Apple disputes allegations that Apple TV+ trial will drive down stock price

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    If a free trial is going to drive down stock prices, wait until the actual service launches and it flops! (I mean is less exciting that people thought it would be). ;)
  • Reply 22 of 37
    What an idiotic statement/analysis from GS...
    Buying opportunity.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 37
    Doesn’t anyone else see what’s really happening here? Apple isn’t worried about a free trial cost, nor are they worried about what analysts will think of the free trial cost. That’s brilliant marketing and tying together of a product that needs as much attention as it can get to be successful In an ever growing but already crowded market.

    What they’re worried about is how they plan on accounting for that on their quarterly financials. They think it’ll be confusing and that most of the analysts and media will get it wrong or will misunderstand it and that it’ll look bad on their hardware numbers to the people who don’t get it. It’s similar to what they did with the original iPhone, recognizing revenues over a 2 year period because of the value of (and probably internal cost of) ongoing free software updates. Analysts didn’t get it and it was only when Apple changed it mostly back to normal years later that people saw the true value of the iPhone to the company. So there’s a precedent.

    So what did they do today? They had their Apple Card partner make a powerful statement about this and get a lot of attention, even having the analyst focus on the very specific details and providing an extremely specific example, and then Apple publicly acknowledged and refuted that statement, something they only very rarely do.

    They bought themselves free pre-publicity about this to soften the potential blow when they announce their next earnings in about 6 weeks. This gets people thinking about this now, with the analysts and media seeing the accounting method in action via a detailed explanation and example from another analyst who not just gets it, but gets it so much that he can cite the ins and outs at that level of detail. And then Apple says it won’t have any material effect. So there will be some kind of impact at some level, just not one that matters or will change anything. Unless someone misunderstands what it means, of course. Someone who publicly tells other people what to think of it. 

    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    edited September 13 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 24 of 37
    adamcadamc Posts: 580member
    ScottNY71 said:
    Doesn’t anyone else see what’s really happening here? Apple isn’t worried about a free trial cost, nor are they worried about what analysts will think of the free trial cost. That’s brilliant marketing and tying together of a product that needs as much attention as it can get to be successful In an ever growing but already crowded market.

    What they’re worried about is how they plan on accounting for that on their quarterly financials. They think it’ll be confusing and that most of the analysts and media will get it wrong or will misunderstand it and that it’ll look bad on their hardware numbers to the people who don’t get it. It’s similar to what they did with the original iPhone, recognizing revenues over a 2 year period because of the value of (and probably internal cost of) ongoing free software updates. Analysts didn’t get it and it was only when Apple changed it mostly back to normal years later that people saw the true value of the iPhone to the company. So there’s a precedent.

    So what did they do today? They had their Apple Card partner make a powerful statement about this and get a lot of attention, even having the analyst focus on the very specific details and providing an extremely specific example, and then Apple publicly acknowledged and refuted that statement, something they only very rarely do.

    They bought themselves free pre-publicity about this to soften the potential blow when they announce their next earnings in about 6 weeks. This gets people thinking about this now, with the analysts and media seeing the accounting method in action via a detailed explanation and example from another analyst who not just gets it, but gets it so much that he can cite the ins and outs at that level of detail. And then Apple says it won’t have any material effect. So there will be some kind of impact at some level, just not one that matters or will change anything. Unless someone misunderstands what it means, of course. Someone who publicly tells other people what to think of it. 

    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    Count me skeptical, I was watching Apple stock as it got hammered - losing like $5 plus per share and anything caused that is not brilliant. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 25 of 37
    gatorguy said:
    Does Apple typically reply to analysts, and particularly so quickly? 
    Oh nos it is surely a bad sign! /s. FUD....FUD...bring us more FUD!

    Seriously, ever since the Jobs-era PR lady left it’s been clear Apple has a new comms strategy and has replied to several rumors in the past few years. This is no different. 
  • Reply 26 of 37
    adamc said:
    ScottNY71 said:
    Doesn’t anyone else see what’s really happening here? Apple isn’t worried about a free trial cost, nor are they worried about what analysts will think of the free trial cost. That’s brilliant marketing and tying together of a product that needs as much attention as it can get to be successful In an ever growing but already crowded market.

