10 years is a long time — especially on the internet. I’ll post some more thoughts on it all later.

Now, this sort of thing has probably happened over the years (though I hope not by MacRumors), and is in part the reason I generally dislike analysts reports. Analyst reports frequently seem to reflect the circulating rumors and when they consolidate and publish their reports, it frequently results in somewhat of an echo-chamber.

The MacRumors story in question cited a PCWorld article this week which described a new analyst report. The report, however, was actually not new and was a re-reporting of one published one week prior.

Without access to the reports, I took PCWorld’s word on it, which I think is a forgivable mistake, though it didn’t really change the meat of the story.

Now, Ray claims the following:

Even more hilarious, in the Macrumors post, the author says that the phantom report from today about updates to the Mac laptops and iPods is “consistent with whispers we’ve heard.” And he cites … ta da! A post from AppleInsider last week commenting on the original August six note. Oy vey.

The problem with this is that it’s clear that he followed the “consistent with whispers” link but didn’t actually read it.

I understand where the confusion might have come, as it does link back to our first reporting of the same analyst report. But that story also included an original source from us, which is what I was referencing:

While rumors have focused on new iPod nanos, we [MacRumors] have heard whispers that an iPod Touch update is also likely in the same timeframe.

So, obviously, this is a rather minor point and I initially just brushed it off, though after seeing it picked up elsewhere, I felt I had to respond.

I know some of you might think that it’s not that big a deal since these are all rumors, but I’ve said before, I take rumors very seriously. And MacRumors, as a rule, takes a particularly skeptical look at most claims.

Over the past year, Digitime’s accuracy has been remarkably good with respect to Apple related rumors, and I now pay close attention to their reports. All the following reports turned out to be true:

Leopard Delayed
LED Apple Notebooks
Wifi/Flash iPod
13.3″ Screens for upcoming Apple Laptop (ended up being the Air)
September iPods

So, good job Digitimes…

Here’s one I found yesterday:

Why Apple’s secretive approach is so effective – some researchers studied the effects of pre-announcing and not pre-announcing products and how that affected consumer spending.

It’s this pre-release hype makes people much more careful about what they buy. If you tell them that something is coming at some point in the future, they will evaluate everything that’s out there very carefully. But if you just drop something into their laps, all they’ll think about is the brand. And if they like that, ker-ching!

To sum up:

Pre-release announcement = more cautious buying habits
Immediate release = impulse buying

The article presumes that Apple takes advantage of this psychological tendency. The problem lies in the exact definition of “immediate release”. The research article isn’t published yet, so we have to rely on a press release.

If you define “immediate release” as actually available in stores (to see and touch), then Apple’s brand new products rarely fall in this category. Apple TV, Apple TV 2.0, iPhone, MacBook Air all had week to month lead times before they were available. The iPhone, itself, was 6 months from release, and no pre-orders were possible.

So how does this help prove the author’s point? I don’t think it does at all.

Now if you redefine “immediate release” to “can preorder immediately”, then an argument can be made for the MacBook Air. Apple announced the Air, and you could impulsively buy it, without doing research. Ok sure…

But what about Apple TV? The original one (codenamed iTV) was pre-announced months in advance, even before it adopted the “Apple TV” name. So, this would argue that Apple suffered (not benefited) from this pre-announce strategy.

What about the iPhone? Apple pre-announced the iPhone on January 9, 2007. No pre-orders were available and it wasn’t available until June 2007.

It was a nice theory, with some actual research to back it up, but in the end Apple’s “secretive approach” seems to have no correlation with this research.

What makes this accomplishment even more impressive is that we’re a relatively rag-tag crew pulling it together against better funded sites with far better keynote access. No one at MacRumors is a full timer. At present, we’re still a combination of part-timers and volunteers.

