Bull Pie: WSJ on iPhone Sapphire Screen

Targeting-Apple

This seems to be the norm now, even with “reputable” publications.

  1. Report rumors, citing “people familiar with the matter” regardless how absurd it sounds.
  2. Blame “last minute changes” when rumors did not come true.

Daisuke Wakabayashi, reporting for the WSJ on August 14, 2014 (paywall alert!):

Apple is considering using sapphire screens in more expensive models of the two new, larger iPhones it plans to debut this fall, if it can get enough of the material, people familiar with the matter say. Some analysts expect Apple to charge more for the phones than previous new models, because of increased component costs.

John Gruber, responding to the WSJ article on August 15, 2014:

First, I don’t understand how a report on August 14 could plausibly imply that Apple still doesn’t know what material they’re going to use for the displays on the new iPhones they plan to introduce on September 9, and which (if the schedule is like last year) they probably plan to ship to customers on September 19. I would think that people who are truly “familiar with the matter” already know, today, whether the new iPhones are going to use sapphire displays.

Logic and common sense are on the side of Gruber.

Daisuke Wakabayashi, reporting for the WSJ on October 7, 2014 (paywall alert!):

In the end, Apple decided to scrap the sapphire screens for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus and stick with Corning Inc. GLW -2.50% ’s heavy-duty Gorilla Glass.

The Wall Street Journal reported in August that Apple was considering using sapphire screens for some iPhones.

Based on the article, it sounds like the plan was scrapped in the last minute.

Daniel Eran Dilger, responding to WSJ article on October 7, 2014:

WSJ prints speculation, blames Apple when wrong

…….

Wakabayashi was so confident in the rumor that the Wall Street Journal headlined his story, “New iPhone, A Sapphire Screen and a Higher Cost,” although it also hedged the report with a minor subhead: “Apple considers using harder material in pricier models.”

The report appears to have been based almost entirely upon the speculation of Eric Virey, “a senior analyst at French research firm Yole Développement,” who had been promoting the idea that Apple had partnered in GT Advanced specifically with iPhone screens in mind.

Unsubstantiated rumors can cause harm, but sadly those who reported them often go unpunished.

Journalism or Lack Thereof: Apple-Beats Rumor

Apple-Beats

John Gruber on the Apple-Beats Deal:

That they’ve been so wrong thus far makes me disinclined to believe anything Billboard (or The Financial Times, or The Wall Street Journal, or anyone else who reported the deal as imminent back on May 8) reports about it now.

(Reminder: the links to The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal are behind paywall.)

Since the rumor (which is not an actual news) broke, a lot of pros and cons about the supposed deal were published. Almost all of them are laughable.

It is so irresponsible for these publications not to treat rumors as what they really are; just rumors.

I tried to find a highly cited news-piece published by Billboard in the recent years which turned out to be a total garbage.  Anyone remembers what it was?

 

Two Opposites of iPhone Rumors in One Day

I for one don’t take rumors seriously. These two rumors were published on the same day.

Rumor One:

Rumor: Apple cutting iPhone production by 20 percent

From MacNN

MacNN-iPhone-Rumor-Decrease

Rumor Two:

Reported Foxconn hiring spree could signal ‘iPhone 5S’ mass production

From AppleInsider

AppleInsider-iPhone-Rumor-Increase

UPDATE:

Rumor of Foxconn hiring spurs speculation on next iPhone

From MacNN

MacNN-iPhone-Rumor-Increase

So why would Foxconn be hiring lots of workers if Apple was reportedly cutting iPhone orders by 20%?

One explanation:

Apple is cutting order for current iPhone and ramping up production for next iPhone.

Rumors are stupid.

Bloomberg’s Bullpie Journalism, You’ve gotta be kidding me!

Yet another death knell for journalism as we know it.

From Bloomberg:

Apple’s Planned ‘IWatch’ Could Be More Profitable Than TV

Let’s see what’s wrong with this piece of bullpie journalism.

First, the Apple TV set which should not be confused with Apple TV, has been rumored since early 2000’s. All the fake spy-photos from Apple pre-Macworld keynote were circulating around like venereal diseases. Then the cry-wolf-poster-boy with initials “J.C.” was making up the whole Apple Television set rumor in mid 2000’s. The rumor has gone full swing since the release of Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs biography, saying that Jobs “finally cracked it.

