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

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    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....

  • Reply 2 of 43
    Run these analysts through the Dalrymple meat grinder. Every one of 'em.
  • Reply 3 of 43


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

  • Reply 4 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Too bad that these people can't be held liable for spreading lies.
  • Reply 5 of 43


    Dratts! :)

  • Reply 6 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.

  • Reply 7 of 43
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    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. 

  • Reply 8 of 43
    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?
  • Reply 9 of 43
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    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.
  • Reply 10 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.

  • Reply 11 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    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.

  • Reply 14 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 16 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.

  • Reply 17 of 43
    The beard is talking again!?
  • Reply 18 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.
  • Reply 19 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.

  • Reply 20 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.

Sign In or Register to comment.