Mac OS X' Mail.app supports S/MIME. Get a certificate, you can afford it.
Signed e-mails can't be forged easily, since any modification in the message body will render the signature invalid.
Of course, iOS Mail despite many complaints doesn't support S/MIME yet, which not only means you can't send signed or encrypted messages, you als can't read then while you're on the road should you receive any!
Of course, signed messages are also pretty hard to deny after the fact, so plausible deniability becomes a bit problematic once you start using them...
Oh yeah, and can we finally get S/MIME support in iOS, while we're on the subject?
You really think that one of the most successful companies in the world, one which has a strong supplier partnership with Apple, would hire such an imbecile?
I doubly withdraw my earlier comments about the veracity of the denial. The author of the Fortune article has responded and the top Apple spokesman is Steve Dowling ([email protected] (408) 974-1896).
Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.
So in maybe a sentence, why does it cross the line?
I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.
Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.
The plot thickens.
Anyone with a computer and a keyboard can fake headers and screenshots. All that the "evidence" proves is that BGR trusted basic "evidence" and knows nothing about e-mails.
Remember when anti-Apple tools kept telling us that the Gizmodo leak was staged, or that there was no ethical warrant to seize Chen's stuff? Wrong.
When the facts come out, the trolls will hibernate for another fake scandal.
Anyone with a computer and a keyboard can fake headers and screenshots. All that the "evidence" proves is that BGR trusted basic "evidence" and knows nothing about e-mails.
Remember when anti-Apple tools kept telling us that the Gizmodo leak was staged, or that there was no ethical warrant to seize Chen's stuff? Wrong.
When the facts come out, the trolls will hibernate for another fake scandal.
That they may be fakes is entirely possible, while the fact that they're available for scrutiny at least allows some measure of forensic examination. We wait with bated breath at the outcome.
As a sideshow to the main event though, it has it's own measure of mystery and deception, n'est pas?
The sad part of all this is not that some site tried to get a few clicks with typical tabloid-style made-up boulevard journalism, that's to be expected. The sad part is that people seriously think that you can e-mail the CEO of a multi-billion company directly, who will sit down to wade through the thousands of e-mails he likely gets every day to reply to them in person. Sure enough he has better things to do with his time, and sure enough a succesful business like Apple will never, ever allow direct and unscreened communication with Jobs, especially not about hairy issues like this, which could cost them millions in damages.
Even more sad is that the whole fucking internet copies these stories as truths, and hordes of idiots echo them everywhere. It's been like this with every iPhone release, and this one is no different, but worse. Sure enough some people will have reception issues with their iPhones, 1.7 million have been sold and the US enourmous, so the chances are close to 100% that not everyone will have a great experience with it. But the way it is right now, the supposed antenna problems have been blown up as if the iPhone 4 is pretty much useless as a phone, and that you should expect it to fail when you try making a call. Meanwhile there is no actual, factual information on how widespread this issue actually is, or how bad the reception issues are except for a higher attenuation loss when holding it, and a stupid way of displaying the signal strength bars.
Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.
The plot thickens.
My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.
It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.
The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.
I will be honest here... I hadn't heard about that case before now. Almost all the search results I found had the same "urban legend" tone (short on facts, long on opinion). The only page I found that had an in depth analysis called the claim bunk.
That being said, regardless of the actual facts surrounding the case, I think the "CBS" comparison is more apropos since it involved the actual releasing of faked information, whereas the Fox case was about the right to do so.
What IS clear to me is that these direct emails from Steve have now finally proved to be the inappropriate way to do things. It was fun and cool for a while, but Apple, however successful they are, must realize the risks they are taking if they are to allow this to continue.
You are not suggesting someone should pry his iPhone off from Steve Jobs's hands so he can send no more emails, are you? I guess Mr. Jobs can make a perfectly good judgement as to what emails to answer. It's the blogger's responsibilty to determine how legit such correspondence is.
So, in the past there have never been issues with AT&T's coverage, that's a relief to know.
I guess we won't have to put up with all the whining about it after being subjected to three years of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.
I hope that clarifies my position for you.
