WWDC Rumor Wrapup: Winners and Losers

[MacRumors]

After each major event, MacRumors provides a wrapup of rumors to reveal the sources of the most accurate information. Readers are encouraged to read our previous roundup (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030615172214.shtml) and final thoughts (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030622032401.shtml) to decide for themselves. (Note: Roundup information is filtered, influenced and presented in an attempt to accurately predict outcomes.)


The World Wide Developers Conference keynote was perhaps the most highly anticipated event in recent Mac history.

After months of rumors and speculation of PowerMac/970 updates -- Apple, themselves, accidentally leaked (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030619233623.shtml) the specs for the PowerMac G5 four days early. This only raised excitement and expectations to unhealthy levels.

Apple Legal also played a more participatory role in the pre-game in this round with multiple interventions at many of the sites involved.

PowerMacs

MacBidouille deserves (http://www.macbidouille.com) credit for being the first (by far) and -- for some time -- the only site to claim that Apple would announce PPC 970 based PowerMacs at the World Wide Developer's Conference.

Their first claim (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/03/20030310042739.shtml) (in March) was that IBM would be presenting the 970 Chip and demoing a 970-based PowerMac at WWDC.

Subsequent rumors, however, were ambitious (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030502173926.shtml) with claims that low-end 970-based PowerMacs were rolling off assembly lines in May 2003, and implied immediate availability of the 970-based PowerMacs at WWDC. This information turned out to be incorrect. MacWhispers also claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030610012111.shtml) tha PowerMac's based on 970 chips were currently in production along with inaccurate description of the case design.

Our own sources had indicated (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030521023700.shtml) that PowerMacs would not be a a shipping state by WWDC with final notes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030622032401.shtml) confirming this information as well as accurate reports of increased price points for towers.

Motherboard claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030228021902.shtml) from MacBidouille were mostly true -- with claims of DDR 400, USB 2.0, AGP 8x, and Hypertransport (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030410090159.shtml). Claims of FibreChannel built-in (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030530182328.shtml), however, were not.

Traditionally accurate CNet (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030612222638.shtml) provided confirmation of the use of Hypertransport, with AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=114) returning from the grave with a PowerMac G5 report that triggered Apple Legal (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030607162426.shtml). Most of the details of the AppleInsider report turned out to be correct (ports, hypertransport, motherboard, G5 name) with the exception of starting processor speeds which were claimed to be1.4-1.8GHz.

Appleinsider also provided (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030610191919.shtml) an accurate description of the new PowerMac case, as well as corroboration for ThinkSecret reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030604120451.shtml) of an Apple Video Camera which turned out to be iSight. If their other information can be considered accurate, then we may also expect adjustable displays (first mentioned by Looprumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030604135424.shtml)), and Filemaker returning in-house.

Panther


Surprisingly little information emerged regarding Panther was available prior to WWDC.

Accurate tidbits: Multiple User Login (MacOSRumors) (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030415212112.shtml)

Inaccurate tidbits: New File System (MacBidouille) (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/03/20030326012245.shtml), Piles (MacEdition) (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030413220229.shtml), Music/Movie Purchase Integration (MacOSRumors) (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030402230824.shtml).

Mixed tidbits:

eWeek (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030421234821.shtml): Multiple Graphical (Yes), Piles (No), New File System (No)

LoopRumors (http://www.looprumors.com/MayArchives.html): Themes (No), User Switching (Yes), More Dock Features (No), iChat 2.0 (Yes), Speed (Yes), Mail 2.0 (No), More Metal (Yes), Flatter Aqua (Yes), Improved Dock (No), Quicktime 6.5 (No), iWorks (No), Safari 1.0 (Yes), Advanced Mouse Support (No), Advanced Software Update (No), 64-Bit Support (Yes).


The most accurate (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030621013140.shtml) overview came from leaked screenshots (on 4OSX.com) in the 2 days prior to the event.

PowerBooks

MacWhispers cited (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030610012111.shtml) manufacturing sources and reported that 970 Based PowerBooks had started production claimed "we can say that both the new PPC 970 Power Mac and Powerbook will have substantial inventory already produced by the time of the upcoming WWDC keynote."

With Apple's Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030624150646.shtml) stating that the G5 "is not going in a PowerBook anytime soon," it appears MacWhispers' reports were incorrect.

Summary

With more and more eyes on Apple and the Mac rumor scene, the number of rumor sites and rumor sources have exploded -- with an increasing noise-to-signal ratio. Despite this, real information is available to the community -- but the challenge that remains is to find the accurate information from the disinformation.

MacBidouille (http://www.macbidouille.com) deserves credit for providing the lead info on such an important Apple event, however, based on the above record, they remain consistently inconsistent in their accuracy -- which has also been true of them in the past.

Long time rumor-site, AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com), has re-emerged with accurate information, and appears to be poised to regain its previous status in the Mac Rumor community.

MacWhispers (http://www.macwhispers.com), however, has remained consistently inaccurate with inaccurate claims including LCD Specs (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030123081657.shtml), iPod Release Date & Powerbook Release (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030221152124.shtml), No New iPod Case (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030414134212.shtml), and most recently the PowerBook 970s at WWDC (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030610012111.shtml). As a result, any future rumors from this site should be met entirely with skepticism.

