Compare the original article: Something's wrong here
Compare the original news article of Macrumors:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/03/28/drawings-iphone-6c/
"Long-running Japanese magazine MacFan has published alleged drawings of what appear to be 4.7-inch and 5.7-inch iPhone 6c models in its latest issue, reports Mac Otakara ..."
So basically NOTHING has been added for "information" since then, and the original claim was that the design drawings were for a 5.7-inch iPhone 6c?!
This is rapidly approaching the level of asking the subjects of a king, who have never seen this king, their opinion of the size of the king's nose, and then using the average of their estimates to assert that is the actual length of the king's nose.
Compare the original news article of Macrumors:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/03/28/drawings-iphone-6c/
"Long-running Japanese magazine MacFan has published alleged drawings of what appear to be 4.7-inch and 5.7-inch iPhone 6c models in its latest issue, reports Mac Otakara ..."
So basically NOTHING has been added for "information" since then, and the original claim was that the design drawings were for a 5.7-inch iPhone 6c?!
This is rapidly approaching the level of asking the subjects of a king, who have never seen this king, their opinion of the size of the king's nose, and then using the average of their estimates to assert that is the actual length of the king's nose.