Apple stock manipulation

Perhaps the weirdness of the math is why the current version of the WSJ article no longer cites the 65 million unit figure. Sometime between Sunday at 8:00 p.m. EST and Monday at 7:00 a.m., the Journal decided to drop the number from its article. But if the 65 million number is not right, is the estimate for halving March orders correct, either?

This is a great article and asks some good questions. The one that stuck out for me is the specific question asked of the Wall Street Journal. Why did they cite and then remove the 65 million figure? I think WSJ has some answering to do.

John Gruber:

Apple’s stock took a beating today on these reports. If you don’t smell stock manipulation here, I have a bridge to sell you.

Yes.



  • http://twitter.com/studuncan Stu Duncan

    As I said on twitter: AAPL down severely on change in either mfgr of screens, or mfgr of screen type. Not cut in forecasts.

    But then the manipulators only put out half the story. For now.

    In a week or so, they’ll come out with the other half of the story (great new screen), and ride the stock back up.

    Of course, they’ll then complain that the screen is old news the day it comes out.

  • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

    Shame that we are getting better journalism out of BGR than WSJ.

    • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

      When the hell did that polarity shift happen?!

  • tylernol
  • sj660

    Well, then buy AAPL.

  • http://twitter.com/hprice Howard Price

    WSJ owned by Murdoch. Should we really be surprised?

  • http://mangochut.net/ mangochutney

    The only difficulty will be proving this.