ThinkSecret (http://www.thinksecret.com) was conspicuously absent from much of the 970 rumors, but retains its traditionally accurate record -- and the notable distinction of bringing down the wrath of Apple Legal a number of times over the past few months.

Next Apple event is MacWorld Creative Pro (http://www.macworldexpo.com/macworld2003/V40/index.cvn) on July 16-18...

[jelwell]

Looks like Apple has two rather large booth areas at this conference. With the conference only a month away I wonder if any new Apple products will be announced, even minor ones.

I see Greg Joswiak is giving an opening speech. Maybe he'll have new G5 benchmarks to show off.

I have no idea what this conference has brought in the past, but I highly doubt that it will bring any new 970 news since the G5 towers still won't have shipped by then. And they wouldn't want to discourage customers who sent in preorders by announcing speed jumps, or 970 powerbooks.
joe.

[Bengt77]

Too close to this WWDC and Apple explicitly stated it had no real interest in the NY show left. No interest as in that they won't introduce new hard- and/or software at the summer expo.

:rolleyes:

[gwuMACaddict]

anyone have any ideas about what we can expect at the next conference- maybe 64-bit apps? or is it too early in the game for the companies to be ready with that.

its sort of a shame that piles won't be in the new OS- i thought that looked pretty cool

:D

[filmguy1105]

Is it just me? Doesn't Exposé look like piles updated for OS X? It lets you take a pile of windows and spread them out and look through them - selecting the one that you want.

[bullitB]

Isn't the new Mail updated enough to warrent a 2.0 number? It looked vastly improved to me.

Also, though it wasn't specifically mentioned very much, I would argue that there was indeed talk off a new filesystem. FreeBSD 5.0 integration in Darwin means that Panther will provide UFS2 support, which has some huge improvements over UFS1. Furthermore, that fast-searching feature in Finder is going to require some kind of file-system-level extension to HFS+.

[vanillamike]

Thinksecret was absent this time round but I am still hugely impressed with their accuracy in regards to the new iPod. I know this is off topic to a degree (and a little belated) but I was just thinking about the accuaracy fo the artistic redenring while I sit here with my new pod :)

Mike

[Gakusei]

I think MacWhispers can't be crucified just yet...we'll have to see what happens when the new 15" is announced. If it's not G5 based, then we can nail them up.

No VP of any company is going to go on record saying, "Yeah, don't buy the product we have out right now, because we're gonna have a MUCH better one available next quarter!" What he considers anytime soon and what I consider anytime soon might be completely different.

Personally, though, I doubt there'll be a 970 based PowerBook announced until the next cycle. Speaking of which, where are the updates to the current PowerBooks for this cycle?!! I want to buy a 12", but not if it's going to be out of date in 2 weeks. :p

[tazznb]

Motherboard claims from MacBidouille were mostly true -- with claims of DDR 400, USB 2.0, AGP 8x, and Hypertransport. Claims of FibreChannel built-in, however, were not.

I think MacB was correct with the fibre cables, it's just that I think the message was miscontrued in the translation;

This is one of the options at the Apple store when ordering a G5...

" Fibre Channel Card

A Fibre Channel PCI card is required to connect Xserve RAID to Power Mac G5. Apple's Dual Channel 2Gb PCI Fibre Channel card ships with two 2.9-meter Copper Fibre Channel HSSDC2 to SFP (Small Form Factor Pluggable) interconnect cables. The Fibre Channel PCI card is installed in an open PCI or PCI-X slot (depending on configuration purchased) of the Power Mac G5 and the cables are used to connect to the HSSDC2 ports on Xserve RAID.

The SFP connectors on the card allow use of the included copper cabling to connect directly to Xserve RAID or a 2GB Fibre Channel switch over short distances. Optional optical cabling and SFP transceivers provide the capability of connecting the card to a Fibre Channel switch over long distances up to 500m.

Note: Installation of Apple Fibre Channel PCI card in Power Macintosh G5 reclassifies this system as a FCC Class A device. "

If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I think this serves as what they said... you have to admit the translators can be quite imaginative at times.

It's just that the fibre cables were not part of the motherboard.:eek:

[cb911]

sweet! the rumor roundup! :D thanks MacRumors for doing this, i've been waiting for this one. always intersting to see...

there was alot of fuss over the rumors of a new filesystem for OS X, but i guess that isn't really needed at this time. also, Piles would have been nice. i can remember that someone did a Flash demo of how it might work, and it looked pretty good to me. but Exposé looks like it will be good to use, should do the job well.

as for the 970 PowerBooks at WWDC... that was one of the biggest letdowns for me, but i think i'll survive. i was really believing that there would be 970 PB's released at WWDC. oh well, i guess that now we just have a higher-clocked G4 and updated features to look forward to with the 15". i just hope that they come soon.

[Hattig]

I don't think that MacBiduoille (bah) was wrong about the FiberChannel - they did just say it was two unknown ports that looked like optical ports, and guessed at fiberchannel (quite clearly a guess) - in fact they turned out to be optical audio connectors, as many people surmised in the thread here discussing that MacBD article.

However they did write that there were clusters of ports, when in fact all the ports are in a single line along the back of the motherboard. And many of the features are quite reasonable guesses for a next generation PowerMac anyway ... so take it as you wish!

