Here's a neat phrase that instantly identifies any story which follows it as pure, grade-A compost: "seemingly conirmed." Two examples:
Between the poor working conditions reported there and this leak, I bet Apple is really regretting its production contract with Pegatron right now. Unless of course the single worker interviewed for this portion of the report is completely making everything up. Nah, that would never happen. All Apple news that comes out of the Far East is inevitably 100 percent accurate, after all.
"It seems pretty clear that Apple is preparing a new iPhone with a fingerprint sensor." It seemed pretty clear to the rumormongering community around this time of year in 2012, too. How did that work out, by the way?
"Possibilities for 'C' could include 'Colors' (the plastic iPhone is rumored to be coming in a flurry of colored plastics), or 'Cheap' for its lower-cost."
Yes. Because Apple -- Apple -- is going to include the word "cheap" in the name of one of its products. I can totally picture Phil Schiller standing onstage at a September Apple event with a plastic iPhone in his hand, telling the assembled guests that "The 'C' stands for 'cheap'!"
Actually, I'm having a lot of trouble picturing that without laughing, because I haven't recently suffered major head trauma.
'iPhone 5C' Case Shows Up On Amazon (MacRumors)
A case maker developed a case for an unreleased and unconfirmed Apple product based on the rumors everyone has already read? Well, stop the freaking presses.
"We cannot confirm that Apple will actually ship this device as a product." Gee, way to undermine that unabashedly confident-sounding headline, guys. I don't know what to believe now.
Does anyone else feel as though stories like this one are the equivalent of a kid's friend peeking beneath the wrapping on his Christmas presents and telling him what he got weeks beforehand?
Apple's Next iPad Mini Will Likely Have 'Retina' Display From Samsung (Wall Street Journal)
There was a time -- and it wasn't even very long ago -- when a story like this posted in the WSJ was something you could bank on being true. But the Journal has fallen into the same trap as virtually every other publication: publish absolutely every word we can about Apple, no matter whether it makes objective sense or not, because it will draw people's attantion whether we're right or not.
End result: I don't put any more stock in what the WSJ says about Apple's future plans than any other rumormongering publication. Ars Technica (one of the few remaining respectable bastions of tech reporting) put it best: Sources confirm that next iPad mini will or will not have Retina display. The rumor blogs (and the WSJ, which is basically the same thing now) have all their bases covered; if the iPad mini 2 doesn't have a Retina Display, they can say they told us so. If it does have one, same thing. If two iPad mini models launch, one with a Retina display and one without, the rumor blogs will still strut and preen over their supposed accuracy.
These pics are probably real, although it's anyone's guess why BGR chose to open the article with a photo of the back shell on an iPad 2.
From the article: "While little has been said of a potential update to Apple's iPod touch media player this fall, a new component claimed to be from a sixth-generation model suggests a refresh could be in the works."
But later: "The part does not suggest what, if any, changes may be made to a new model this year."
Does anyone else feel jerked around? Jeez.
"The site has shared an image of what is claimed to be the iPhone 5C camera module, which appears similar to the existing iPhone 5 camera module." So we know this camera module is intended for a low-cost iPhone how, exactly? Oh right, we don't. We're just fitting the facts to the narrative again. Carry on.
"While the site claims the part is authentic, the author points out that it lacks the "iPad" moniker and associated government regulation certifications. It is therefore unknown if the component is a production version or a prototype." It could also be fake. Or a knockoff. But whatever, pageview!
"The authenticity of the content cannot be verified and is offered for purposes of discussion." This phrase, "for purposes of discussion," never fails to grate on my nerves. You're not posting these rumors for the sake of getting people talking about them in your comments. You're posting them to drive eyeballs to your site, which makes its money from ad revenue. If you can't be honest with us, at least be honest with yourselves.