I wonder if the SEC should look into this, manipulation of stock prices and all that stuff.
I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.)
The iPhone 4 works very well and makes calls better than other phones according to Anand's tests.
Yes, there are ways to make it drop the number of visible bars, but there's no evidence that that consistently causes calls to drop. Quite a few people report that they can make calls even when it says 'no service'. Even so, you have to go out of your way to create the problem. In normal use, it doesn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh
My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.
It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.
The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.
That's BS. First, why should Apple issue a general press release? One magazine called and asked a question and Apple answered it. That doesn't call for a press release.
And the accusation that Apple is lying is just absurd. Companies don't flat out lie very frequently. They might leave out information or put a spin on things, but it's extremely rare that they tell a lie like this - nor is there any real benefit. And, you'll notice that BGR has not offered to had a forensic specialist look over the emails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh
"on the record" and "off the record" have legal status. If something is "on the record" it is attributed to a real person and is sanctioned by the company. If something is "off the record" then it can not be attributed and is not sanctioned by the company.
From the above quote from the Fortune article the author states that "Asked on the record ... a top Apple spokesman emphatically denied it." If it was asked "on the record" what is the top Apple spokesman's name? What is the top Apple spokesman's position and title. Where is the official press release to all news organizations?
At the very least have some common sense, nothing about what Fortune has said is "on the record". It is all hearsay from an unattributed source that is supposedly a top Apple spokesman. Why would this top Apple spokesman make these anonymous statements and on top of that single source this "emphatic denial"?
If Apple really said this it would be released as a general press release made by a real Apple employee that has a name, a title and a means to be reached at the company.
Someone is playing head games and it looks like it is CNN/Money - Fortune - Apple 2.0 that is doing it.
edit: hmm. I emailed the author and his email address is [email protected]. So at the very best he is a free lancer for CNN Money without his own cnn.com email address, and at the worst he is a paid shill for Apple.
2nd edit: I withdraw my comments. Engadget claims they have independently contacted Apple to confirm the denial.
ROTFLMAO. Glad you finally came to your senses. Your 'logic' needs some work, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
The spokesperson said it "on the record" without being named? That's not on the record - it's off the record.
That's not even close to being true. Apple could say "we will stand behind this statement, but don't want it attributed to an individual. That would be on the record. More likely, the Apple spokesman could give his name and Fortune could have left it out for space reasons. That would still be on the record.
Oh, and it turns out that the guy's name IS public now.
So when are you going to admit that your posts are all full of BS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
Verified: That there was a denial by an actual person cannot be reasonably dismissed.
Now, whether that denial is any more accurate than anything else Apple or bloggers or anyone else says has yet to be determined.
When Apple files suit against BGR we'll see how confident they are. And if they don't....
That's just plain absurd. First, there'd be no reason for Apple to lie. Second, companies rarely tell flat lies like that. The consequences are too great.
Why should Apple file suit against BGR? They aren't worth the bother- and there's no reason to give them the publicity. Let them shrivel up and die on their own. It's not like the Gizmodo case where trade secrets were stolen.
My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.
It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.
The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.
Maybe so, but your initial protestation descended into the absurd when you demanded to see a Press Release sent to all Media Outlets containing the same information. That's not how journalism works.
And the accusation that Apple is lying is just absurd. Companies don't flat out lie very frequently. They might leave out information or put a spin on things, but it's extremely rare that they tell a lie like this - nor is there any real benefit.
Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.
Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.
To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.
Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.
Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.
To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.
Even though I'm a rabid, Kool-aid drinking Apple fanboy I agree with your publicly traded company comment. We want to think of Apple as some pinnacle of virtue, the tech master of the universe. But they are just a for-profit company in the end, whose sole goal is to make money for their owners, the stockholders. So yes, they are quite capable of skullduggery. Add to this the fact, so perfectly demonstrated here in this forum, that the sharks (err, I mean lawyers) are always circling in the water and anything can happen. One thing is for sure. Now that the lawyers are involved we will be hearing at lot less out of Apple going forward.