[jbh001]

So what was in those boxes marked "don't open until 23 June 2003"?

What ever happened to that rumor?

[fred]

The e week article "64-Bit Macs May Outpace 'Panther'" was penned by Nick Ciarelli and Matthew Rothenberg
and Think Secret constantly refers back to that article....given the fact that Matthew Rothenberg has in the past collaborated with Nick dePlume... I conclude that Nick Ciarelli and Nick dePlume are one and the same person ??? By the way Nick dePlume may be a pen name and not a real name at all.... de plume is the French version of pen....

All that to say that Think Secret's take on the 970s can be judged by the e week article

[myrdred23]

Actually, a new version of Mail was demonstrated by Steve, so the report of Mail 2.0 is not really inaccurate (although I don't know the version number of the new Mail).

[fussball]

I was just wondering the same this as jbh001- what was in the boxes?!?

[Gakusei]

The new lower priced single 1.25ghz G4's were in the boxes.

[Postal]

It's actually been suggested that the boxes contained the "new" PowerMac G4s were in those boxes. It would make sense to keep them secret, too - if people take a look and notice that there's nothing but 1.25 GHz PowerMacs in a new shipment, that would be a tipoff that something better is coming.

And let's not forget that iSight was also ready to go after the keynote!

[Wombatronic]

Originally posted by fred
By the way Nick dePlume may be a pen name and not a real name at all....


ROFL. :)

[PretendPCuser]

Wanted to express props and additional recognition for MacBidouille. I remember him/her/them saying that they were going to forgo rumoring based on the skepticism from people on various boards. You guys rock! Please keep on!

Let's foster some goodwill out there Mac-heads!

Of course, thanks to Arn for doing his typically excellent job on pre-present-post announcement wrap-ups.

Good job everyone! (except MacWhispers...i'm sure you guys are good at something, but rumors based on anything based in reality are not your forte.) But thanks for the speculation! :rolleyes:

[dstorey]

Originally posted by fred
de plume is the French version of pen....


actually the french version of pen is le stylo...unless you mean the verb to pen, as in to write...i dunno what that is. plume in my Anglais dictionary is actually the nib of a pen. ..so that would translate as Nick of nib.

I think actually that even though think secret were not vocal on the 970, they got a lot right. They mentioned x code, and iSight...even knowing its final and internal name, then there were the iSync stuff very close to wwdc...did they get smegol or was that another place that they referenced? it seems thety have very good software contacts.

Mac Whispers on the other hand got everything wrong. How many people laughed when Steve said 'yes it was a mistake posting them specs' after Jack dug himself in a hole insisting it was not possible to be a mistake and had to be a hack...I midly chuckled even if its cruel to mck the afflicted.

[Thad]

actually the french version of pen is le stylo...unless you mean the verb to pen, as in to write...i dunno what that is. plume in my Anglais dictionary is actually the nib of a pen. ..so that would translate as Nick of nib.

Jesus, people...

"Nom de plume" is French for "pen name," and the French phrase is so widely known as to be used even by English speakers -- it's up there with "fait accompli" and "cul-de-sac."

"Plume" means "feather" or "quill," as in a quill pen.

Obviously "Nick de Plume" is a pseudonym, that's the whole point. It's a play on "nickname" and "nom de plume."

[deepkid]

Originally posted by Macrumors
After each major event, MacRumors provides a wrapup of rumors to
reveal the sources of the most accurate information. Readers are
encouraged to...

This report seems like it takes swipes at other rumor sites, aside from the facts.

We all have to remember that rumors are rumors, no matter who does the speculating. Rumor-based sites are
siblings, after all. None of the sites (including this one) should be taken
with more than a grain of salt, until facts are presented.

Rumors hurt Apple when the uninformed take them as fact and then raise their own
expectations. (i.e. Wall Street types)

However, they can be entertaining when put in the proper perspective.

MacRumors is better at presenting information as entertainment, but the judgemental overtones are a bit negative.

I think we all enjoy reading the whispers here, along with the lively and informative discussions between visitors.

[punter]

how about (and it's just an idea) all the rumors sites get scores depending on how well they predicted.

But better yet, macrumors users are prompted to vote on what they think is coming up, and you get a score for how accurate your own predictions are.

I thought of this with all the guys who said FOR SURE apple releasing the stats online was a marketing trick. BLAH. Where are they now? :rolleyes:

It would help people reading the forums to work out who to listen to, who to take with a grain of salt, and who to ignore totally.

Again, it's just a concept, for interests sake.

[Freg3000]

Arn, this is what makes MacRumors the best rumors site on the Mac scene. Great work. However....:)

After reading this SpyMac thread (http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30075), I do believe Piles is Exposé, and people who reported it were indeed accurate. Also, Mail was updated, just not to version 2. So I myself give some credit to LoopRumors for that one.

Overall, great job. :)

[bikertwin]

Folks, "Nick de Plume" is a takeoff on "Nom (sp?) de Plume" which means "pen name", i.e. not a real name but a writer's incognito name. Have you guys gone to high school yet? ;-)

In addition to Mac Whispers being totally disreputable, I think Mac Bidoulle's rumors were totally in the toilet (maybe we should nickname them MacBidet, or perhaps Mac Pitooey).

