In the past, shares rose on the rumor and fell on the news. Not this time.

Wondering what’s going on with Apple’s (AAPL) share price with a big iPhone announcement just around corner?

Andy Zaky has been tracking the trading patterns before and after Apple’s special events on his Bullish Cross blog (now behind a paywall) for several years. He offers these observations (I quote):

• With the exception of the iPhone 1, Apple has sold off on every other iPhone announcement.  The sell-offs have been mild, however, usually only be 1-2% at most.
• The stock is usually up pretty big in the two weeks ahead of the event. In fact, in the previous 4 iPhone releases, the stock was up between 2.5% and 18.1%. For the iPhone 4, we saw a 3.73% rise over the two week period ahead of the introduction.
• This time, the stock is down rather dramatically. Almost $17.00 from where it was trading at last Tuesday (2-weeks before the keynote).  So maybe that means this time Apple will rally?
• The other big thing is to notice that Apple’s press events no longer seem to have the same impact they used to have.  Things have calmed down in recent years. For example, if you look at the 2008 – 2009 period, Apple was down on the event day 100% of the time. Moreover, it was down rather significantly — almost 3% on average.
• But if you go to between 2010 – 2011, Apple is actually in the green more than half the time.  The average gain-loss has also tempered down a bit.  In most cases, Apple doesn’t even move over 1% on these events.

Source: Andy Zaky

Source: Andy Zaky

Source: Andy Zaky

Filed under: Apple 2.0

GM’s OnStar represents more $1 billion of revenue annually. In a bid to squeeze even more out of the service, the Detroit automaker showed it has learned from Facebook, Google and others.

By Doron Levin, contributor

FORTUNE — General Motors Co. decision to back down from a change in the terms covering OnStar customers shows that the automotive giant — no less than Facebook — has readily learned the lessons of other firms’ mistakes when it comes to the touchiness of consumers when it comes to privacy concerns in cyberspace.

GM (GM) inadvertently stirred a hornets’ nest by amending a user agreement that would allow its OnStar telecommunications link, used in about six million vehicles, to gather data about those vehicles even after customers’ subscriptions expire. GM made the change in part to make it easier to renew contact with car owners who had allowed their subscriptions to lapse or had sold their vehicles.

The change was generally overlooked by consumers, who rarely read the fine print on such agreements. But at least one miffed OnStar subscriber did notice and blogged about his decision to end the service:

I canceled the OnStar subscription on my new GMC vehicle today after receiving an email from the company about their new terms and conditions. While most people, I imagine, would hit the delete button when receiving something as exciting as new terms and conditions, being the nerd sort, I decided to have a personal drooling session and read it instead. I’m glad I did.

The ensuing uproar among nerds and non-nerds alike provoked criticism from privacy advocates and at least three U.S. senators, one of whom sought a federal investigation. Though GM backed down on the amendment, the controversy is sure to add new fuel to the debate about the ownership and legitimate use of data generated in cyberspace. Facebook, for example, tinkers continuously with privacy controls on its social media platform in response to users who want personal information protected from unauthorized use. It has had to apologize for moves it made in the past.

Under OnStar’s original terms and conditions of usage, the satellite-based service installed on GM cars and trucks owns the data about the speed and location of vehicles operated by customers, as well as technical information such as when the oil has been changed. GM also reserves the right to sell the data to third parties — though it said it so far hasn’t done so. Once a customer’s subscription to OnStar expires, GM no longer collects data.

Vijay Iyer, an OnStar spokesman, said “anonymized” data could be sold, for example, to various federal agencies that wished to understand traffic patterns or vehicle use. “Under no circumstance would we sell or share information about individual customers,” he said.

Some bloggers and others commenting on blogs about OnStar express skepticism that data can be truly “anonymized,” that locations — for example — can’t be elicited from information and someday used in legal proceedings.

Many of today’s vehicles carry “black boxes” that record information about a vehicle’s operation, such as its velocity, which can be used to analyze accidents and are subject to subpoena. Vehicles that have navigation devices powered by global positioning satellite are constantly tracked, and the records of trips may be stored digitally.

But none of the controversy is limited to vehicles. Smartphone owners may be tracked, with their permission, by location-based services like Groupon that tell of nearby sales or promotions. Cookies inserted in computer programs record a user’s movement on the Internet. Earlier this month Google (GOOG), at the request of privacy advocates, gave smartphone users in Europe the choice of opting out of such services.

According to OnStar’s proposed agreement the data link between OnStar and a customer would continue even after a subscription expires — and GM would own and can sell any data generated unless the owner of the vehicle specifically declines the data connection. OnStar charges between $200 and $300 annually, depending on the level of service; as such, it represents more than $1 billion of revenue annually to GM and produces a high margin of profit.

Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York, called OnStar’s change in terms and conditions a “brazen” invasion of privacy and asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the matter. The U.S. Treasury currently owns about one-third of GM’s outstanding common stock, about 26 percent of the stock on a fully diluted basis.