The incident highlights an emerging trend where blog sites quickly publish alleged email conversations with Apple's chief executive under "exclusive" headlines designed to attract attention, with little or no effort made to either verify or or qualify the emails as potentially fake.
If TRUE, congratulations bloggers everywhere, you have arrived!
You are now in league with the so called, "objective", "non-partisan", and "factually accurate" of your esteemed brethren of journalists in the "Main Street" media! Woo-Hoo!
That's just plain absurd. First, there'd be no reason for Apple to lie. Second, companies rarely tell flat lies like that. The consequences are too great.
Are the consequences any less great for BGR or Bruford? Both of them have their entire companies on the line, while for Apple it's just another "don't hold it that way" in a moment when they're such media darlings a simple "we misspoke" would put the whole thing away.
That's the crux here: it's not necessary for Apple to have lied per se for the PR person to have been incorrect. He may simply have been mistaken. People make mistakes, and there's a lot happening at Apple right now. It doesn't seem entirely impossible that they are mistaken any more than the possibility that BGR may be mistaken.
As a company that has deployed its army of lawyers against blogs that post leaks from employees, it wouldn't really be all that out of character to at least file a cease-and-desist with BGR to pull the story down or issue a retraction. A suit wouldn't be necessary at all until after a cease-and-desist were ignored; indeed, that's the normal route such things take.
So to be clear, NO ONE currently has sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the emails posted at BGR. We have only BGR's hearsay vs a PR person's hearsay.
Given the "don't hold it that way" email that's gone completely uncontested for weeks, it's surprising that the relatively uninteresting emails at BGR are given so much scrutiny.
Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.
Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.
To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.
You're wrong.
Publicly traded companies disseminate all the time. They put spin on their statements. They are selective in the information they release, often favoring information that puts them into a positive light. I never denied that - and some are far worse than others.
But that doesn't change the fact that publicly traded companies do not flat out lie to a 'yes/no' question all that often.
Comments
Mac OS X' Mail.app supports S/MIME. Get a certificate, you can afford it.
Signed e-mails can't be forged easily, since any modification in the message body will render the signature invalid.
Of course, iOS Mail despite many complaints doesn't support S/MIME yet, which not only means you can't send signed or encrypted messages, you als can't read then while you're on the road should you receive any!
Of course, signed messages are also pretty hard to deny after the fact, so plausible deniability becomes a bit problematic once you start using them...
Oh yeah, and can we finally get S/MIME support in iOS, while we're on the subject?
You're not serious, are you?
Do you work for Samsung?
You really think that one of the most successful companies in the world, one which has a strong supplier partnership with Apple, would hire such an imbecile?
I doubly withdraw my earlier comments about the veracity of the denial. The author of the Fortune article has responded and the top Apple spokesman is Steve Dowling ([email protected] (408) 974-1896).
Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.
The plot thickens.
So in maybe a sentence, why does it cross the line?
I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.
I hope that clarifies my position for you.
Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.
The plot thickens.
Anyone with a computer and a keyboard can fake headers and screenshots. All that the "evidence" proves is that BGR trusted basic "evidence" and knows nothing about e-mails.
Remember when anti-Apple tools kept telling us that the Gizmodo leak was staged, or that there was no ethical warrant to seize Chen's stuff? Wrong.
When the facts come out, the trolls will hibernate for another fake scandal.
Anyone with a computer and a keyboard can fake headers and screenshots. All that the "evidence" proves is that BGR trusted basic "evidence" and knows nothing about e-mails.
Remember when anti-Apple tools kept telling us that the Gizmodo leak was staged, or that there was no ethical warrant to seize Chen's stuff? Wrong.
When the facts come out, the trolls will hibernate for another fake scandal.
That they may be fakes is entirely possible, while the fact that they're available for scrutiny at least allows some measure of forensic examination. We wait with bated breath at the outcome.
As a sideshow to the main event though, it has it's own measure of mystery and deception, n'est pas?