Sure, everybody and his brother would predict that 970's would be announced at WWDC. That took no courage or inside information.

But all this hoopla about 970's already built *and packaged* and ready to ship was total hooey.

Aside: The G5's are fugly. They are pretty cool in profile, but from the front and back they are just plain ugly. Steve has taken 'simple' way too far. And I predict users will grow to hate that long line of ports in the back with nothing in the way of grouping to make it easier to find what you're looking for from the front & side. And a $2000 crippled base G5? I'm not impressed.

[JtheLemur]

I totally agree with bikertwin. While they look great from the side, from the front... they just do not look that great. Surely nothing like previous elegant Apple products. Now I know, the design aesthetic is changing and all, but STILL - it's a cheese grater!

On the flip side, I'll be so happy to NOT see El Capitan anymore. SO sick of the look! =)

[Capt. Obvious]

After seeing the space taken up by the G5 chips, and reviewing the cooling situation, I'd say anyone who's waiting for a G5 in a portable wil be waiting a very, VERY long time.

[Steamboatwillie]

I don't get the new G4 lineup. Why all 1.25's? why not the more potent 1.4's? Also the mid line dual 1.25 has the 2mb of cache but the lowend has 1mb. I just don't get it. I would have lined up the following

Lowend:
Dual 1.25 2mb cache
256mb
80gb
Combo drive
$1299.00

Midrange:
Dual 1.4 2mb cache
512mb
120gb
Superdrive
$1599.00

Ultimate
Dual 1.4 2mb cache
1gb
120gb x 2
Superdrive
$2199.00

Doesn't that seem more inline? Just my thoughts 'cause after all the entry level G5 is $1999.00 doesn't it feel wrong that a maxed out G4 overprices an entry level G5 or am I totally off base here?

Actually at $3,274.00 the "Ultimate" G4 is more expensive that the $2999.00 Top-o-da-line G5!

[chrysrobyn]

Www.Macosrumors.com got me started on rumor mongering. I loved them in 1996. The excitement they generated is part of why I have my current job. Some time between then and 2001 or so, it went down hill. Their sources dried up, or their creative writing deteriorated, I'm not sure which. By the time I stopped reading, they weren't updating regularly and when they did, they rarely had anything of value. The straw that broke the metaphorical camel's back is when they ripped on Apple for not letting them in some conference like a legitimate member of the press. I won't elaborate, but that made me never go back.

I noticed in the rumor roundup that MOSR wasn't there, so I tried to see if they were still around. MOSR.com has been squatted and macosrumors.com has expired.

When did they finally tank? Did they go out with a bang, or just forget to update for 3 months until the domains started to expire?

[nydoofus]

Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
I don't get the new G4 lineup. Why all 1.25's? why not the more potent 1.4's? Also the mid line dual 1.25 has the 2mb of cache but the lowend has 1mb. I just don't get it. I would have lined up the following

<snip>

Doesn't that seem more inline? Just my thoughts 'cause after all the entry level G5 is $1999.00 doesn't it feel wrong that a maxed out G4 overprices an entry level G5 or am I totally off base here?

Actually at $3,274.00 the "Ultimate" G4 is more expensive that the $2999.00 Top-o-da-line G5!

I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that the 1.42's are overclocked. The yields must not be too good for the overclocked models, so maybe they decided to cut out all that testing (and the expense) and deliver just 1.25's.

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by Gakusei
I think MacWhispers can't be crucified just yet...we'll have to see what happens when the new 15" is announced. If it's not G5 based, then we can nail them up.

No VP of any company is going to go on record saying, "Yeah, don't buy the product we have out right now, because we're gonna have a MUCH better one available next quarter!" What he considers anytime soon and what I consider anytime soon might be completely different.

Personally, though, I doubt there'll be a 970 based PowerBook announced until the next cycle. Speaking of which, where are the updates to the current PowerBooks for this cycle?!! I want to buy a 12", but not if it's going to be out of date in 2 weeks. :p

Uh, he did say a year ago that the iBook ain't goin G4 anytime soon, and look, it still isn't. Anyways, if you didnt notice, MacWhispers got pretty much everything else wrong too. And you're still willing to believe them?

[DoJo]

There seems to be some confusion about Expose possibly being another implementation of Piles.

From what I gather Expose is a tool for viewing open windows, windows of a like application or for momentarialy exposing the desktop to move files/folders.

Piles is for sorting documents based on certain criteria - a new way to organize your work.

Am I missing something here?

[radiskull]

I know it goes against the majority sentiment, but I'm going to provide a little bit of defense for MacWhispers.

On March 7, a MacWhispers report was given that new mother boards are in production - http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000046.php
On March 10, MacB followed with the first 970 at WWDC rumor.
On March 21, MacWhispers reported the motherboards were for a single and dual 970 - http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000050.php

I think they deserve positive points for these reports. They deserve negative points for strongly speculating that a 970 powerbook would be released at WWDC. If the next 15" powerbook contains a G4, then they deserve even more negative points. I do not think the evidence suggests they got it all wrong.

[moosecat]

Originally posted by chrysrobyn
I noticed in the rumor roundup that MOSR wasn't there, so I tried to see if they were still around. MOSR.com has been squatted and macosrumors.com has expired.

