2 ms·

"... Apple CEO Steve Jobs today sent the following email to all Apple employees ..." Don't see anything on the Apple pr site yet ~ http://www.apple.com/pr/libr

"... Apple CEO Steve Jobs today sent the following email to all Apple employees ..." Don't see anything on the Apple pr site yet ~ http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/ http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/ So it's unconfirmed.

tlrobinson 18y ago
I doubt the WSJ would publish a letter like this if it were unconfirmed.
- bootload 18y ago
  "... I doubt the WSJ would publish a letter like this if it were unconfirmed. ..." Email isn't the most reliable medium and the WSJ owner is Rupert Murdoch.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Whether you like Murdoch's politics or not, the WSJ is one of the most respected newsgathering organizations in the world. They didn't blow their credibility on a fake memo. This story didn't run on the (partisan) WSJ editorial page. It ran on the front page. It's obviously true.
    - bootload 18y ago
      "... Whether you like Murdoch's politics or not, the WSJ is one of the most respected newsgathering organizations in the world. They didn't blow their credibility on a fake memo. ..." Calm down. I posted the article very early and only the WSJ & CNBC reporting breaking news. No other confirmation. This isn't about politics, it's exercising skepticism until the news is confirmed by a number of sources.
      - jonknee 18y ago
        Early or not, when it's a major financial story on the front of the WSJ there isn't a need to exercise skepticism. Or at least skepticism because Murdoch owns them, that's starting to get paranoid.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        It's one thing to express skepticism and another to advance the argument that one of the most credible news organizations in the world would fake a story because of the influence of Rupert Murdoch. Just clearing that up.
MrRage 18y ago
It's there now: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/14advisory.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/14advisory.html
- bootload 18y ago
  "... It's there now ..." Thats what I'm looking for, Apple confirmation.

tlrobinson 18y ago

I doubt the WSJ would publish a letter like this if it were unconfirmed.

bootload 18y ago
"... I doubt the WSJ would publish a letter like this if it were unconfirmed. ..." Email isn't the most reliable medium and the WSJ owner is Rupert Murdoch.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Whether you like Murdoch's politics or not, the WSJ is one of the most respected newsgathering organizations in the world. They didn't blow their credibility on a fake memo. This story didn't run on the (partisan) WSJ editorial page. It ran on the front page. It's obviously true.
  - bootload 18y ago
    "... Whether you like Murdoch's politics or not, the WSJ is one of the most respected newsgathering organizations in the world. They didn't blow their credibility on a fake memo. ..." Calm down. I posted the article very early and only the WSJ & CNBC reporting breaking news. No other confirmation. This isn't about politics, it's exercising skepticism until the news is confirmed by a number of sources.
    - jonknee 18y ago
      Early or not, when it's a major financial story on the front of the WSJ there isn't a need to exercise skepticism. Or at least skepticism because Murdoch owns them, that's starting to get paranoid.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      It's one thing to express skepticism and another to advance the argument that one of the most credible news organizations in the world would fake a story because of the influence of Rupert Murdoch. Just clearing that up.

MrRage 18y ago

It's there now: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/14advisory.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/14advisory.html

bootload 18y ago
"... It's there now ..." Thats what I'm looking for, Apple confirmation.