Even more sad is that the whole fucking internet copies these stories as truths, and hordes of idiots echo them everywhere. It's been like this with every iPhone release, and this one is no different, but worse. Sure enough some people will have reception issues with their iPhones, 1.7 million have been sold and the US enourmous, so the chances are close to 100% that not everyone will have a great experience with it. But the way it is right now, the supposed antenna problems have been blown up as if the iPhone 4 is pretty much useless as a phone, and that you should expect it to fail when you try making a call. Meanwhile there is no actual, factual information on how widespread this issue actually is, or how bad the reception issues are except for a higher attenuation loss when holding it, and a stupid way of displaying the signal strength bars.
"I think Obama's not American." "Well, you're entitled to your opinion..." No, you're not, it's not a matter of opinion but of FACTS.
"They found WMD in Iraq." "Well, I certainly respect your right to your beliefs."
Etc. Etc.
This just encourages the powerful to exploit the ignorant, and there's a lot of ignorant yahoos around.
"Apple is better than Microsoft." Okay, now THAT'S a fact.
Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.
The plot thickens.
My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.
It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.
The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.
No,he's perfectly correct. FOX won the right to lie, in court. Actual case in Florida
Or maybe not.
I will be honest here... I hadn't heard about that case before now. Almost all the search results I found had the same "urban legend" tone (short on facts, long on opinion). The only page I found that had an in depth analysis called the claim bunk.
That being said, regardless of the actual facts surrounding the case, I think the "CBS" comparison is more apropos since it involved the actual releasing of faked information, whereas the Fox case was about the right to do so.
I'm sorry. You seem to have misspelled "CBS".
CBS: Published a story based on a forged document. Later issued public apology after realizing the document was forged.
FOX: Regularly publishes patently false, libelous, incendiary faux news. Rarely acknowledges or apologizes for anything.
What IS clear to me is that these direct emails from Steve have now finally proved to be the inappropriate way to do things. It was fun and cool for a while, but Apple, however successful they are, must realize the risks they are taking if they are to allow this to continue.
You are not suggesting someone should pry his iPhone off from Steve Jobs's hands so he can send no more emails, are you? I guess Mr. Jobs can make a perfectly good judgement as to what emails to answer. It's the blogger's responsibilty to determine how legit such correspondence is.
I guess we won't have to put up with all the whining about it after being subjected to three years of it.
I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.
I hope that clarifies my position for you.
I wonder if the SEC should look into this, manipulation of stock prices and all that stuff.
I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.)
The iPhone 4 works very well and makes calls better than other phones according to Anand's tests.
Yes, there are ways to make it drop the number of visible bars, but there's no evidence that that consistently causes calls to drop. Quite a few people report that they can make calls even when it says 'no service'. Even so, you have to go out of your way to create the problem. In normal use, it doesn't happen.
My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.
It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.
The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.
That's BS. First, why should Apple issue a general press release? One magazine called and asked a question and Apple answered it. That doesn't call for a press release.
And the accusation that Apple is lying is just absurd. Companies don't flat out lie very frequently. They might leave out information or put a spin on things, but it's extremely rare that they tell a lie like this - nor is there any real benefit. And, you'll notice that BGR has not offered to had a forensic specialist look over the emails.
"on the record" and "off the record" have legal status. If something is "on the record" it is attributed to a real person and is sanctioned by the company. If something is "off the record" then it can not be attributed and is not sanctioned by the company.
From the above quote from the Fortune article the author states that "Asked on the record ... a top Apple spokesman emphatically denied it." If it was asked "on the record" what is the top Apple spokesman's name? What is the top Apple spokesman's position and title. Where is the official press release to all news organizations?
At the very least have some common sense, nothing about what Fortune has said is "on the record". It is all hearsay from an unattributed source that is supposedly a top Apple spokesman. Why would this top Apple spokesman make these anonymous statements and on top of that single source this "emphatic denial"?
If Apple really said this it would be released as a general press release made by a real Apple employee that has a name, a title and a means to be reached at the company.
Someone is playing head games and it looks like it is CNN/Money - Fortune - Apple 2.0 that is doing it.
edit: hmm. I emailed the author and his email address is [email protected]. So at the very best he is a free lancer for CNN Money without his own cnn.com email address, and at the worst he is a paid shill for Apple.