When did they finally tank? Did they go out with a bang, or just forget to update for 3 months until the domains started to expire?

macosrumors.com is still there for me, updated regularly although not particularly informatively. It really is not a player in the rumor market now -- in fact, I believe a month or two ago he practically admitted as much, indicating that the site would be moving to a more review-oriented approach.

However, I note that the current update claims that the next update will ANSWER the question of where the G5 PowerBooks are. I'll wait with bated breath.

On another note: As to macwhispers.com, the criticism of the site in the wake of WWDC has to be seen in a certain context. As most but perhaps not all know, the guy who runs the site is viewed with a certain amount of distrust as a result of a past incident. Thus, I think the things he says are subject to heightened scrutiny, and stronger reactions.

[MrMacMan]

Nice wrapup again arn.

Good and thru and thru.

It seems like for hardware Think Secret doesn't have people giving them info, just the software dept.

Personally I would like to see a 1.4 GHZ 970, cause again a 4 model line not 3.

Even cheaper perhaps?

BTW, again apple is ripping us off for another X upgrade, arg!
10.3<$50 Less than $50 please!

[neutrino23]

I think the problem with MacWhispers is in interpreting what he reports. Let's assume that he was right about G5 PBs being manufactured. Who knows why? Maybe these are test runs. Maybe these are for internal developers. These could be the forerunners of G5 PBs that will come out next January or next summer.

The hard part about using his information, if it is accurate, is tying it into actual marketing plans.

Apple does their best to maintain secrecy. Precious little information leaks out making it very hard to interpret what we get.

This is the "rosy" interpretation. Probably some of what is on MacWhispers is misunderstood or misheard, that is life.

[moosecat]

Originally posted by neutrino23
I think the problem with MacWhispers is in interpreting what he reports. Let's assume that he was right about G5 PBs being manufactured. Who knows why? Maybe these are test runs. Maybe these are for internal developers. These could be the forerunners of G5 PBs that will come out next January or next summer.

Right. Which is why, I thought, he said a couple months ago after a horribly wrong iPod prediction that he would stop speculating based on the data provided to him and simply report the data. But he seems to have followed his own advice for about two days. For instance, if he heard from a reliable source that a G5 PowerBook existed in the flesh, he could have reported: "At least one G5 PowerBook has been made. It might be a prototype, or it might be machine number one off the assembly line. I don't know, but that's the data." That would have been consistent with what he said he would do with his data.

Anyway, I'm starting to get tired of analyzing why MacWhispers is not reliable. It just isn't.

[arn]

Originally posted by myrdred23
Actually, a new version of Mail was demonstrated by Steve, so the report of Mail 2.0 is not really inaccurate (although I don't know the version number of the new Mail).

The features described by Looprumors are not included and it's not called 2.0. So, I'd say it's inaccurate. :)

arn

[greenstork]

Originally posted by deepkid

Rumors hurt Apple when the uninformed take them as fact and then raise their own
expectations. (i.e. Wall Street types)



I'm sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with this. Apple LIVES for the buzz and that's what rumors do.

PC sheepole never sit around and talk about an upcoming Dell product and consequently, the announcement of new, ugly ass PC's is never met with much fanfare.

Apple on the other hand is all about the three ring circus and the rumor sites are a big part of that circus.

[DanUk2003]

I think that we should be saying well done to MacBidouille!!

To be fair to them, they DID get the rumors right about the IBM PPC970 - including detailed motherboard specs....


:D

[bertagert]

Originally posted by greenstork
PC sheepole never sit around and talk about an upcoming Dell product and consequently, the announcement of new, ugly ass PC's is never met with much fanfare.

I wonder if they have a better life because of it. Meaning, we waste so much time talking about what may or may not happen. Then we have to spend a few more hours filtering out what might or might not be true.

I thought owning an Apple gives you more free time. Coming to these boards, because I'm addicted, does the opposite of that.

Hey its all in good fun.

[Gakusei]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Uh, he did say a year ago that the iBook ain't goin G4 anytime soon, and look, it still isn't. Anyways, if you didnt notice, MacWhispers got pretty much everything else wrong too. And you're still willing to believe them?

All I'm saying is that it's dangerous to believe statements like that because of the very reason that they can't and won't divulge information on a product that will make current sales plummet. So "not anytime soon" could mean, not this summer, but maybe this Fall.

And I never said I still believe them, or that I ever believed them. What I said was that they haven't been disproven and that I personally believe it will be next product cycle (after the current overdue one) before they get the update.

[KEL9000]

Arn, what did the announcements do for your guys? There seems to be a slowing in postings since. Do you have any traffic numbers, just curious.

[inkswamp]

Accurate tidbits: Multiple User Login (MacOSRumors)

You forgot that Macosrumors also accurately predicted that Piles wouldn't be in Panther (assuming that's still case, since Jobs didn't demo it.) So would someone explain something to me? I've seen tons of snide comments around the Internet, but particularly here, aimed at Macosrumors. I wonder why. I've been following rumor sites for almost three years, and while Macosrumors doesn't update nearly as often as some sites, they seem to me to have a higher ratio of rumor-to-reality tidbits. Why is there such a nasty attitude toward that site? It seems to me that it's a fairly reliable source, not as much so as say ThinkSecret or MacBidouille, but they rank up there, certainly they blow overrated sites like Spymac out of the water. (And no, I have absolutely nothing to do with Macosrumors or any other rumor site--just a reader.)