    What they’re worried about is how they plan on accounting for that on their quarterly financials. They think it’ll be confusing and that most of the analysts and media will get it wrong or will misunderstand it and that it’ll look bad on their hardware numbers to the people who don’t get it. It’s similar to what they did with the original iPhone, recognizing revenues over a 2 year period because of the value of (and probably internal cost of) ongoing free software updates. Analysts didn’t get it and it was only when Apple changed it mostly back to normal years later that people saw the true value of the iPhone to the company. So there’s a precedent.

    So what did they do today? They had their Apple Card partner make a powerful statement about this and get a lot of attention, even having the analyst focus on the very specific details and providing an extremely specific example, and then Apple publicly acknowledged and refuted that statement, something they only very rarely do.

    They bought themselves free pre-publicity about this to soften the potential blow when they announce their next earnings in about 6 weeks. This gets people thinking about this now, with the analysts and media seeing the accounting method in action via a detailed explanation and example from another analyst who not just gets it, but gets it so much that he can cite the ins and outs at that level of detail. And then Apple says it won’t have any material effect. So there will be some kind of impact at some level, just not one that matters or will change anything. Unless someone misunderstands what it means, of course. Someone who publicly tells other people what to think of it. 

    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    Count me skeptical, I was watching Apple stock as it got hammered - losing like $5 plus per share and anything caused that is not brilliant. 
    Agreed, the elaborate conspiracy theories only exist in the minds of the creative. 
  • Reply 27 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,283member
    gatorguy said:
    Does Apple typically reply to analysts, and particularly so quickly? 
    Oh nos it is surely a bad sign! /s. FUD....FUD...bring us more FUD!

    Seriously, ever since the Jobs-era PR lady left it’s been clear Apple has a new comms strategy and has replied to several rumors in the past few years. This is no different. 
    When was the last time they replied to some analyst report the same day it was published? When was the last time they Responded to an analyst's report the same week it was published? I asked if it was typical and you are saying yes it is? Maybe so. 
  • Reply 28 of 37
    Hall is an idiot just trying to scare people out of the stock so his friends can buy in before the quarterly announcement. 

    Also the current content cost are sunk cost, Apple has already put out the money for content so it has already been expensed in prior quarters. It's not like Apple pays as its goes as we consume content, remember they own the content not licensing it. Where did Hall think all this billions were going.
  • Reply 29 of 37
    ScottNY71 said:
    Doesn’t anyone else see what’s really happening here? Apple isn’t worried about a free trial cost, nor are they worried about what analysts will think of the free trial cost. That’s brilliant marketing and tying together of a product that needs as much attention as it can get to be successful In an ever growing but already crowded market.

    What they’re worried about is how they plan on accounting for that on their quarterly financials. They think it’ll be confusing and that most of the analysts and media will get it wrong or will misunderstand it and that it’ll look bad on their hardware numbers to the people who don’t get it. It’s similar to what they did with the original iPhone, recognizing revenues over a 2 year period because of the value of (and probably internal cost of) ongoing free software updates. Analysts didn’t get it and it was only when Apple changed it mostly back to normal years later that people saw the true value of the iPhone to the company. So there’s a precedent.

    So what did they do today? They had their Apple Card partner make a powerful statement about this and get a lot of attention, even having the analyst focus on the very specific details and providing an extremely specific example, and then Apple publicly acknowledged and refuted that statement, something they only very rarely do.

    They bought themselves free pre-publicity about this to soften the potential blow when they announce their next earnings in about 6 weeks. This gets people thinking about this now, with the analysts and media seeing the accounting method in action via a detailed explanation and example from another analyst who not just gets it, but gets it so much that he can cite the ins and outs at that level of detail. And then Apple says it won’t have any material effect. So there will be some kind of impact at some level, just not one that matters or will change anything. Unless someone misunderstands what it means, of course. Someone who publicly tells other people what to think of it. 

    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    Lol..... NO.
    First of all: shouldn’t those allegations of HIGHLY ILLEGAL stock manipulation across two companies be reported to the SEC, so both companies could be HEAVILY fined??
    Oh yeah- they’d laugh in your face... because your accusations are idiotic, have no proof whatsoever, and are the mere ramblings of a lunatic.
    Get real.
  • Reply 30 of 37
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,028member
    Nice move on GS... drive the stock down, by saying the stock will drop.