Apple “accidentally” created a watch with the release of 6th generation iPod nano. As the first idea of iPod nano watchband was uttered, it became a hit. Rumors of Apple “smart watch” hit another high point as AppleInsider uncovered Apple’s patents that might be used in creating “iWatch”, a newly fabled Apple product.

Both Apple TV set and Apple iWatch are nothing but rumors; yet Bloomberg has the gall to run with the story. It’s all about imaginary products that could make imaginary revenues. All based on rumors.

Apple files a lot of patents and lots of them never made into real products. Lots of them take years before implemented into real products. Where’s the LCD Display has camera embedded in it?

 

What’s next?

The hypothetical Apple Car could make Apple a lot of hypothetical revenues?

Meatloaf is not amused

iPhone Math? You’ve gotta be kidding me!

I am still loopy from all the sedatives the veterinarian is giving me. I have an IV in my front right leg. Even with all that I can tell if something is not right. Why would anyone report the “iPhone Math” gibberish as news? I don’t think Apple would even codenamed an iPhone by “iPhone Math” in the lifetime of this Universe and the next few big bangs. I can come up with better fake news while I’m using my litter box.

Shame on you for reporting this as news!

OK, I have to get some rest. Meow!

Meatloaf is not amused

Incestuous Tech Journalism

Wall Street Journal suspiciously omitted the 65 Millions figure off its latest hit-piece on Apple. Tech-sites quickly jumped on the news without using the salt shakers. Sadly tech-journalism is prone to circular logic.

Remember what the tech journalists said about “the next iPhone” back in March 2012?

 

NBCNews – Will the next iPhone be simply named ‘iPhone’?

 

Then these so called tech journalists seem to think that the next iPhone after iPhone 4S would be called “The new iPhone” or simply iPhone.

Note: Forgive us for linking to Gizmodo and CNET.

A lot less people are being critical of what the mainstream press say. There’s a sickening notion of:

If Wall Street Journal published it, then it must be true.”

Wall Street Journal has been wrong on many occasions. Every year since the first introductions of the iPhone in 2007, the rumor of “smaller” iPhone lives on. Whoever made this news up are laughing their asses off, rolling on the floor every time someone reported it.

The current state of tech journalism is far from what it was intended to be. Now it is all about page hits, exclusives and first to report. There are those who know what tech companies are planning and they are not talking. Those who are within Apple’s inner circle are keeping their mouth shut about the next iPhone. Whether or not it would have been called “iPhone 5S” or “iPhone FU”, no one outside this circle know. Anything you read about the iPhone 5S coming this Spring is a complete fabrication of desperate tech journalist wannabes.

Remember, it only takes one to publish unsubstantiated story before the other pick them up and ran with it.I t is an incestuous tech journalism.

iLounge and MacRumors have jumped into conclusions.

I’ve been reading quite a lot of things regarding iPhone OS 4.0 Beta (1) on a lot of sites. One tiny “topic” suddenly made me write this post.

From MacRumors:
Apple Removes ‘Google’ Branding from iPhone 4 Safari

iLounge, however, also noted that in iPhone 4’s Safari application, Apple has removed the “Google” branding from the search button and simply replaced it with “Search”. While seemingly a minor detail, Apple has been said to be in discussions with Microsoft to replace Google as the default search engine on the iPhone. If this were to happen, Google would likely still be a user enable-able option.

From iLounge:
New in iPhone OS 4: The Full App-by-App Breakdown

Safari. “Google” has been replaced next to the keyboard’s space bar with the word “Search.” Ouch.

“Ouch???????”

iLounge only looked into one thing, but not the whole thing.

It is true that Apple “removes” the word “Google” and replaces it with “Search” in Safari button. iLounge failed to investigate that Apple also replaces “Yahoo!” with “Search” in Safari button.

iPhone OS 3.2.3 Safari – Google
iPhone OS 4.0 Beta 1 Safari – Google
iPhone OS 3.2.3 Safari – Yahoo!
iPhone OS 4.0 Beta 1 Safari – Yahoo!

Basically iLounge and MacRumors are fanning the flame with regards to Apple-vs-Google stories. They are reading too much into it.

It is basically the same things with the whole Megadeth-vs-Metallica, where the fans are making it worse.