[Computer_Phreak]

Originally posted by inkswamp
Accurate tidbits: Multiple User Login (MacOSRumors)

You forgot that Macosrumors also accurately predicted that Piles wouldn't be in Panther (assuming that's still case, since Jobs didn't demo it.) So would someone explain something to me? I've seen tons of snide comments around the Internet, but particularly here, aimed at Macosrumors. I wonder why. I've been following rumor sites for almost three years, and while Macosrumors doesn't update nearly as often as some sites, they seem to me to have a higher ratio of rumor-to-reality tidbits. Why is there such a nasty attitude toward that site? It seems to me that it's a fairly reliable source, not as much so as say ThinkSecret or MacBidouille, but they rank up there, certainly they blow overrated sites like Spymac out of the water. (And no, I have absolutely nothing to do with Macosrumors or any other rumor site--just a reader.)

They have posted insane stuff, I'd show you but their archives are offline. Stuff like color ipods and hardware with red-green-yellow buttons like in X

[Abstract]

Weren't the motherboard specs somewhat easy to guess? Arn even said that MacB got lots of stuff wrong, and I agree. The things they DID get right were things that were easy to guess, like the motherboard specs. They did a good job in telling us that the 970 was coming out for WWDC, but they got many details about the system wrong. Nobody got the exact specs of the machine right until AFTER the leak, not even MacB.

For now, I won't go anywhere other than MacRumours......erm.....MacRumors. I like the summary of all rumours, right or wrong. ;)

[fpnc]

Over the last few weeks I've posted several predictions for WWDC and I even promised to return here if I did badly in my statements. So, first let me get it over and say that I was definitely wrong in a number of my "guesses" about the PPC970 machines. I was wrong, I was wrong, bad me, I admit it.

The part that I got wrong in a big way was my disbelief of the "leaked" G5 specs that appeared on the Apple site last Thursday. As we now know these were true, and last week I was certain that they had to be false. So here I deserve a definite serving of "crow." I was expecting a more conservative release, but I'm actually very happy that Apple has introduced a system architecture that should remain competitive for at least another year or two (given that the G5 clock speed can be increased on a decent schedule -- the 3GHz target that Steve Jobs mentioned sounds pretty good for the next 12 months).

However, I did get a few things right. From the beginning (in May) I was saying that there was absolutely no way that PPC970-based machines would ship at WWDC (or even within one week of the conference). I said that the most optimistic ship dates would be late August or September. Thus on the availability date I was fairly accurate. I say "fairly" because I would not have been surprised it these systems had shipped closer to the end of the year.

I also said that dual-processor machines (high-end) would be pretty expensive. I believe I got that only partially correct, because I think at $3000 the dual 2.0 GHz machine isn't too bad (although more expensive than the previous dual G4s and I have some question about the mid-range graphics card that comes at that price point). True, you can easily upgrade the graphics card but that adds some $300 to the price. In any case, given their stellar design and the very real possibility that the dual-G5s will outperform similarly configured PCs, I think the prices aren't too bad (although, I'd really like to see a low-end model closer to $1500).

[fpnc]

Originally posted by DanUk2003
I think that we should be saying well done to MacBidouille!!
:D

I have mixed feelings about the MacBidouille reports. I think it is pretty well agreed that their benchmark numbers for the PPC970 machines were completely faked (not by MacBidouille, but by the person who submitted them, so MacBidouille does appear to have placed too much confidence in that source). They were also incorrect about the ship dates, but it could be argued that no one, not even Apple, really knew when the machines would be ready (i.e. problems may have forced a delay).

So, MacBidouille got some things right and other things wrong. They were certainly among the first to begin the build up for WWDC and I think they did have some real information on the motherboard design.

[deepkid]

Originally posted by greenstork
I'm sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with this. Apple LIVES for the buzz and that's what rumors do.

PC sheepole never sit around and talk about an upcoming Dell product and consequently, the announcement of new, ugly ass PC's is never met with much fanfare.

Apple on the other hand is all about the three ring circus and the rumor sites are a big part of that circus.

As a stockholder and journalist, I can tell you that rumors cause more harm than good for Apple. Some of the speculation you read is completely insane -- in a bad way.

So if Apple can't live up to the wild expectations (example: G8 Power Mac with quad 10Ghz 990 chips, 5Ghz sytem bus per chip, 4 500GB serial ATA drives, all for $199 with immediate delivery) then it affects the stock price and it gives the Wall Street types more ammunition in dissing Apple.

Readers are warned to take speculation with a grain of salt and that's fine, but when one rumor site starts clawing at another it takes the fun out of it. There's a difference between being competitive and throwing dirt.

I'm just concerned about the increased clawing that I'm seeing on MacRumors and I don't think its necessary in giving an account of what actually transpired.

Let's keep it fun and play like good sports.

[deepkid]

Originally posted by fpnc
Over the last few weeks I've posted several predictions for WWDC and I even promised to return here if I did badly in my statements. So, first let me get it over and say that I was definitely wrong in a number of my "guesses" about the PPC970 machines. I was wrong, I was wrong, bad me, I admit it.