2nd edit: I withdraw my comments. Engadget claims they have independently contacted Apple to confirm the denial.
ROTFLMAO. Glad you finally came to your senses. Your 'logic' needs some work, though.
The spokesperson said it "on the record" without being named? That's not on the record - it's off the record.
That's not even close to being true. Apple could say "we will stand behind this statement, but don't want it attributed to an individual. That would be on the record. More likely, the Apple spokesman could give his name and Fortune could have left it out for space reasons. That would still be on the record.
Oh, and it turns out that the guy's name IS public now.
So when are you going to admit that your posts are all full of BS?
Verified: That there was a denial by an actual person cannot be reasonably dismissed.
Now, whether that denial is any more accurate than anything else Apple or bloggers or anyone else says has yet to be determined.
When Apple files suit against BGR we'll see how confident they are. And if they don't....
That's just plain absurd. First, there'd be no reason for Apple to lie. Second, companies rarely tell flat lies like that. The consequences are too great.
Why should Apple file suit against BGR? They aren't worth the bother- and there's no reason to give them the publicity. Let them shrivel up and die on their own. It's not like the Gizmodo case where trade secrets were stolen.
My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.
It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.
The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.
Maybe so, but your initial protestation descended into the absurd when you demanded to see a Press Release sent to all Media Outlets containing the same information. That's not how journalism works.
And the accusation that Apple is lying is just absurd. Companies don't flat out lie very frequently. They might leave out information or put a spin on things, but it's extremely rare that they tell a lie like this - nor is there any real benefit.
Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.
Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.
To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.
Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.
Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.
To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.
Even though I'm a rabid, Kool-aid drinking Apple fanboy I agree with your publicly traded company comment. We want to think of Apple as some pinnacle of virtue, the tech master of the universe. But they are just a for-profit company in the end, whose sole goal is to make money for their owners, the stockholders. So yes, they are quite capable of skullduggery. Add to this the fact, so perfectly demonstrated here in this forum, that the sharks (err, I mean lawyers) are always circling in the water and anything can happen. One thing is for sure. Now that the lawyers are involved we will be hearing at lot less out of Apple going forward.
The incident highlights an emerging trend where blog sites quickly publish alleged email conversations with Apple's chief executive under "exclusive" headlines designed to attract attention, with little or no effort made to either verify or or qualify the emails as potentially fake.
If TRUE, congratulations bloggers everywhere, you have arrived!
You are now in league with the so called, "objective", "non-partisan", and "factually accurate" of your esteemed brethren of journalists in the "Main Street" media! Woo-Hoo!
That's just plain absurd. First, there'd be no reason for Apple to lie. Second, companies rarely tell flat lies like that. The consequences are too great.
Are the consequences any less great for BGR or Bruford? Both of them have their entire companies on the line, while for Apple it's just another "don't hold it that way" in a moment when they're such media darlings a simple "we misspoke" would put the whole thing away.
That's the crux here: it's not necessary for Apple to have lied per se for the PR person to have been incorrect. He may simply have been mistaken. People make mistakes, and there's a lot happening at Apple right now. It doesn't seem entirely impossible that they are mistaken any more than the possibility that BGR may be mistaken.
As a company that has deployed its army of lawyers against blogs that post leaks from employees, it wouldn't really be all that out of character to at least file a cease-and-desist with BGR to pull the story down or issue a retraction. A suit wouldn't be necessary at all until after a cease-and-desist were ignored; indeed, that's the normal route such things take.
So to be clear, NO ONE currently has sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the emails posted at BGR. We have only BGR's hearsay vs a PR person's hearsay.
Given the "don't hold it that way" email that's gone completely uncontested for weeks, it's surprising that the relatively uninteresting emails at BGR are given so much scrutiny.
Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.
Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.
To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.
You're wrong.
Publicly traded companies disseminate all the time. They put spin on their statements. They are selective in the information they release, often favoring information that puts them into a positive light. I never denied that - and some are far worse than others.
But that doesn't change the fact that publicly traded companies do not flat out lie to a 'yes/no' question all that often.