Bull Pie: WSJ on iPhone Sapphire Screen

Targeting-Apple

This seems to be the norm now, even with “reputable” publications.

  1. Report rumors, citing “people familiar with the matter” regardless how absurd it sounds.
  2. Blame “last minute changes” when rumors did not come true.

Daisuke Wakabayashi, reporting for the WSJ on August 14, 2014 (paywall alert!):

Apple is considering using sapphire screens in more expensive models of the two new, larger iPhones it plans to debut this fall, if it can get enough of the material, people familiar with the matter say. Some analysts expect Apple to charge more for the phones than previous new models, because of increased component costs.

John Gruber, responding to the WSJ article on August 15, 2014:

First, I don’t understand how a report on August 14 could plausibly imply that Apple still doesn’t know what material they’re going to use for the displays on the new iPhones they plan to introduce on September 9, and which (if the schedule is like last year) they probably plan to ship to customers on September 19. I would think that people who are truly “familiar with the matter” already know, today, whether the new iPhones are going to use sapphire displays.

Logic and common sense are on the side of Gruber.

Daisuke Wakabayashi, reporting for the WSJ on October 7, 2014 (paywall alert!):

In the end, Apple decided to scrap the sapphire screens for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus and stick with Corning Inc. GLW -2.50% ’s heavy-duty Gorilla Glass.

The Wall Street Journal reported in August that Apple was considering using sapphire screens for some iPhones.

Based on the article, it sounds like the plan was scrapped in the last minute.

Daniel Eran Dilger, responding to WSJ article on October 7, 2014:

WSJ prints speculation, blames Apple when wrong

…….

Wakabayashi was so confident in the rumor that the Wall Street Journal headlined his story, “New iPhone, A Sapphire Screen and a Higher Cost,” although it also hedged the report with a minor subhead: “Apple considers using harder material in pricier models.”

The report appears to have been based almost entirely upon the speculation of Eric Virey, “a senior analyst at French research firm Yole Développement,” who had been promoting the idea that Apple had partnered in GT Advanced specifically with iPhone screens in mind.

Unsubstantiated rumors can cause harm, but sadly those who reported them often go unpunished.

Incestuous Tech Journalism

Wall Street Journal suspiciously omitted the 65 Millions figure off its latest hit-piece on Apple. Tech-sites quickly jumped on the news without using the salt shakers. Sadly tech-journalism is prone to circular logic.

Remember what the tech journalists said about “the next iPhone” back in March 2012?

 

NBCNews – Will the next iPhone be simply named ‘iPhone’?

 

Then these so called tech journalists seem to think that the next iPhone after iPhone 4S would be called “The new iPhone” or simply iPhone.

Note: Forgive us for linking to Gizmodo and CNET.

A lot less people are being critical of what the mainstream press say. There’s a sickening notion of:

If Wall Street Journal published it, then it must be true.”

Wall Street Journal has been wrong on many occasions. Every year since the first introductions of the iPhone in 2007, the rumor of “smaller” iPhone lives on. Whoever made this news up are laughing their asses off, rolling on the floor every time someone reported it.

The current state of tech journalism is far from what it was intended to be. Now it is all about page hits, exclusives and first to report. There are those who know what tech companies are planning and they are not talking. Those who are within Apple’s inner circle are keeping their mouth shut about the next iPhone. Whether or not it would have been called “iPhone 5S” or “iPhone FU”, no one outside this circle know. Anything you read about the iPhone 5S coming this Spring is a complete fabrication of desperate tech journalist wannabes.

Remember, it only takes one to publish unsubstantiated story before the other pick them up and ran with it.I t is an incestuous tech journalism.

Wall Street Journal, Apple and Bull-Pie Journalism

Here’s my reaction to Wall Street Journal article regarding Apple cutting down iPhone 5 order.

For some reasons I sense that Wall Street Journal is forgoing good writing in the name of page views.

iVA-Twitter-WSJ-page-views

Immediately I sensed the bull-pie Wall Street Journal made.

BGR’s Tero Kuittinen felt the same way and said:

In what world did Apple expect to order components for 65 million iPhone 5 handsets in the seasonally soft March quarter?

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?

John Gruber also agrees:

The reports claiming 65 million displays for next quarter make little sense; the reports that claim component orders have been “halved” but without any specific numbers can’t be verified three months from now when Apple reports its actual iPhone sales for the coming quarter. In the meantime, of course, 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.

Then I also said:

If WSJ story about iPhone 5 orders turned out to be a bull-pie, should SEC investigate them?

iVA-Twitter-WSJ-SEC

Steve Ballmer wants Microsoft to regain “Evil Company” Title by threatening Android.

In recent Interview with The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that there are licensing fees for Android.

WSJ: Are you trying to protect Windows or do you see Windows Phone 7 as a big revenue opportunity in and of itself?

Mr. Ballmer: No, I see it as a big opportunity. There’s the sale of the device, there’s potential for search revenue on top of that and commerce revenue. There’s potential for subscription revenue from various entertainment or productivity experiences.

Job One here will be selling a lot of phones, and if we sell a lot of phones, good things are going to happen.

WSJ: You’re still charging a license fee for the software.

Mr. Ballmer: Sure.

WSJ: Is that difficult in an environment where Android is free?

Mr. Ballmer: Android has a patent fee. It’s not like Android’s free. You do have to license patents. HTC’s signed a license with us and you’re going to see license fees clearly for Android as well as for Windows.

Since Google is not charging any licensing fees, then who is?

Well, Microsoft is currently going after Motorola for making Android phones. Motorola currently does not making any phones based on Windows Phone 7 platform.

Microsoft had signed “Patent deal” with HTC over Android. Some pundits “cheered” this move as a way for HTC to fend off Apple on the ongoing lawsuit.

Microsoft is poised to regain the “Evil Company” title with this move if only if the consumer cares about the issue. Unfortunately some influential Tech-Elitists are not saying anything much about Microsoft asserting “ownership” over Android and Linux.