Shocker: Falling iPad demand story turns out to be BS

Demand falling for the iPad mini? Not so fast

Once again an Apple-is-doomed story turns out to be more media malpractice than factual account. This time the non-story in question supposedly concerned shrinking demand for the iPad mini. At least that's how Bloomberg made it look:

A decline in revenue from the iPad Mini “is more on demand, while price has been stable,” Pegatron Chief Executive Officer Jason Cheng said. “Not just tablets, also e-books and games consoles, almost every item is moving in a negative direction.”

This seemed to indicate that Pegatron, one of the manufacturers of the iPad mini, would experience lower revenues, due to lower demand for the iPad mini. Well, not so fast. If you look at the placement of those quotation marks, you’ll notice that the iPad mini appears nowhere inside of them. This made Philip Elmer-Dewitt of Fortune suspicious, and after sending an email to Pegatron CEO Jason Cheng, he found that no comments were made on a specific product from any company.

"'No indication, nor hint for specific products or customers' has been our principle and guideline for any public events such as investors conference. There are always speculations after these meetings.”

So, demand for the iPad mini could have decreased -- the holiday quarter is always far bigger, and experiences far greater demand than the quarters that follow it. However, because Pegatron didn’t talk specifics, Bloomberg ended up creating a story rather than reporting one, and that's bad for everybody.

If you want a better idea about recent iPad mini demand, look at Apple's Q2 2013 and wait for Apple to announce its Q3 2013 results in a few months. They may not break down specifics between the different iPad models, but the trend will be far clearer than a dodgy quote in an Apple-is-doomed headline grab.

Is it just me, or is mainstream media in general rushing to report anything they can that puts Apple in a bad light, even if it's smoke and mirrors? And where are the stories focusing on the good news, and correcting the false reports? Is Apple bites man really all we have to look forward to this year?

Source: Fortune, Bloomberg

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is a news reporter for iMore. He's also chilling out and having a sandwich.

More Posts

 

4
loading...
0
loading...
48
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

Apple's two-step verification now enabled in Canada, additional countries

Next up →

Paragraphs for Mac review: Easy markdown and static website creation all in one

Reader comments

Shocker: Falling iPad demand story turns out to be BS

13 Comments
Sort by Rating

What the Hell is up with all of these Wall Street crap stories?! I am no fan boy but this is ridiculous! Reminds me of what ESPN is doing to Auburn right now in the sports world!

These is a fine line between reporting news to educate investors and reporting "news" that will manipulate a stock. Bloomberg is seen by most investors as a source of stock news to help them make decisions regarding the purchase or sale of a stock. Reports like this can cause many to sell resulting in a drop in stock price leaving the door open for other investors to purchase more shares for less. I am not saying that Bloomberg is trying to manipulate stock price, mainly because I have no proof. However, an organization like theirs has to ensure the reports are valid because of the repercussions in the market. It is a dangerous game they are playing and Apple may feel, over time, that they need to put a stop to these false reports and seek compensation for their shareholders. This is what Blackberry is doing right now, their success is just a little more tided to public opinion than Apple's right now so they have taken these "news" agencies or "analysts" to task sooner.

Wtf is wrong with these news people? Glad Cupertino has enough sense to ignore the farts. They bombard us with so mush crap in order to sell news. Losers!

Re: "Once again an Apple-is-doomed story turns out to be more media malpractice than factual account."

Traditional media outlets have finally descended to the "nation of bloggers" rock bottom that Steve Jobs detested. Because it's all about page hits. It doesn't matter how accurate any post is, or whether it expresses any deeply fascinating truths. It just needs to generate page hits.

Let's reverse-engineer Bloomberg's rationale for posting that bogus story:

1. We need page hits. Page hits are everything. They are the only thing.
2. Apple stories, especially outrageous ones, are proven page-hit-generators.
3. Our reporter did in fact talk to a Pegatron executive. Let's use that.
4. The Pegatron exec used the word "tablets" and the phrase "negative direction."
5. Pegatron makes iPad minis. We can write a piece about iPad going negative.
6. So what if we're wrong? All that matters is page hits.
7. If we're right by some crazy stroke of luck, we will get even more page hits later.
8. Run the piece. Guaranteed page hits. Page hits are everything.

Probably should have wait until the author responds (it wouldn't be the first time a source "forgot" what they actually said), but jump to conclusion journalism happens on all sides (how else can you form a mob and page hits?).

I wish the SEC would investigate Bloomberg for this. It's criminal to say or do anything that affects the value of a stock, intentionally by misinformation. They should be held accountable for this.

Piko

Disclaimer: I work for VMware.

To those that don't really follow the stock market, this is all too common. For example, Reuters reported that VMware missed their quarterly earnings projections immediately before VMware announced that they beat quarterly projections.

I think some of these are simply mistakes made while trying to report news, whereas others are conflicts of interest between "reporting the news" and "paid analysis". Analysts are paid to predict the future, and therefore have a vested interest in being correct in the future. This has long been the complaint of those companies whose real financials are consistent year after year, but stock price fluctuates due to analyst opinions.

To again use VMware as an example, the stock price has jumped around in between $80-$100 since the beginning of 2011. During that time, revenue has increased by 64%, and Gross Profit is up 80%. How does that equate to stock price volatility? I have no idea.

EDIT - I had to remove a link to the Reuters article to get this submitted. Probably should not have financial discussions on the site if you can't link to actual financial results in the comments.

Mainstream media is reporting anything that makes money. "We will never let the truth get in the way of a good story" They have so many experts(so called) that they are stumbling over their own words. At this point is is normal for the consumer to hold off on most Apple products. If I need an iPad mini, I would wait to see if the next model is Retina. People are still buying, but most will wait to see what is around the conner, and how soon it will be available.