The Wall Street Journal used to be decent. Sometimes great, but usually decent. Now it publishes trumped-up sensationalism like this:
Apple CFO Snipes at Google’s Motorola Bid
Would you overpay to jump-start your company’s entry into a new market, or to leapfrog your competition? That question is at the heart of a philosophical difference between the CFOs of Google and Apple.
Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO, took a shot at Google when asked about the company’s $12.5 billion bid for Motorola Mobility Holdings during a conference call with investors hosted by Gleacher & Company. Oppenheimer said that companies should invent their own technology rather than buy it from the outside, adding that “$12.5 billion is a lot of money,” according to a report from Apple Insider.
The original article at AppleInsider?
Apple CFO says Google spent ‘a lot of money’ on Motorola
In a recent conference call with investors, Apple’s chief financial officer was unsurprisingly tight-lipped, but did admit he thinks Google spent “a lot of money” to acquire Motorola.
Peter Oppenheimer took part this week in a conference call hosted by investment firm Gleacher & Company. When asked about Google’s announcement on Monday that it would acquire Motorola, the Apple senior vice president reportedly commented on the sale price by saying: “$12.5 billion is a lot of money.”
When asked about the Google-Motorola combination during this week’s conference call, Oppenheimer said Apple strongly believes in competition, but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Snipes. Overpay. philosophical difference. took a shot. The WSJ article adds nothing to the original source, which it misreports as Apple Insider rather than AppleInsider, and omits the name of AppleInsider reporter Neil Hughes while printing the name of WSJ Senior Editor (!) Michael Hickins in large type.
More importantly, notice that where AppleInsider reported that Oppenheimer said that companies must invent their own technology “rather than take the ideas of others”, WSJ distorts this as “rather than buy it from the outside”, changing a statement about defending intellectual property into one about Not-Invented-Here.
Read both articles and consider which presents the news more professionally. The Journal’s decline has been clear for a while, but breathless sensationalism like this can still surprise.