Are you with a particular rumors site?

[ktlx]

Originally posted by fpnc
So, MacBidouille got some things right and other things wrong. They were certainly among the first to begin the build up for WWDC and I think they did have some real information on the motherboard design.

I have been thinking about the motherboard design specs that various rumor sites posted and I wonder how much of that was based upon guesswork and how much was based upon real information.

As I see it, the motherboard design has six distinguishing traits: dual channel DDR 400, USB 2.0, AGP 8x, Hypertransport, Serial ATA drives and PCI-X slots.

In my opinion, dual channel DDR 400 and USB 2.0 were a given. Going with single channel DDR or RAMBUS would not have been too bright. Also sticking with USB 1.1 would be pretty stupid.

I don't think AGP 8x and Hypertransport are all that big of a leap. The top end PCs already have AGP 8x so the cards are there. The FSB on the PPC 970, while not labeled Hypertransport, has almost the same description. It seems logical to me that Apple would pick it.

The two traits that I feel are difficult to guess, SATA and PCI-X, were missed by (almost) everyone. In my opinion, these two are what separate those who had real information and those who were just guessing based upon technology.

Since the rumor sites got the stuff right that I think was guessable but missed the other stuff, I am starting to believe they were just guessing and had no special information access.

[fpnc]

Originally posted by deepkid
Are you with a particular rumors site?

No, I'm just doing the public disclosure about my mistakes. I promised I would do that and this seems like a reasonable thread to make that known. I was challenged many times concerning my predictions so I'm just making good on my promise to "fess up" or "eat crow" if I was wrong about any major part of the intro.

[fpnc]

Originally posted by ktlx
I have been thinking about the motherboard design specs that various rumor sites posted and I wonder how much of that was based upon guesswork and how much was based upon real information.


I agree, some of the motherboard specs could have been assumed (or guessed). However, MacBidouille did (apparently) identify some form of optical port on the motherboard. They guessed that it might have been fiberchannel, but it could have been the optical audio ports.

Also, I think one of the sites (possibly MacBidouille) said that the motherboard had eight SDRAM slots but that four of them were covered with a label that said do not use. I wonder whether that was a prototype for the low-end (1.6GHz) G5 that apparently only supports 4GB of RAM (one half of what the other two models support).

[arn]

Originally posted by deepkid

I'm just concerned about the increased clawing that I'm seeing on MacRumors and I don't think its necessary in giving an account of what actually transpired.


The intention of the wrap up is not to try to put down other sites. In fact, I don't think MacRumors is in direct competition with many of the other rumors sites.

As exampled - ThinkSecret gets a lot of attention from this site, and a lot of credence when they post a rumor. The reason is that they have traditionally been very accurate. So, _please_ visit ThinkSecret.com - visit regularly and often. I encourage you to do so.

AppleInsider has also received a lot of recent attention - because they had real info surrounding this event. I'm optimistic that they will represent accurate sources of information in the future.

Also - if eWeek or CNet posts a rumor. Believe it. Visit it. Send them money. Whatever you'd like. Pay attention to them.

The flip side to this is... if you are a rumor site, and you start posting things that are consistently wrong. You're done. There is no reason why MacRumors, or anyone interested in accurate rumors to pay any further attention to them.

If you want to enjoy them for entertainment value, that's up to you... but the point of this site is the try to track/report accurate rumors.

It's not about being petty. It's not about trying to put down sites. Like I said - I will broadcast accurate reports and sites. The only catch is you have to be accurate -- at least some of the time.

On the same note - if an individual keeps sending me info that is consistently wrong - I will ignore their submissions.

arn

[moki]

Originally posted by Gakusei
I think MacWhispers can't be crucified just yet...we'll have to see what happens when the new 15" is announced. If it's not G5 based, then we can nail them up.


Yes, MacWhispers can be crucified. MacWhispers is a thinly veiled advertising vehicle for the owner's other companies, such as MacMice.com and DVForge

As such, MacWhispers absolutely fabricated every single one of their stories in a shameless attempt to drive traffic there, and expose people to ads for his related company products.

We've all seen SpyWare before, and the hidden advertising it brings, well MacWhispers has ushered in a new age in computing with their advertising technique: LieWare

It's rather simple. Mac users are interested in rumors about the upcoming products from Apple, so he puts up a web site that shamelessly fabricates stories about Apple's forthcoming products, and sticks ads on there, knowing that he'll get a huge amount of traffic and exposure to his ads for free.

Remember, not a single one of the stories MacWhispers published was accurate. Not one.

I don't think MacRumors should publish MacWhispers reports anymore, because I see no reason for MacRumors to join this rather disingenuous marketing machine of MacMice.com/DVForge

More info on the MacMice.com/DVForge owner is here: http://www.Macintouch.com/mactable.html

MacBidouille got a number of things wrong as well, but at least they got some (fairly obvious) things correct, and they also were not doing it to drive sales for their products. There's a world of difference between the over-enthusiasm of MacBidouille and cold, calculated fabrication of stories that MacWhispers published to sell the owner's other products.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by ktlx
The FSB on the PPC 970, while not labeled Hypertransport, has almost the same description. It seems logical to me that Apple would pick it.The FSB is not HyperTransport, the discussion to find out a bit more about the internals of the design is at this link. (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9080959175&p=1)

Unless I missed a similar technical discussion posted around here. :eek:

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by deepkid
As a stockholder and journalist, I can tell you that rumors cause more harm than good for Apple. Some of the speculation you read is completely insane -- in a bad way.



