WWDC has come and gone, and now we know what iOS 7 looks like. For some reason, that still hasn't stopped graphic designers with too much time on their hands from generating mockups... and of course, it hasn't stopped the endless tide of boneheaded Apple rumors.
Some analyst claims the low-cost iPhone will launch next month. BGR spends a good portion of this article making fun of the guy. When even BGR is pointing and laughing at your claims, your career as an Apple analyst is essentially over.
Buried within the center of a dead article: "The images cannot be fully verified as components in a future iPhone." Okay, then.
Some analyst throws a dart at a wall, and it hits "October." For some reason, this qualifies as newsworthy. According to the analysts, the iPhone 5S was already supposed to have launched 57 times by now, so the only logical conclusion is Apple's suppliers are unable to keep pace with analysts' entirely random and unsubstantiated predictions, and therefore Apple is DOOMED.
Another article sourced entirely from an analyst's random musings. This guy has been right a few times in the past, but MacRumors still only classifies him as "relatively accurate." I'd like to know what batting average separates "hit-or-miss" from "sometimes accurate" or "relatively accurate." In this case, we have an analyst contradicting his own prior analysis -- he'd made earlier claims pointing to a late 2013 launch for new iMacs. Calling this "relatively accurate" isn't an abuse of the English language; it's taking the English language out into the Nevada desert and burying it.
Apple posted a wallpaper that's exactly twice the pixel width and height of Apple's current 27-inch displays, so AppleInsider rolls out the Jump to Conclusions Mat and claims this is a hint that Retina-caliber Thunderbolt displays are on the way. AppleInsider also notes that a high-res wallpaper from OS X Lion "hinted" at forthcoming Retina display MacBook Pros... which didn't launch until a year later. Even the blue whale can't hold its breath for that long.
Speaking of jumping to conclusions... actually, in this case, it's more like BGR slipped on a banana peel and tumbled over a logic cliff.
"There are dozens upon dozens of images [on Apple's website] showing iOS 7 on the iPhone 5, but I just looked through them all and aside from tiny thumbnails, I was only able to find one mockup of iOS 7 running on a black iPhone," BGR writes. Okay... so what?
"By itself, this isn't necessarily evidence that Apple is ditching the black iPhone" -- actually, let me stop you right there. Not only is it not evidence, it's the opposite of evidence. It's completely meaningless. It's like looking at Mount Rushmore and claiming there will never be a female President.
BGR then says currently "leaked" SIM trays have so far only shown up in silver and gold, and offers this as further evidence (I just ran out of sarcasm quotes) to prompt a repeat performance: "So I ask again... is Apple getting rid of black on the iPhone 5S?"
Welcome to Non Sequitur City. Population: You.
"Apple's black iPhone 5 has had some issues with scuffing, but ditching the color entirely would be a curious move." Curious is one word for it. Not gonna freaking happen is four more, slightly more accurate words for it.
BREAKING: Design elements in beta software, not due to be released to the public for three months, may be altered in the intervening months before release. More on this astonishing story as it develops.
This was just one of probably hundreds of articles that have come out in the past week regarding iOS 7's supposedly "controversial" design. I've been using iOS 7 since the day after it became available. Here's my prediction: "normal" people, in other words non-geeks, who have for several years constituted the overwhelming bulk of people buying iPhones and iPads, are going to love this new design. They may not consciously know why, but they're going to eat it up.
Reuters classifies this as "Apple [taking] a cue from rival Samsung Electronics," and says it "underscore[s] how the California-based firm that once ruled the smartphone market is increasingly under threat from the South Korean competitor." This is a perfect example of the ongoing efforts certain publications are (STILL) making to twist the narrative around to suit their idea of the truth rather than the actual truth.
Here's the actual truth, Reuters: Apple never "ruled" the smartphone market by the measure that publications like yourself seem to focus on to the exclusion of all other factors -- market share. Apple has never been the number-one smartphone vendor worldwide by that measure. It probably never will be. But by every other measure, including profits, revenues, number of apps available, the percentage of people actually using all those smartphone features, customer satisfaction, and industry recognition, Apple still "rules" the smartphone market in spite of your attempts to tell the story otherwise.
"Apple declined to comment." Well, duh.
"Critics say its pace of innovation has slowed since the death of legendary co-founder Steve Jobs." Serious question: have you people been contractually obligated to include variations of this monumentally stupid sentence in every single Apple article since October 2011?
"The current iPhone 5 has one of the smaller screens among the best-selling smartphones in the mobile market, where consumers spend more time browsing the web and streaming content. Samsung's Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Note 2 have 5-inch and 5.5-inch screens, respectively." And yet the numbers also show that people are using iPhones to browse the web far more and far more often than people with those larger screens on Samsung devices. But the evidence doesn't fit your desired conclusion, so we'll just ignore it and move on.
"Apple [...] has sought ways to re-energize its flagship line." Apple sold 37 million iPhones in three months, compared to 35 million in the same quarter of the previous year. They sold more phones than a year earlier, yet by the same kind of math where 2 + 2 = 5, this somehow means Apple is a beleaguered company losing its innovative edge and desperately turning to copying the supposedly-ascendant Samsung in order to turn its flagging fortunes around.
Reuters is no longer a news organization. Reuters is writing Samsung fan fiction.
"A fresh rumor out of the Far East" -- have to interrupt here, there's no such thing as a "fresh" rumor from that part of the world -- "claims Apple will launch a low-cost iPhone in September in five colors."
This is not a fresh rumor, no matter which definition of fresh you're using. It's months old, and the first person to raise the "many-colored iPhone" flag was an analyst whose track record is as spotty as a leopard with measles.
This type of article reminds me of something Tim Cook said last year about not putting too much stock in supplier reports, because it's impossible to gain any idea of the whole picture that way. It also reminds me of the story of a bunch of blind guys touching various parts of an elephant, with one guy calling it a tree, another a snake, and so forth.
If the iPad mini 2 Electric Boogaloo launches without a Retina display, now you know whose offices to storm with torches and pitchforks: Korea's ETNews.
According to Digitimes, something something yadda yadda not a chance.
BGR has more BREAKING EXCLUSIVE photos of ribbon cables and metal connectors to tantalize and titillate -- don't give me the hairy eyeball, I said "titillate," not whatever you thought I just said.
By this time last year, enough parts had leaked out that you probably could have assembled your very own fully-functional iPhone 5 if you had halfway decent soldering skills. All we've got so far this year is a bunch of ribbon cables. I don't know about you, but I actually prefer it this way.