Perhaps the GM that existed prior to its pre-2009 bankruptcy would have attempted to hang tough with the change in OnStar’s terms and conditions, reasoning that consumer unrest would die down eventually. The new GM is fighting to survive against much stiffer competition, in a world where consumers have numerous choices, including not subscribing to OnStar at all.

Filed under: Contributors

Blow-by-blow coverage in English and Korean courtesy of the Wall Street Journal

Source: blogs.wsj.com

The headlines Friday morning were that Samsung had offered Apple (AAPL) a deal that would resolve the patent dispute that has prevented the Korean company from selling its Galaxy 10.1 tablet in Australia.

The excellent courtroom reporting that the Wall Street Journal‘s David Fickling and Ross Kelly have been providing for the past two days suggest that a deal is not what Apple is looking for. You can catch up with Fickling and Kelly’s live blogs here.

The highly technical and occasionally amusing sessions ended Friday afternoon Australian time because the judge had to attend a moot trial with law students. Court will resume 10:15 a.m. local time Tuesday.

All delays work in Apple’s favor as customers Down Under keep snapping up iPads without having to consider Samsung’s competing tablet.

Filed under: Apple 2.0

By Alex Taussig, contributor

(I originally published this at my blog infinitetoventure.com. Go check it out!)

I attended a discussion with Peter Thiel yesterday at Harvard Business School. It was my second time hearing Peter speak in the last 12 months, and I find his brand of intellectual honesty quite refreshing in today’s age of politicized, reinforced conformity. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says, but you have to admire a guy who can express a uniquely contrarian viewpoint without a hint of irony. In true HBS spirit, you get the sense that he really does want to have a discussion about some of the biggest issues facing the world, not just express his views in a vacuum without the expectation of a rebuttal.

The main theme of Thiel’s short speech was the distinction between two views of the future: The “definite” and the “indefinite.”

The definite future is one in which we choose one future worldview and allocate resources against it. Thiel argues that the America of the 50′s and 60′s, in which science fiction novels and government spending on the Space Race were overwhelmingly popular, believed in a definite future, and that this was good for innovation. We believed that man would walk on the moon, that robots would live in our homes and that scientists could engineer a pill that contained all the nutritional value of our three daily meals. We got only one of those right, but that’s not the point. It was the idea that aligning oneself around a common goal and believing in it, perhaps foolhardily, is the only way to achieve true greatness. Occasionally, you will actually achieve one of those crazy dreams.

In contrast, the indefinite future is one in which we accept our inability to predict anything useful and hedge our bets by putting our resources behind a portfolio of activities down the road. This philosophy best reflects the American psyche of today. How often have you heard our politicians say, “There’s no silver bullet. We need to approach this with a portfolio of solutions.” It’s as if America no longer believes in its ability to invent the future.

The concerning part of an indefinite view of the future, according to Thiel, is that technology plays no role in it. Instead of putting all our resources behind a panacea-like solution that does not yet exist, the indefinite futurist invests a little bit in every conceivable solution he already has. Thiel believes this philosophy, by definition, fails since almost every major problem we have would have been solved already by current solutions. Taking a portfolio approach to the future may feel intellectually honest and is more politically palatable, but it is doomed to fail the mission of advancing the nation forward through innovation.

Thiel applies this distinction to entrepreneurship in a fascinating way. By definition, entrepreneurs have a definite view of the future. If they don’t, they should get another job. Similarly, they shouldn’t raise money from VCs who also don’t have a definite view of the future. In his own words:

Investors should think in as definite a way as possible about the future. Don’t admit you don’t know and lean back. It’s obnoxious to entrepreneurs. Someone who says “it might work or might not work” is  not the kind of person you want to be working with [if you're an entrepreneur]. There’s room for actuarial science, but not everything is actuarial math.

I think this type of investor attitude goes beyond Eric Paley’s definition of conviction on a given deal. The definite future is a worldview — the belief that our own concentrated actions can actually invent the very future we seek to create. If you believe that, it makes the decision to support entrepreneurship a really easy one.

Alex Taussig is a Principal with Highland Capital Partners and invests in early stage technology companies. You can find this blog post, as well as additional content on his blog infinitetoventure.com. You can also follow Alex on Twitter @ataussig.

Filed under: Contributors, From the Crowd

Not all of Solyndra’s private investors were Friends of Barack. 

When solar manufacturer Solyndra filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, I listed the private investors that were likely to lose their shirts. Most of the subsequent attention has focused on Argonaut Private Equity, the firm affiliated with Obama backer George Kaiser, while  firms like Madrone Partners and Rockport Capital Partners also have received some attention.

But one notable Solyndra investor has slipped below the radar: Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR).

