Normalkid:Arnold Kim

MacRumors.com has been around for a while now… over 7 years. And in that time I’d like to think that the site has earned some credibility amongst its regular readers.

We take rumors seriously — well before it was popular to do so — and we certainly don’t make up stories just to draw traffic.

But it’s one thing to say that, but another for readers to really believe it.

Recently, the site had a run in with Apple’s legal team which required us to remove some content from the site. As always, the removal itself generated a big stir/discussion.

Some outside users not familiar with the site even questioned whether or not we might have just made up the legal request. Responses to that accusation (from random passersby) included:

Because [MacRumors.com] doesn’t bullshit on things like that. They’re fairly conservative with their reporting, actually, have a whole section devoted to sketchy rumors, and note skeptically the history of sites when linking. — lookmark

and

MacRumors is a trusted source. They don’t post fake [Cease and Desists]. — MMissive

These comments in particular made me proud of MacRumors.

Financial analysts are a funny thing in the Apple rumor world.

With increasing media coverage of everything Apple, as well as the impressive growth of their stock, it seems financial analysts are covering Apple in increasing detail and frequency.

I won’t claim to know the business side of these analyst publications, but they have become a frequent topic in the Mac rumor world since analyst reports frequently predict Apple’s future plans.

However, from a rumor-analysis standpoint, these analyst reports tend to offer very little new information and introduce a fair amount of confusion.

My major problem with analyst reports is that they never cite their sources and intermix speculation into their predictions. It then becomes impossible to determine the original source of the information and its credibility. Frequently it seems they are simply reciting information that has already been reported on the internet. This may not be important to financial customers (admittedly, their target audience) but from a predictive standpoint, makes their information next to useless.

(more…)

Engadget published a report today claiming that Apple was delaying Leopard until Jan 2008 and the iPhone until October.

We hesitatingly republished this report with some caveats.

As it turns out, the report was wrong, but I don’t necessarily blame Engadget. The circumstances surrounding this rumor were unusual, to say the least. Someone actually managed to spoof an email to Apple staffers through an official Apple email distribution list. As a result, it must have seemed quite legitimate.
(more…)

This may seem a little late to weigh in on the iPhone, but this blog didn’t exist when it was announced, so I’m finally going to put down my perspective on the iPhone.

As background, I’ve been an Apple enthusiast since the mid 80’s and run a popular Mac rumor site (MacRumors.com). I think what also gives me a different perspective is that I was a fan of the now discontinued Newton — Apple’s first PDA.

I was at the keynote, and the reaction to the iPhone in the audience was jaw-dropping awe. For those rumor-mongers out there, it was as if Apple had answered every dream-scenario possible in one single device announcement.

Did anyone really expect to see multi-touch technology incorporated in the iPhone? I didn’t.

(more…)