4 ms·

If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was, so I'd take this with a big grain of salt. They have a lot to lose if the story is true; look at what happe

If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was, so I'd take this with a big grain of salt. They have a lot to lose if the story is true; look at what happened to Super Micro today. Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie. At worst they were misinformed by verified sources.

mcphage 8y ago
> If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was Why not?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  They're probably referring to National Security Letters, which include a gag order that prevents even disclosing the existence of the order/letter, or the investigation it's a part of. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
  - okket 8y ago
    If there is a gag order, how can Apple then write such a statement? AFAIK you can't legally force someone to lie. (At least not yet)
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      If you haven't received an NSL, you can say you haven't received one. It's a bit unclear if "we can't confirm or deny having gotten one" is, in effect, disclosing that you did get one as a result. Same issue with "warrant canaries" - I wouldn't want to be the first legal test case on one. That said, I think if they'd gotten an NSL-style gag order, you'd wouldn't get this vehement a denial of the incident in question. I'm inclined to believe Apple as a result.
      - dwighttk 8y ago
        if you've gotten an NSL, can you say "we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations."
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        From the FBI's (or whoever issued it) perspective, I believe they'd say you're even required to do that, as saying otherwise implies the existence of the order you're not allowed to disclose the existence of. The EFF would say requiring you to say that is a violation of the First Amendment as it's prior restraint. The SEC might say it's illegally lying to shareholders. In short: We don't really know.
        dwighttk 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure the FBI (if they even would) would only say you are required to do that when deposed, not in voluntary statements to the press...
- saudioger 8y ago
  1. If they say it happened, they piss of China and risk losing their supply chain while also pissing off shareholders who weren't told about it 2. If they say they don't know if it happened, stock takes a hit because they sound incompetent 3. It's possible they can't legally say it happened So what option do they have other than deny?
dwighttk 8y ago
It seems, at least, the author should have put some of these on the record comments from Apple in the story if they were merely "misinformed by verified sources." It would take a little punch out of the story though.
mikestew 8y ago
Well, if you can figure out who's lying, be sure to buy some SMCI tomorrow morning. Or not, depending on what you come up with. That's where I'm at right now, anyway, using my "buy the beaten-down stock that got beaten too a little too hard" strategy (see also: Equifax, United Airlines). Wait until we all decide that it wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be, profit. Problem is the difference between SMCI and, say, United. With United, we knew the accusations were true, there were videos. But my strategy was to just hold until it all blew over, and it did. Profit. But with SMCI, I don't know if it's true or not, and if it IS true, then unlike United they truly are screwed and it will not be blowing over any time soon. So I'll probably just go buy more AAPL.
- riskneutral 8y ago
  > “I'll probably just go buy more AAPL” If you really think there is an overreaction and that the stock price is too low, you should buy a short dated, ATM call on AAPL. This is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell options without knowing what you are doing.
longerthoughts 8y ago
> Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie. They have an incentive to publish a shocking story. Surely that could drive them to ignore direct statements from Apple refuting the details in favor of the story they've pieced together from their sources.

mcphage 8y ago

> If this were true Apple likely couldn't say it was Why not?

ceejayoz 8y ago
They're probably referring to National Security Letters, which include a gag order that prevents even disclosing the existence of the order/letter, or the investigation it's a part of. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
- okket 8y ago
  If there is a gag order, how can Apple then write such a statement? AFAIK you can't legally force someone to lie. (At least not yet)
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    If you haven't received an NSL, you can say you haven't received one. It's a bit unclear if "we can't confirm or deny having gotten one" is, in effect, disclosing that you did get one as a result. Same issue with "warrant canaries" - I wouldn't want to be the first legal test case on one. That said, I think if they'd gotten an NSL-style gag order, you'd wouldn't get this vehement a denial of the incident in question. I'm inclined to believe Apple as a result.
    - dwighttk 8y ago
      if you've gotten an NSL, can you say "we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations."
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        From the FBI's (or whoever issued it) perspective, I believe they'd say you're even required to do that, as saying otherwise implies the existence of the order you're not allowed to disclose the existence of. The EFF would say requiring you to say that is a violation of the First Amendment as it's prior restraint. The SEC might say it's illegally lying to shareholders. In short: We don't really know.
        dwighttk 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure the FBI (if they even would) would only say you are required to do that when deposed, not in voluntary statements to the press...
saudioger 8y ago
1. If they say it happened, they piss of China and risk losing their supply chain while also pissing off shareholders who weren't told about it 2. If they say they don't know if it happened, stock takes a hit because they sound incompetent 3. It's possible they can't legally say it happened So what option do they have other than deny?

dwighttk 8y ago

It seems, at least, the author should have put some of these on the record comments from Apple in the story if they were merely "misinformed by verified sources." It would take a little punch out of the story though.

mikestew 8y ago

Well, if you can figure out who's lying, be sure to buy some SMCI tomorrow morning. Or not, depending on what you come up with. That's where I'm at right now, anyway, using my "buy the beaten-down stock that got beaten too a little too hard" strategy (see also: Equifax, United Airlines). Wait until we all decide that it wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be, profit. Problem is the difference between SMCI and, say, United. With United, we knew the accusations were true, there were videos. But my strategy was to just hold until it all blew over, and it did. Profit. But with SMCI, I don't know if it's true or not, and if it IS true, then unlike United they truly are screwed and it will not be blowing over any time soon. So I'll probably just go buy more AAPL.

riskneutral 8y ago
> “I'll probably just go buy more AAPL” If you really think there is an overreaction and that the stock price is too low, you should buy a short dated, ATM call on AAPL. This is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell options without knowing what you are doing.

longerthoughts 8y ago

> Bloomberg, on the other hand, has no incentive to lie. They have an incentive to publish a shocking story. Surely that could drive them to ignore direct statements from Apple refuting the details in favor of the story they've pieced together from their sources.