In the end, I was unable to get a “keynote” media pass to Macworld. No big surprise — despite our size, MacRumors doesn’t get much recognition from Apple (or IDG). This, however, means that I had to buy my own ticket (Superpass) into the Keynote, and stand in line to get a good seat. Of course, the night before I became nervous about not getting a good enough seat… which means I ended up on the sidewalk at 1am (and I wasn’t first in the Superpass line) the night before trying to get some sleep. I got maybe an hour of sleep before people starting milling about, and I started getting uncomfortably cold. So, I ended up chatting and moving around (to keep warm) for the next 7 hours while I awaited keynote access.

In the end, it was me and Jeff Longo in the Keynote providing updates from mid-way-back seats. We had a volunteer crew at home handling the server side and processing data. But that was enough to provide the best keynote coverage on the web.

I like to think that due to our limited resources, we’ve had to work smarter and harder in order to keep up. We also aren’t restricted by the ever-important “page view” metric that tends to drive the more commercial sites’ coverage. We employed additional servers and multiple Content Delivery Network (CDN’s) to support keynote traffic, but due to our efficient setup, we are able to run it at a fraction of the cost.

I’m sure competition will increase, especially after our success this year, but we’ll continue to step up our features. This year, we added large (640×480) photos, and an iPhone/iPod touch formated site. There will be more to come.

MacRumors was never all about the rumors, but clearly, that’s been a big focus of the site. In the early days, rumors were shunned by the mainstream media. This was before blogs took off, and Apple rumors became regular CNBC content.

Instead, there used to be a couple of established rumor sites, and then there was the mainstream Mac web. And apple rumors would never be published on the mainstream Mac web. This all changed in the past few years, seemingly around the time that Apple sued ThinkSecret and subpoenaed several rumor sites. It’s hard to say whether this legitimization of rumor sites contributed to rumors jumping into the mainstream, or if it would have happened anyway.

Regardless, as blogs have become more mainstream, there’s a few gadget sites (Gizmodo and Engadget) which have grown an enormous audience. I’ve personally found the most curious part of their success is the sheer volume of updates. It’s not uncommon for them to have 50-100 posts in one day. Is their traffic simply a side-product of having so many pages for people to view? Or do people really want this much content? Even if some of it, is… well, less than interesting.

MacRumors has always been more of a quality over quantity site. Early on, this was easy, since Apple news and rumors tended to come a little slower than they do these days. This was also because I was never a full-time blogger, so by necessity, I couldn’t update as often.

Recently, I thought, would MacRumors benefit from much more frequent updates? In the end, the answer seems to be “no”. As a side effect of the all my efforts over the years, the site has drawn a certain audience. And a few vocal ones have made it clear that they want quality over quantity and relevant topics on the front page of MacRumors. The front page is also seen as somewhat sacred — with strong objections when seeminglly “unworthy” content appears on it. I realize that this is a direct result of how I’ve treated the front page… protecting it from throw-away stories as much as possible.

I also believe you shouldn’t lose your focus and turn away from your core audience. MacRumors has grown to be the largest Mac news or rumor site on the internet, and I believe the current format has contributed to that growth. I do have plans to expand content and add features over time, but in a way that preserves the essence of MacRumors.

I added the forums to the site in 2001. Before that, I had experimented with integrated comment systems for our stories, but these tools were very immature at the time. In the end I reluctantly decided to add a full forum with user registration and additional sub-forum discussion.

I say ‘reluctantly’ because I knew the baggage that comes with launching a forum. Spam and moderation become major issues. I also knew that with me having a more-than-full-time day job, I simply didn’t have the time to police the forums. But I launched them anyway.

As I could have predicted, after a few months, the forums discussions had spiraled out of control into massive flame wars. There would be lengthy threads with people cussing each other out back-and-forth. It was ugly.

In trying to sort out the issues, I recruited a few moderators, banned a few users, and set up some rules to try to prevent this from happening again.

Now the rules I instituted may seem odd 6 years later, but I still feel the reasoning behind it holds true.

While you can read the lengthy rules as they stand today, the cardinal rules remain the same:

- Don’t personally insult someone else.
- Keep discussion on topic.
- Don’t waste my (our) time.

