9to5 sources
Ahem... You forget the surprising accuracy of 9to5mac... They have clearly an insider on their payroll...
I would still take this with a grain of salt.
9to5Mac has only shown that they have a traitor at one of the assembling factories in China that is on their payroll. They have given no indication that they actually have any real sources inside Apple itself.
The reports 9to5 has been 100%
accurate on (both of them

), were clearly based on (and mentioned as such by 9to5 themselves), ... someone at a factory in China telling them what they saw on the assembly line.
This story is something else again, (probably just an estimate based on already released figures) and is probably not related to the traitor at the factory, unless Apple shares its sales figures with the manufacturing plant.
Sadly, "made up stuff" and the leaks of paid informants are the only kind of rumour we have to look forward to nowadays. The original rumour sites like "Mac OS Rumors" and "Think Secret" were based on some cool person who had other cool friends that worked at Apple who were willing to drop a few cool (and obscure), hints without (mostly) violating their disclosure agreements.
Through a lot of casual "geek talk" with friends at Apple, many things could be discerned that did not really do any harm to Apple itself. The presenters of the early rumour sites, being geeks themselves, then filled things in with a bit of intelligent speculation and guesswork.
None of these "leakers" at Apple would have anything to do with today's more juvenile money-oriented rumour sites like
9to5Mac, and
Gizmodo. They just aren't professional enough (or dare I say it "cool" enough), to have those kinds of connections.
Today's sites have to rely on less moral avenues of information to get anywhere at all, but IMO they are hampered by the fact that they are neither smart enough, nor experienced enough to figure out anything they are not explicitly being told by their "sources." This makes them on the one hand more
accurate (they are simply passing on "real" stolen information), but on the other hand both less interesting and more damaging to Apple than the leakers that preceded them.