Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 25, 2003.
After a number of inaccurate predictions, MacWhispers appears to be exiting the rumor scene:
Yet another "quality" product from the Envestco team.
Whatever. They suck. Too bad LoopRumors and MacOSRumors don't follow suit
Surely you jest!
Re: to paraphrase
But without them, where would all the 'page 2' info come from?
wait a second...
are we missing something here?
"The reality is simply that, even if we had videotaped evidence that, for instance, 50,000 new iPods were sitting in a California warehouse, ready to ship, that fact would not guarantee that Apple would choose to announce or ship them on any particular date. Without being privy to actual Apple Computer information, no amount of third-party information can reliably predict Apple's actions."
Are they saying they actually have that kind of info?
Yeah, they're saying it, and it's probably as accurate as the iPods they said were released today.
They're a bit better than MacOSRumors - MacOSRumors just makes everything up without a hint of sources, while these people seem to just have incredibly bad ones.
I think whatever Mr. Campbell's history (see the Mactables saga), the approach taken by MacWhispers did have its merits. Analyzing the activity of Apple's suppliers may indeed hint at what Apple is up to, but it does not guarantee that any information gleaned from such sources could be used to make accurate predictions about actual new products, let alone concrete release dates. Thus, I think we should applaud MacWhispers for at least trying.
Also, at least MacWhispers revealed the nature of its sources. I have not found any other rumor site to do this. They usually post a rumor with no indication about its source. The rumors veracity is instantly questionable. For all we know they read the rumor on another board and reposted it.
For instance, I have seen several website post info about the alleged 15.4 inch new powerbook. Are there independant sources for this or are all the rumor site just republishing the MacWhisper rumor ( where I believe it showed up first )? If there are not independent source, then other sites should not poke fingers at MacWhispers for getting stuff wrong - they should be posting independant info only!
Just because someone "reveals" their source doesn't mean that they have a source.
The information and nature of the source could have been fabricated by the person making up the rumor.
If we were lucky all the runor sites with no sources other than other rumor siites would dry up and blow away.
Thanks god that idiot is going away....once more. ACK!
Actually, the idiot is not "going away."
I am stopping my effort to extrapolate specific product release predictions from the jumble of raw information I pick up from suppliers. Henceforth, I will just focus on publishing the information itself, and leave the crystal-ball work to my readers.
Yes, but the contrary of that "If someone does not reveal their source then they have one" is definitely not true.
When someone says: "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows someone that works at Apple." I take that with a small grain of salt.
But when someone says: " I spoke with the sales rep for Chi Mei today and they say they are supplying a panel..." then I rank that G2 as higher quality.
Unless its all a lie - and if it is then why are we wasting are $%$(% time one these sites!
In conclusion, I'd rather have someone tell me a source so I can do a common sense check than not - wouldn't you?
Is the prediction that MacWhispers is going away just another baseless prediction or do they have an inside source - someone who really knows what is up?
My personal opinion.
I think MacWhisper's fatal flaw is that they equate speculation to rumor... and this is not the case.
well I personally don't like to see another rumors site go down. But that's just because I like to get as much "information" from as many "sources" as possible. In quotes because I know that both the "information" and the "sources" may be false, but at least I can use it to make my own guesses that serve my own personal wants, heh.
Problem is, if you have a "real" source... you can't identify them without risking their job.
You have to equate rumor sites as surrogates for their sources. If ThinkSecret mentions something... then you have to consider that they have "good" sources and should be given more credence.
If an unknown rumor site says "our sources say... blah blah blah" - you shouldn't put much value in it until they have a history that is proven correct.
A source does not have to be mentioned by name, it could be described such as "A contact in Apple marketing..." or "a sales rep for a known LCD supplier.." without risking a job.
I work in product development and appreciated the way MacWhispers got their rumors. Supplier info made alot of sense.
In terms of known or unknown sites or predictable track records - I haven't seen anyone do that well. Each has a piece of the puzzle, but no one has it all. That's why some mention of sources would be very nice. If the source of a rumor is just the repeat of another site, then the info is only coming from one source and its veracity is lessoned.
I think MacRumors does the best job of seperating news, rumors, and speculation. There is a difference between a rumor and just plain speculation-and MacRumors understands that.
The reason they are #1.
Re: to paraphrase
Hasn't MacOSRumors basically died? They haven't posted anything new (true or otherwise) in more than two weeks. And the last posting before that was two weeks or so earlier than that. Is the operator on some kind of long vacation, or has he just given up?
I disagree... "a contact in Apple marketing" would be far too much information.
I agree... but they took it too far, and made it useless info because you couldn't distinguish rumor from speculation.
What supplier information have they provided that has proven accurate? Even before they add their "speculative" spin? I can't tell... which is why they are on Page 2.
Was the ChiMei 20.1" LCD the info they got, and they speculated that it would be a 1600x1200 $1799 display? You can't tell...
I've stated this before... but their "facts" (supplier information) are simply rumors. Their "rumors" are simply speculation.
ps. As the webmaster here, I thought I should clarify... I have nothing against MacWhispers or Jack Campbell -- but I am critical of any new rumor sources/sites in general... because people do tend to believe whatever they read - regardless of source. As a result, bad information is downgraded and good information is upgraded. If Macwhispers had been posting correct info, I'd be plastering their site all over the front page.
I agree - rumor and speculation need to be separate and distinguished.
Actually, on the 20.1 panel they predicted 1600x1024 (not 1600x1200) which was very close to the final 1680x1050 format.
But, I do figure that the price was entirely speculative - how would suppliers know what the end price would be?
Now, looking back at the 15.4 rumors - I see two sources: the Digitimes article and the MacWhispers source. I wonder if they are not indeed the same source ( MacWhispers got their info from the Digitimes article ).
ChiMei does make a 15.4" Notebook screen (scroll to the bottom)
at 1280x800. Production now. I just can't tell if Compal gets their lcds from ChiMei.
Arn, that's exactly the reason for my decision today to shift the format of the site. Looking back at the past month, if I had ONLY published the slivers of data I picked up from supplier sources, and had NOT added my own extrapolation and speculation, the MacWhispers track record for accuracy would now stand at about 95%. As it is, it's the inverse of that.
The only "facts" I actually had in hand when I published the 20-inch Cinema Display piece were: the panel's manufacturer and model number, the precise 20.1" diagonal size, and that it was a 16:10 aspect ratio. I also had a rep in the Che Mei channel tell me the panel was "much less expensive" than competitive 20-inch range LCD's.
Instead of simply publishing that paragraph, untouched, I added my own "thinking" by guessing at the pixel resolution and the price. By doing that, I corrupted what should have been a truly nifty piece of detective work on my part... and moved MacWhispers from a Page 1 site back to a much-maligned Page 2 site.
I'm going back to doing what I am able to do with accuracy: recount fragments of information I pick up from the OEM/ODM supplier chain behind Apple's operations... and publishing it in bare form.
Maybe over the next few months I can get the MacWhispers batting average up to where it should have been all along.
Maybe you should just keep the basic format you were using and just rename your site to MacAssumptions....