Don’t insult others

How do you stop threads from degenerating into flame wars? In looking at the numerous examples of flame-wars at the time… it comes down to this:

At one point, someone stops debating the topic, and starts attacking the individual.

Once that happens, things degenerate very quickly. So, how do you stop flame wars? Stop it at the cause. Personal insults are simply not tolerated. It worked in 2001, and we keep it in place today for the same reason. It’s not that hard. And if you can’t control yourself after multiple warnings, then there’s nothing I can do for you.

Keep discussion on topic

At its heart MacRumors is about rumors and news about Apple. The purpose of the forums is to discuss those news and rumor items. In news story discussions, we are strict about it. We simply delete off-topic posts. I also find this “rule” self-evident. People might complain about being censored, but if your news-story post doesn’t directly have to do with the news-story, then most people don’t want to see it.

With news-story discussions exceeding 100′s of replies now, I think this remains a very important rule.

Don’t waste my (our) time

In 2001, I added this as a simple “catch all” to keep my workload manageable. Then, as today, I had a very limited amount of time to devote to support issues surrounding “problem” users. In the end, once a problem user started monopolizing my time, banning them became the only option.

In 2007, our moderation staff has grown to be able to handle far more issues… but at the core, this concept remains. The moderator staff is an entirely volunteer one, with full time jobs outside of MacRumors. While they are diligent about following up on all issues, there’s always a tipping point, where one problem user could consume too many resources.

The ad was first published by MacBidouille with the lead in that “an anonymous reader sent us this image”.

That’s red flag #1.

We also received this image at MacRumors before it was published. The anonymous submission linked to a rapidshare file sharing link with no backstory. Just a link to an image that purportedly depicts an ad from T-Mobile.

What’s the likelihood that this is legitimate? Almost zero, I’d guess.

I’m not one to try to pick apart the technicalities of the ad – why this word or that word wasn’t translated correctly. Instead, just looking at the scenario points to the fact that anonymous uncorroborated submissions that are sent to a number of sites simultaneously are rarely true. Instead, they typically represent someone trying to get some attention.

Anonymous uncorroborated submissions with links to an image have an even worse track record.

Update: With the release of the UK iPhone with EDGE and 8GB, this rumor has essentially been proven wrong. Apple’s unlikely to release a 16GB/3G iPhone in Germany only.

Second, being in technology for 30+ years I can attest to the fact that the technology road is bumpy. There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane. If you always wait for the next price cut or to buy the new improved model, you’ll never buy any technology product because there is always something better and less expensive on the horizon.

What’s interesting is that for a large part of it, this is why rumor sites exist. Sure, part of it is a natural voyeuristic desire to see things you aren’t supposed to… but from a practical standpoint, if you’re an Apple customer it makes financial sense to pay attention to what’s coming down the pipe.

This is true from an individual standpoint as well as a company standpoint. No one wants to buy at the end of a product cycle. People want to get most value for their money.

The biggest problem with the iPhone price drop is that no one saw it coming. You don’t see anyone complaining that they just bought an iPod Nano or regular iPod a week ago and now Apple’s cut the prices on them. That’s because anyone who has been paying attention knew that new iPods were coming. Whether based on the rumors or the natural product cycle — iPods were due for an update.

What’s interesting to me is that the iPhone price drop may actually have been better received if the rumor sites had had knowledge of it. If rumors had been swirling for weeks that Apple was going to provide major price cuts to the iPhone, would there have been such an outcry?

This is also the reason that the Buyers Guide exists on MacRumors. Tracking historical refresh rates provides the best way to predict when a new product is coming.

How did people do in analyzing the videos? Well, it just goes to show that despite people claiming to be confident… most people can’t tell.

From original MacRumors Thread:

Those look ****ing awful. They’re just the current interface with 1/4 of the album art on the right. Who the **** would ever design something like that? This is so fake.

