I'm guessing some of you are generation Y kids who were never taught the difference between good attention and bad attention, and therefore you can't distinguish good marketing/media coverage from bad marketing/media coverage either.
First, it's Apple. Do you really think they have trouble attracting attention when they announce something officially? If there's a new iPhone, EVERYONE will know, without the assistance of a drunken schmuck and some gadget site. Every newspaper around the world has at least one Apple fanboy/evangelist who will write headlines about Apple's new thingy, even if it means pushing the latest natural disaster to page 2.
Now that the new iPhone will be old hat by the time it's released, Apple's regular marketing (the one they blow all their money on) will be partially in vain, because the thunder has already been stolen. Steve may be rich and powerful, but he still gets a buzz out of unveiling a new product with the whole world watching. Now he'll only get to pull an old hat out of his pocket, to the sound of scattered, lukewarm applause and a couple of yawns.
Second, why on earth would you think Apple would want people to get their first impression of the next iPhone through grainy, badly lit amateur photos of a prototype? Is the initial reaction not proof enough that this couldn't be Apple's making? "Faaaake! OMG that's hideous! So un-Apple! Looks like a crappy Sony Ericsson! So unsexy my d*** fell off! Was Ive on holiday when they designed this turd?? " This company thrives on presentation – well lit, retouched, spotless products that look like a million bucks even though they're mass produced in some sweat shop in China. Anyone who thought the Gizmodo photos constituted attractive presentation, raise a hand.
Third, if you're suggesting there's something conspicuously "convenient" about the timing (diverting attention from HTC / Android / whatever), think again. Apple spreads the releases very carefully over the year so that no big launch overshadows another. You'll have noticed that Steve has stopped doing the "one more thing" schtick years ago, in favor of doubling the number of keynote presentations so that each item gets undivided attention. They just released the iPad, which is no mere refresh but an entirely new product category that they have grandiose world domination plans for. And not only that, but they also released new quadcore laptops only last Tuesday. Those products are what Apple wants the spotlight on, until the iPhone arrives. Instead, the focus was now abruptly shifted from their new products to one that isn't even available yet. So: It killed iPad attention, killed MBP attention and killed iPhone 3GS sales prematurely (now they'll be stuck with droves of those in stock). And to top it off, it killed attention surrounding the Q2 report – their best non-holiday quarter ever. What kind of f***ed up company would want that, let alone do it willingly?
rjlawrencejr said:
However, give people some credit for their skepticism; given the company's history in regards to the way it disseminates information does give at least some credence to the belief.
Yes, some skepticism is always healthy. But it also has to be reasonable and well founded. Skepticism alone is useless because it's just too easy. Like doubt. That's why the legal system makes a distinction between
reasonable doubt and plain doubt, because any idiot can doubt something but not everyone can put the doubt in perspective. Like the dumb crackers who let O.J. off the hook. All Johnny Cochran had to do was smile and say things that rhyme so that even morons will memorize them. Their doubt wasn't reasonable.
I could do a better job typing on my ipad, but that is another story. 