The LAT(rine) is an example of a newspaper that harmed Apple with its "Universal- Vivendi" rubbish. Wall Street had a fit and SJ was forced into having to clarify something that neither he nor Apple asserted in the first place, while Apple share prices fell.
I still wonder how the booboo occurred last Thursday and what has happened to that person/people.

[Sun Baked]

C'mon Jack's got a sense of humor over the entire thing, everyone else is taking the site way too seriously.

By the way, I figured out where the PPC 970 Powerbooks are located.

They're sitting in the same warehouse as are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. When Bush's crew finds those, they'll also find the Powerbooks.

Promise.
Posted by MacWhispers at June 25, 2003 11:35 AM

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
C'mon Jack's got a sense of humor over the entire thing, everyone else is taking the site way too seriously.

So now MacWhispers is a *humor* sight? I agree that Jack is a joke to the majority of people familiar with his various exploits... but there's nothing really funny about it. :confused:

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Flowbee
So now MacWhispers is a *humor* sight? I agree that Jack is a joke to the majority of people familiar with his various exploits... but there's nothing really funny about it. :confused: It's people's reactions to him that are amusing, you know his track record and yet people still go back for more.

Though it's looking more and more like Jack is quickly becoming the web equivalent of a mime, people either love it -- or hate it.

But the interesting show isn't the mime, but the crowds reactions to the mime. ;)

[Gakusei]

Originally posted by moki
Yes, MacWhispers can be crucified. MacWhispers is a thinly veiled advertising vehicle for the owner's other companies, such as MacMice.com and DVForge

As such, MacWhispers absolutely fabricated every single one of their stories in a shameless attempt to drive traffic there, and expose people to ads for his related company products.

I guess I thwarted that effort in not even knowing that they were intertwined. :p

All I was trying to convey is that it seems premature to use libel if their chief rumor had yet to be disproven. Of course, with today's posting about the new G4's possibly being in PowerBooks, it seems that it would change from libel to truth in very short order.

[Rai]

I'd like the thank macrumors, for the great job of coverage of rumors for the ipod and keynotes presentation. Great job!

I'd also like to thank MacB, for an incredible job on the G5 rumors.

I think it is funny people posting that MacB got alot wrong, but some obvious stuff right.

MacB said there would be a apple G5 computer that will blow away any peecee out there. And that is exactly what apple delivered. That is accurate enough for me.

MacB staked there whole reputation on this rumor, and got flamed to hell for it on many boards including this one. With any rumor they got a few details wrong, fibreports...don't care, claims of benchmarks being faked....., and shipping dates (don't think apple is even sure when they are shipping ). These are small fries, they got the biggy apple super computer lives, and thats what matters.

They stated this with confidence before the other rumor sites jumped on the bagon wagon. And deserve accolade for it.

Congrats MacB great job.

PS: obvious yeh right, i remember when there rumor was first posted here, people where saying we wouldn't see G5 till next year.

[moki]

Originally posted by Rai
I think it is funny people posting that MacB got alot wrong, but some obvious stuff right.

Obvious stuff like the G5 Macs were in production in May, and would be available at the show, and at Apple stores on the 23nd for purchase?

Originally posted by Rai
MacB said there would be a apple G5 computer that will blow away any peecee out there. And that is exactly what apple delivered. That is accurate enough for me.

Yes, and anyone who looked at the SPEC scores IBM published last year could safely make that assumption as well.

[starlightmica]

(An open letter to the webmaster at macwhispers.com)

Dear Mr. Campbell:

It has come to my attention that you are in need of some assistance with your news web site, macwhispers.com. I have a distinguished career at a top national newspaper and I believe I have the credentials and experience to give your site the credibility it deserves.

My assosciate, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, is also now free to aid your cause as he is no longer employed as Information Minister by the former Iraqi government. He will be accompanied by his personal bodyguards, US Special Operations Task Force 20.

As a financial bonus, I can report from:
* 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA,
* Hsinchu, Taiwan, or
* Hendersonville, TN,
all from my studio here in Brooklyn, saving you costly travel expenses.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,



Sir Jayson Blair, B.A., M.S., Ph.D, M.D, Esq. E.A.S.I.

[moosecat]

MacWhispers has now taken its comments system offline, after taking a thorough shellacking by users. (Note to self: Comments systems that don't require registration are trollbait.)

I swear, that site is like a car wreck -- it's unpleasant and unfortunate and just plain wrong, and I want to look away, but I can't.

[Magicite]

The e week article "64-Bit Macs May Outpace 'Panther'" was penned by Nick Ciarelli and Matthew Rothenberg
and Think Secret constantly refers back to that article....given the fact that Matthew Rothenberg has in the past collaborated with Nick dePlume... I conclude that Nick Ciarelli and Nick dePlume are one and the same person

How amazingly spot-on you were (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/12/2052258&tid=123&tid=149&tid=3).