Hacker News Reader

You trust anonymous sources, over a company that is willing to back their claims?

Of course. Apple/Amazon can be coerced into denying this (via government requests or otherwise). Bloomberg can't, nor is there any advantage for them to publish false information.

> nor is there any advantage for them to publish false information.

of course there is. It's called ad revenue and page views, both of which they're raking in today with these allegations. This story is all over the place. I don't trust Bloomberg with anything Apple at all and haven't for years now.

Here is one motivation for false information. Financial gain. Someone could have made a lot of money with put options.

Yes, this too. Some of the Bloomberg and WSJ "leaks" feel like their primary motive has been subtle stock manipulation. In particular, the "demand is slowing for $PRODUCT" articles that we continue to see.

However Apple or Amazon didn't back up their claims. If Bloomberg published an article of this magnitude which could be demonstrably disproved, it'd kill Newsweek's reputation.

More importantly, think of what would be Bloomberg's reasons to publish a false story versus Amazon and Apple's reason to deny a true story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com