The private equity giant made two equity investments in Solyndra, via its KKR Financial Holdings (KFN) affiliate. The first came in October 2006, while the second was made in July 2007. They totaled $13.86 million –all of which was written down to zero at the end of last year (in part because the federal loan restructuring converted existing preferred stock to common stock).

A KKR spokeswoman confirmed the investments.

Sign up for my daily email newsletter on deals and deal-makers: GetTermSheet.com

Filed under: Private Equity Deals, Term Sheet

Lower gas prices might feel great at the pump but they aren’t the economic stimulus we were hoping for.

FORTUNE — Much to the delight of U.S. consumers, prices at the gas pump have been steadily falling. Nationally, the average for a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.45, down from a high this year of $3.98 in mid-May, according to AAA.

But while households might save on gas, potentially leaving more money to spend on dinners out, movies and others things, this isn’t exactly stimulus we’ve been hoping for. If anything, at least for the foreseeable future, it seems the further prices fall, the worse off that might make American consumers.

Here’s why:

Bad news for the broader economy. While lower gas prices might put more cash in the pockets of consumers, they’re likely still worried about being out of a job. Prices for oil, gasoline and other commodities have been falling on worries that the economy is headed for another recession. Europe’s ongoing debt crisis has cast a shadow on what little good economic news there’s been, prompting analysts to lower their expectations for future growth in the U.S. and the world at large. And when economies slow, demand for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel falls.

Crude oil futures are down 8.6% this month and 11% this year, according to Bloomberg. Prices have dropped 15% since the end of June – the biggest quarterly loss since the last three months of 2008 amid the height of the global financial crisis.

Clearly lower gas prices at the pump are far from signaling that better days are ahead.

Low gas prices, but not low enough. U.S. households spend a good chunk on fuel, averaging 4% of total U.S. consumption. The fall in gas prices would ordinarily free up some money to spend elsewhere, but the economic uncertainty is weighing on households, making them more likely to save it.

What’s more, households have less to spend since implosion of the real estate market put America’s wealth on a downward spiral. Though families have been working to improve their finances, household net worth declined this spring for the first time in a year, according to the Federal Reserve’s Flow of Funds report earlier this month. It dropped 0.3% to $58.8 trillion in the April-June quarter from the previous period, after having risen three straight quarters.

And while gas might be cheaper, almost everything else is more expensive, which makes it much less likely that consumers will have much extra to spend on anything beyond necessities. Consumer prices rose 0.4% in August, driven largely by higher prices for energy, food, clothing and shelter.

Prices are still historically high. Despite the recent drop, gas prices remain historically high. Given higher costs for most things other than fuel, this surely dampens relief for consumers.

Gasoline prices nationwide today average $3.45 per gallon, higher than the $2.69 per gallon it was around this time last year, according to AAA. What’s more, today’s prices are higher than they were in 2009 when prices plunged to $2.48 amid the financial crisis.

Longer-term, the dip likely won’t last. Even with weak demand for fuel in the U.S. and other developed economies in Europe, world energy consumption is expected to soar in the coming decades driven largely by growth in China and Indian and emerging economies in other parts of Asia and Latin America, according to the 2011 Energy Department’s International Energy Outlook. Economists expect oil prices to rise to $125 a barrel by 2035.

Any relief at the pump today is likely to be temporary, and it won’t do much to help stimulate the economy.

Filed under: Term Sheet

Earlier this week I noticed a regulatory filing for Tribeca Venture Partners II, which looked to be targeting $100 million. I certainly had never heard of Tribeca Venture Partners I, but noticed that the firm’s principals looked familiar.

One was Brian Hirsch, a partner with GSA Venture Partners (an early-stage firm that used to be affiliated with Greenhill & Co.). The other was Chip Meakem, a New York-based partner with Boston’s Kodiak Venture Partners.

Here’s what’s happening:

Fortune has learned that Hirsch and Meakem are indeed forming a new firm called Tribeca Venture Partners, to invest in seed and early-stage tech companies in New York City. I’m told that they may hold a first close on the fund as early as today.

At the same time, GSA Venture Partners is effectively shutting down. The investment period for its current fund, a $102 million vehicle raised in 2006, ends today. Once that happens, it will be rolled into the Tribeca platform – where it will be known as Tribeca Venture Partners I. Hirsch will continue to manage the portfolio with GSA vice president Somak Chattopadhyay, who also is joining Tribeca. Hirsch’s GSA partner Steve Brotman is moving on to other endeavors, although I don’t yet know what those are.

Meakem will continue to manage his existing portfolio companies for Kodiak, but will not make new investments for the firm (which doesn’t really have money to make new investments anyway).

Worth noting that, at least for now, Tribeca Venture Partners isn’t actually based in Tribeca. It’s in GSA’s offices on Park Avenue between 50th and 49th streets…

Sign up for my daily email newsletter on deals and deal-makers: GetTermSheet.com

Filed under: Term Sheet, Venture Capital Deals