effect of course is clear - they get people interested in the articles so more ad impressions. Gruber is part of that too btw:

http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/02/20/daring-fireball-money-machine/


Where did you read that about Digitimes? The chest beating over who has the best phone has always been ridiculous, but what makes you think Digitimes isn't just spinning whatever hints they find in a way that is directly profitable? What specifically makes you suggest shilling?

post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Where did you read that about Digitimes? The chest beating over who has the best phone has always been ridiculous, but what makes you think Digitimes isn't just spinning whatever hints they find in a way that is directly profitable? What specifically makes you suggest shilling?

Whenever they write about a negative Apple story, they insert a positive Samsung snippet into the same article. I found an article where it showed Samsung's tablet supplier orders were a fraction of Apple's and within days they had hidden it behind their member's only login.

There's one article where they have the headline 'Apple and Samsung to ship a combined 110 million tablets in 2013' behind a member's-only login. We know that Apple ships about 20 million tablets per quarter so in 2013, they'd be responsible for 80 million of those but they put it across as though Samsung and Apple are two sides of the same coin.

We know that Samsung is paying celebrities off and there are other examples:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/21/apple-samsung-agent-provocateurs/

http://macdailynews.com/2013/04/19/for-apple-the-hits-keep-on-coming-why-does-digitimes-latest-apple-rumor-read-like-a-samsung-ad/
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Whenever they write about a negative Apple story, they insert a positive Samsung snippet into the same article. I found an article where it showed Samsung's tablet supplier orders were a fraction of Apple's and within days they had hidden it behind their member's only login.

There's one article where they have the headline 'Apple and Samsung to ship a combined 110 million tablets in 2013' behind a member's-only login. We know that Apple ships about 20 million tablets per quarter so in 2013, they'd be responsible for 80 million of those but they put it across as though Samsung and Apple are two sides of the same coin.

We know that Samsung is paying celebrities off and there are other examples:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/21/apple-samsung-agent-provocateurs/

http://macdailynews.com/2013/04/19/for-apple-the-hits-keep-on-coming-why-does-digitimes-latest-apple-rumor-read-like-a-samsung-ad/


Celebrity endorsements are nothing new. Look at RIM's poor choice of creative directors for a recent example. I wasn't aware of those Digitimes changes. Thanks for that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Pegatron CEO refutes report about waning demand for Apple's iPad mini
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Pegatron CEO refutes report about waning demand for Apple's iPad mini