Here's what we know for certain about the upcoming September 10 event:
A new Apple product of some kind will be announced. Probably an iPhone.
Here's what we suspect will be announced at the September 10 iPhone event, based on the few credible rumors skimmed from the meniscus layer of a deep ocean of BS:
The next-gen iPhone will probably be called the iPhone 5S. With few exceptions, it will look externally identical to the iPhone 5. It will likely have a faster CPU. It may have an improved camera, including a dual flash. It may or may not have a fingerprint sensor.
Alongside this, the iPhone 5C is likely to be announced. This is an iPhone with a plastic backside that will be available in multiple colors. In most other respects, including the internal components, it appears similar to the iPhone 5. This may or may not be the long-rumored "cheap iPhone" that's been the object of endless speculation for years; the biggest unanswered question about this supposed low-cost product is just how low that cost will be.
Definitely not showing up at the September 10 event:
- New iPads
- Apple HDTV (sorry, Gene)
If Apple has any surprises up its sleeve, it's successfully managed to keep them hidden from the eagerly drooling jaws of the rumor blogs. Speaking of which, let's see what they've been up to this week.
A supposed "iPhone 5S" button from June 2013 didn't have the same design as a newly-leaked part from September. There are several possibilities: the earlier leak was wrong, the current leak is wrong, Apple changed its mind about the design sometime in the past few months, and so on.
Whether this new part actually has a fingerprint sensor in it at all is purely speculative.
A "reliable source" says new iPhones are already being shipped and stockpiled in the US in the leadup to the launch later this month. This is normally when I'd say something snarky about how MacRumors also used to consider Digitimes a reliable source once upon a time, but I'll refrain from that just this once.
Oh, oops. Darn.
Make up your minds!
That headline sure sounds promisingly definitive, doesn't it? Too bad it's sourced entirely from some analyst's random, evidence-free musings. Some of his claims directly contradict earlier claims he's made, but he covers his tracks by saying Apple's plans have changed. Hmm, convenient.
Apple Tests iPhone Screens as Large as Six Inches (Wall Street Journal)
From the article: "It is unclear whether Apple will ultimately choose to follow a multi-size, multi-device strategy beyond shipping a new lower-cost model for the first time later this month. The company often tests different devices and configurations before choosing a course."
For some reason this article doesn't end there, but rambles on for another 1000+ words. The WSJ's tech writers obviously aren't familiar with the phrase, "Brevity is the soul of wit."
"Fraught with peril" sounds like something out of Monty Python and the the Holy Grail. And from whence camest the source of yonder great peril of which BGR doth most righteously speak? Lo, it issues forth from the spewhole of some analyst. Yea, verily, a source entirely most newsworthy. Forsooth.
If/when Apple releases Mavericks earlier/later than this predicted date, 9to5 Mac can just take a cue from the analysts and claim Apple changed its plans. (That one's for free. Future consultations will cost you.)
...according to some analyst. Meh.
...according to some analyst. Meh.
"Apple likely to [verb] [product] in [year], analyst says." It's that "analysts says" bit at the end that really drives the credibility home.
Immediately before some photos is this gem: "AppleInsider has no reason to believe these images are in fact legitimate. But since they do support the theory of a silver-ringed iPhone home button, they are included in this story."
Um, whaaaaat? "This 'evidence' stinks to high heaven, but it supports our theory, so we'll allow it." In the name of all that's holy, I sincerely hope none of these people ever serve on a jury or hold high public office.
From the article: "Of course, like with many leaks, it's tough to verify the legitimacy of these photos, so it's wise not to read to [sic] far into them."
Mysteriously left out of the article: "Now, we shall proceed to read too far into them, because pageviews."