3 ms·
Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me: >I can’t see how a speculative
by chalst 15y ago
Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me:
>I can’t see how a speculative and sketchily-sourced story such as this, published 30 minutes before Apple announced overwhelmingly positive financial results, was not intended to dampen, to some degree, the positive effect of those results on Apple’s stock.
What interest does the WSJ have in manipulating Apple stock? This is effectively what Gruber claims.
- KuraFire 15y agoThe WSJ doesn’t, but they like scoops because scoops draw traffic and thus, ad revenues. And lots of competitors have an interest in manipulating Apple stock, and they also know that a publisher like the WSJ likes scoops.
- blinkingled 15y agoInteresting that it doesn't get brought up when the manipulating "story" is all pro-AAPL unicorns and panacea.
- Steko 15y agoExample?
- mbrubeck 15y agoActually it does get brought up regularly. A lot of articles were written last year about how Apple itself fed stories to the Wall Street Journal, for example: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_controlled_leaks/ http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...
- blinkingled 15y agoWhat do Controlled Leaks have anything to do with alleged willful downward stock manipulation attempt by WSJ using a story which was later refuted by Jobs?