BGR once again plays fast and loose with the definition of "report" by citing some analyst's evidence-free predictions of how much the nonexistent iWatch will cost.
The good news that comes with this "report" is analysts have now covered both ends of the pricing spectrum, from "It'll be cheap and subsidized" to "It'll be a luxury item that'll cost thousands of dollars." Whichever of these turns out to be true -- if either one does -- one analyst or another is going to end up looking like an idiot. And that's something everyone can enjoy.
Here's another so-called "report" cited from some analyst. Except this time it's sourced from Peter Misek, an analyst who, over the past year or so, has been wrong 100 percent of the time when he talks about Apple. Along with Digitimes and Gene Munster, Misek is part of an elite corps of sources who should never, ever be taken seriously on anything remotely related to Apple.
The mold pictured in this post could be meant for almost literally anything. It could be meant for a Samsung device, for all we know. But logic doesn't drive pageviews; breathless speculation and ridiculous attempts at getting all CSI on meaningless "leaked" photos is what drives eyeballs to your site these days.
Another day, another "report" sourced from Asian supply chain sources claiming to have inside knowledge on a device not yet confirmed to exist. Mark my words, a few months from now some other Asian publication will chime in claiming LG can't produce displays for the iWatch in the quantities Apple needs, so it will have to turn to Samsung in order to meet its quotas. All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
Oh, look, someone else in China has a pirated copy of Photoshop.
From the article: "While the validity of the image cannot be confirmed, the batteries do appear to share similar physical characteristics with other iPhone batteries." Also, all lithium batteries for all portable electronics everywhere, ever.
Here, let me fix that quote for you: "While the validity of the image cannot be verified, we're going to claim these batteries are somehow associated with the iPhone 6 anyway, even though there is no proof to support that claim whatsoever, because pageviews."
From the article: "Whether it's legitimate or not, a newly revealed front panel claimed to be for Apple's next-generation iPhone appears to show a part for a 5.1-inch display with a screen ratio of 16 to 9."
Here, let me fix that quote for you: "Whether it's legitimate or not, it doesn't matter. We're still going to get twice the pageviews from this incredibly sketchy rumor, because there's a sucker born every minute. While you're here, sucker, why not like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter? LOL."
Another case maker's best guess as to what the next-gen iPhone might look like is taken as gospel by the rumor blogs for what the next-gen iPhone will look like.
Apple is supposedly working on integrating the functionality of third-party iOS app Shazam into iOS 8. Shazam allows users to identify a song that's playing by taking a short audio sample and working some tech magic to match it up with a song in its database.
It does make sense for Apple to bake this feature into iOS; although it's available in the standalone Shazam app, identifying songs this way would be a lot more "discoverable" of a feature if users didn't have to download a third-party app first.
MacRumors gets more mileage out of last week's speculative tripe from analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with an analysis of his claims for the next-gen iPhone's display resolution.
My favorite part of Kuo's claims is how extremely specific they usually are. It makes it so much easier to go back and point out all the things he gets wrong. By the way, how is everyone enjoying the A7X processor and 8-megapixel camera in their iPad Airs? Great stuff, right? I mean, that's assuming you shelled out for the full-size iPad instead of going for the budget-model iPad mini that totally launched last year. Assuming you had any money left over after buying a MacBook Air with a Retina display, that is.
Ever since this type of display was introduced for the iPhone, it's been rumored for several generations of iPad. It has several advantages - it's thinner for one, and it helps reinforce the illusion that things on screen sit on the "surface" of the device rather than under layers of glass. With no way to know if this photo (or part) is legitimate or not, I wouldn't get too excited about this just yet.