TOTALLY FAKE. Are there no other Flash designers here? This was obviously made with Flash. This thing looks horrible anyways. The album content is wrong, the fonts are horrid. Indeed this was made by someone who put some effort into it. But this is definitely fake.

Fake. Checkout the worldclock video at the 18 second mark. Accra is a couple seconds AHEAD of Addis Ababa. Also, this clock graphic shows a Rolex-esque sweeping hand. The iPhone’s clocks currently depict a graphic of a second hand that ‘ticks’.

100% Fake. Check out the World Clock video and watch when the two times “Accra” and “Addis Ababa” at the end. Both labels on the right side say 5:55am. Its been a while since I’ve read an analog clock but I’m pretty sure neither says 5:55am, more like 4:55 and 9:55. This was obviously made by a youngster who grew up with only digital clocks. Also the second hands are slightly different from one another between the two, which makes no sense. There’s a number of other small inconsistencies too, some of which other people have pointed out, that shows these videos are indeed 100% fake.

those are the fakiest fakes to ever fake a fake

Pretty darn sure those videos are fake.
Wrong songs,
screwed up clock
ugly art transitions
clunky interface
nothing Apple-ish about them.

It’s obviously fake. You can tell its fake for many reasons. The most obvious to me is in the world clock. When you see both clocks together, one of the “second” hands is in a different position that the other clock.

If these are real, I’ll buy a Zune. (link)

You guys missed the most obvious piece of evidence that this is fake: The album art has perfect anti-aliasing at the borders. Even on a desktop computer, this high level of anti-aliasing would require a relatively new GPU. The anti-aliasing in iTunes coverflow for Mac/PC doesn’t even look this good. On a mobile device, this is just NOT possible. But even more than that, there are no aliasing artifacts at all in the spinning album art animation. I guess the new iPod’s video accelerator is better than my Radeon X1900… It’s pretty clear that this was made using video compositing software.
To reiterate fake fake fake fake fake

Anyway, why did this EVER reach front page? It’s just ridiculously sloppy. These fakers should study the iWalk hoax for a lesson in how to make believable fakes.

From digg thread

Three words; FAKE FAKE FAKE.

Here’s a compilation of some of details people spotted that prove this is fake:
1. spacing of clock numbers is sloppy (uncharacteristic of Apple).
2. seconds clock hand is continuous, not ticking.
3. clock second hands are not correctly synchronized in one of the views.
4. font is too large.
5. “Love” playlist is incorrect.
6. battery indicator looks wrong.
7. battery level increases.
Personally, I think some of the text spacing looks off and I don’t think the transitions are what Apple would choose. Also, I think Steve is tired of the click wheel. They put a lot of research into the iPhone. It makes sense to put it to use in more products. All this nonsense about cannibalizing the iPhone is just that. Nonsense.

This may not be a fake-signal, but when you chose a song (in the Beatles example) the cover art comes from the sky and falls to hard. It’s not an animation Apple would chose, i’m pretty sure of that…

Like said above, this is so fake its not funny.

c’mon everyone… THIS IS FAKE! Just another fake, just like the hundreds of fake iPhone pictures we saw a year ago.

Agreed 100%. Apple wouldnt be seen dead making something like this.

the animations are linear and not easing in and out which means its fake

Yeah. If you can’t pick these as fake there is something wrong with you… straight to the optometrist.
Apple wouldn’t try to display album art in a sliver of screen real-estate like that and then scroll the image so that you can see different bits. Neither are they going to have the album art drop in like it was done in aftereffects, on something without a graphics card.

Makes me appreciate Apple’s spit and polish when I see cheap knockoffs like these. Must be cool for a company when the whole customer base can spot imitations within seconds without even trying. Now if this was Microsoft or some other innovation-starved company it would of fooled quite a few I bet.

though a valiant attempt, this is very fake

This thing is so fake. It does not have the refine Apple look and the screen aspect ratio is so yesteryear. The interface design is hideous. I don’t know how anyone could pass this off as something Apple would come up.