A few things going on here: 1) WSJ cites an analyst numbers then removes the reference 2) Apple not responding (because they can't: loopinsight.com) 3) Possible stock manipulation ahead of earnings

What Panzer said. That it was under the WSJ's masthead, unfortunately, lent it weight and credibility it would not have otherwise enjoyed.

This is pretty wild. Combine all the above with the fact that the market already acts totally irrationally with relation to Apple; and perhaps worst of all, that for the last year+ folks have had the company under a microscope looking for something -- anything -- to signal Apple is doomed without Steve (presumably so they can get out early, or short).

Gross.

I think you're almost certainly right that the WSJ byline gave this wings Rene. Now the question is why.

Why do you think Matthew? No harm in pure speculation here :)

Sorry, cut short, why the 'half' figure. That had to ring as crazy for anyone, including WSJ reporter. I don't care what the original number was, half is nuts.

"The WSJ wouldn't risk their historically good relationship with Apple if it wasn't true," was a common reaction last night. So why indeed?

Wild conjecture: Depression in the market and lowered expectations is good for x, where x is one of two parties:

1. A scary good operator who stands to make a ton of money from this
2. Apple

Yes, the second one is crazy, and this isn't typically how it operates. But Apple has done expectation setting in the past via the press. Just while we're being wild.

Claiming the original number was 65 million for Q2 -- and then removing it -- should be a huge internal alarm bell for them.

The Nikkei/Reuters echo at the same time added to the momentum, alarm bell left to ring.

What makes me most livid about it Rene, is that they will get away with it. They being whoever instigated and the WSJ. Because the original ordering numbers aren't and will never be known.

WSJ aside for a second, we all know how shitty analysts are when it comes to making Apple "predictions". The thought I always go back to is that they're not actually idiots (shocking, I know), but rather trying to set some sort of expectations to bolster their own recommendations they make to clients. It's all a game. And Apple is the best game in town right now.

Definitely. It's about building their personal brand and playing to their audience. You would think that this would involve putting realistic, smart analysis out there, but that simply doesn't sell to certain segments. And those segments may be just the people that are buying a particular analyst's report.

What financial analyst tell the media through sources and leaked notes may be well after what they told their clients, special clients, and firms. And could differ substantially.

Their job isn't media related, it's media conflicted. And should probably be treated as such.

(Wrong and unpublishable unless and until backed by a non-analyst source.)

Does anyone have a copy or cache of the original WSJ story, with the 65 million number? By the time I saw it, they'd already removed it. It sure sounds like whoever told them that number was the same source Nikkei had.

This, via @lorenb on Twitter, makes an interesting case that it's very much in institutional investors' interests to keep AAPL as low as possible before a big batch of expensive options expire on January 19: seekingalpha.com

Yeah, I may have to buy then...

Couple of things:

I'm not positive that Apple has to keep quiet on this. twitter.com

Also, we have a very well placed source at Foxconn who says there hasn't been anything more than 10% cut in (all) iPhone orders and that was due to slowness in Europe and was in December (and those variances are expected). We've been talking about running the story but aren't sure he's 100% in the know.

Usually the WSJ is pretty "in bed" with Apple PR so my first reaction was that Apple was trying to temper expectations for mediocre earnings next week. However, with the numbers being removed, it seems pretty fishy

Add to that there hasn't been any blips in any of the numbers forecasters(Statcounter, NetApplications, Gartner, comScore, IDC, etc

Regarding iPad Mini cannibalization of Retinas (Another analyst concern we've heard): Remember how flabbergasted people were when the $329 entry price point was revealed? How it was way too high (looking at you @panzer)? There is plenty of margin there for Apple – maybe not as much on a per unit basis as Retinas but I'd wager it comes pretty close on a percentage basis (which is what analysts care about).

Regarding analysts, I did a couple of years at a Financial rag and the thing I heard over and over on the back end was something like: "Why on earth would you listen to a banking analyst's public statements? They are betting against others in the market. Their natural, strong inclination is to trick the market."

At best you are getting the same news they bet on two days ago and their paying clients bet on yesterday. At worst, they are legally manipulating the market at every turn. It is just strange how we've (investors) come to trust people who naturally want to trick us into changing stock prices.

Seth, as for the WSJ journal being "in bed" with Apple PR, I don't think that's quite the case. Apple PR develops relationships with people (writers, reporters), not institutions. Now, the WSJ (and NYT, etc.) is important enough that Apple is going to try to develop relationships with at least some reporters at important publications like those, but, I don't think Juro Osawa (who reported this one for the WSJ) is one of them. I don't recall seeing his byline on a story that I've suspected leaked from Apple.

Deutsche Bank lowered their Apple device sales forecast from 45m to 25m 2 weeks ago, this seems like another variation of that streetinsider.com

via @crackberrykevin

youtube.com