In an unusual contrast from the usual onslaught of stupid rumors about products that we may not see for years, if ever (ahem, iWatch), most of the rumors this week focused on things that Apple might actually release in the near future. That doesn't mean the rumors were any less stupid than usual; it just means there's probably a shorter lead time before we find out whether they're true or not.
"DigiTimes is reporting" -- BZZZZT! Next!
Changes so slight we had to write hundreds of words about them! Including the phrase, "...once again suggesting that Apple's unannounced next-generation iPhone will sport largely the same look as the iPhone 5."
This is sort of tangential to the point, but I am so very tired of seeing the word "sport" used as a verb. This writer could have just as easily used the words "have" or "feature" instead, and it would have sounded way less like someone's tragically misguided attempt to be hip. People who use "sport" as a verb remind me of that old guy's incredible rap in Wayne's World: "Come bust a move where the games are played, it's hip, it's fresh, it's Noah's Arcade." *folds arms*
Based on no evidence at all (surprise), some analyst has generated sales forecasts of an iPhone model that's not even confirmed to exist. For his next trick, he'll predict the high temperature in Auckland on 21 December by consulting the latest episode of Shortland Street. (Only people in New Zealand will get this joke.)
This is a rare example of a well-researched, well-written rumor article that puts its subject in the proper context and doesn't make wild, unsupported claims based on the flimsiest of evidence. No snark for this one; this was well done. More of this, less of everything else.
This article, on the other hand, takes one piece of evidence -- a camera component allegedly sourced from the next iPhone -- and leaps to all kinds of crazy conclusions unsupported by that evidence. "Hey, there's one less ribbon cable... I know! The next iPhone's camera will have a dual LED flash and a 12 megapixel camera." Um. What?
From the article: "Is it the iPhone 5C? Is it the iPhone M? Will it have a different name entirely? We won't know for sure until Apple unveils its new entry-level iPhone next month but in the meantime" -- in the meantime, BGR and everyone else will be there to speculate away, ad nauseaum.
This is, hands down, the poorest excuse for "analysis" that I've read in weeks. Let's start with that typically inflammatory headline. Apple's business relationship with Samsung may have soured, but I seriously doubt that Apple's overall attitude toward Samsung goes into hate territory. Disdain, certainly. Disgust, maybe. But hate? Nah.
Samsung manufactures the two most important components in iOS devices: the SOC and the display. Whatever opinion you might hold of Samsung's definition of "innovation" (*cough*), it's hard to argue against the quality of the screens they make or the rate at which they can churn those displays off an assembly line.
It has nothing to do with Tim Cook being "more willing to forgive and forget," as this turgid article claims. It's called being pragmatic. If there's only one pub in town, but the bartender's kind of a jerk, what are you going to do: not go to the pub for a pint? Same thing. Mostly.
This product hasn't even been confirmed to exist yet -- I can't stress that enough -- but don't let that stop the pundits from engaging in their usual bouts of Doom n' Gloom. I look forward to reading an article on BGR next year with the headline, "Why the iWatch won't save Apple." And by "look forward" I mean "anticipate with the same creeping dread I'd feel if I were to take a barefooted midnight stroll across a lawn strewn with scattered piles of dog poop."
As usual, I'm gonna go with Betteridge's Law of Headlines and say "Nope."
Apple Planning New R&D Facility in Taiwan? (MacRumors)
"We don't have very much confidence in this rumor, so we'll put a question mark at the end of the headline so it looks like we're pretending to be skeptical."
These types of leaks from repair shops usually turn out to be accurate. Physical evidence is still the best evidence.
Whoever's in charge of writing headlines at BGR needs an MRI.
The site responsible for these photos has been very accurate in the past. Off the top of my head, I can't recall it ever being wrong, actually. It's kind of the anti-Digitimes.
Jim Dalrymple of The Loop gave this a yep, so there you go. I'm circling the 10th.
Some "well-informed" analyst made this claim. I can't be arsed to check through months of archives, but I'd be curious to know the last time any of this "well-informed" analyst's claims actually panned out.
Another case of, "Pfft, I dunno if this is true or not. Slap a question mark on the end so we can retain some legitimacy either way."
Man, just imagine the stupid headlines if Apple actually does release a gold-colored iPhone.
- Apple's gold iPhone doesn't pan out
- The iPhone 5S: Fool's gold
- iPhone 5S review: All that glitters is not gold
- Apple misses a "golden" opportunity
- Is the iPhone 5S Tim Cook's golden parachute?
You can't use those now, pundits. They're all mine.