    Morons.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 37
    FolioFolio Posts: 652member
    The last time Apple did somewhat equivalent was responding to analyst reports of China fears circa late Dec 2018 if I recall. Someone at AI must track. But same day rebuttal of single analyst is unique, I think. Shows that Apple guards rep of its committment to new push seriously.... As for licensed content point of @maestro, I think that is one reason Apple can price TV and Arcade at 50 percent lower than Apple Music and News+. If the scale is there, these need not be introductory rates.
    gatorguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 37
    FolioFolio Posts: 652member
    PS but my guess is this launch only time you see free whole year subscription coupled to hardware buy.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 37
    Interesting that Apple and GS enter into a partnership on a credit card and then one of GS analysts pulls a stunt like this. I wonder if he is still employed? You would think that speculative analysis like this would be illegal, but since the entire system is corrupt it is just another day at the office. Employed and yes he is probably going to get a bonus for this. You know for sure if the stock drops to $165 I will be jumping on this bandwagon and buying stock. Anything goes when it comes to making money. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 37
    mike1 said:
    Curious whether I could effectively never pay for the service since my wife and I are on alternating, 2-year upgrade cycles for phones. Assuming, of course the 1-year promo continues. Hmm.
    The free offer is unlikely to last forever. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 37
    So much for an attempted manipulation!

    I despise analysts (or better, Anal-cysts )
    The only people dumber than analysts are the people (institutions really since stock prices are determine by the large institutional investors) who believe them.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 37
    ScottNY71 said:
    Doesn’t anyone else see what’s really happening here? Apple isn’t worried about a free trial cost, nor are they worried about what analysts will think of the free trial cost. That’s brilliant marketing and tying together of a product that needs as much attention as it can get to be successful In an ever growing but already crowded market.

    What they’re worried about is how they plan on accounting for that on their quarterly financials. They think it’ll be confusing and that most of the analysts and media will get it wrong or will misunderstand it and that it’ll look bad on their hardware numbers to the people who don’t get it. It’s similar to what they did with the original iPhone, recognizing revenues over a 2 year period because of the value of (and probably internal cost of) ongoing free software updates. Analysts didn’t get it and it was only when Apple changed it mostly back to normal years later that people saw the true value of the iPhone to the company. So there’s a precedent.

    So what did they do today? They had their Apple Card partner make a powerful statement about this and get a lot of attention, even having the analyst focus on the very specific details and providing an extremely specific example, and then Apple publicly acknowledged and refuted that statement, something they only very rarely do.

    They bought themselves free pre-publicity about this to soften the potential blow when they announce their next earnings in about 6 weeks. This gets people thinking about this now, with the analysts and media seeing the accounting method in action via a detailed explanation and example from another analyst who not just gets it, but gets it so much that he can cite the ins and outs at that level of detail. And then Apple says it won’t have any material effect. So there will be some kind of impact at some level, just not one that matters or will change anything. Unless someone misunderstands what it means, of course. Someone who publicly tells other people what to think of it. 

    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    Lol..... NO.
    First of all: shouldn’t those allegations of HIGHLY ILLEGAL stock manipulation across two companies be reported to the SEC, so both companies could be HEAVILY fined??
    Oh yeah- they’d laugh in your face... because your accusations are idiotic, have no proof whatsoever, and are the mere ramblings of a lunatic.
    Get real.

    It’s not stock manipulation. It’s PR. The stock didn’t have to drop on the news. The original analyst comment clearly said that it would all be based on a misunderstanding and Apple responded quickly to essentially deny it. Anyone with half a brain and any knowledge of how the stock market works would have given equal shot of the stock going down, going up or going sideways on this “news” and the near immediate response. Especially with 20 other possible things that could have come out on the day they launched their latest flagship product that would have moved the stock much more than a few dollars a share.

    I’ve been in Marketing and PR and this kind of thing happens all the time. It’s not criminal unless you’re purposely trying to move the stock or manipulate the market. They were just trying to bring clarity and attention to something confusing that’s going to come to light very soon anyway.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 37
    ScottNY71 said:
    Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

    That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

    What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.
    AI have reported that the way Apple accounts for services changed at some point in the last two years (maybe in the previous financial year?) and that the cost of services is now part of the services grouping and not tied to the hardware any more. I wouldn't say it's abnormal, but it's not how Apple have done things in the recent past.

    From what I can tell, the GS analyst was essentially saying "people are idiots who don't pay attention, and they'll get spooked" - which, from my point of view, is spot on. His claim of the share price dipping was proven correct, and Apple's rebuttal has hopefully turned this into a short-term blip.

    If it was planned by Apple & GS then I agree it was a brilliant manoeuvre. It may also fall under the umbrella of market manipulation although I think as long as any executives from either company avoided trading the stock for the period in question the regulators will treat it as a "no harm, no foul" scenario.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.