Rumors
Let's all just remember that these are all rumors. There's multiple reasons why they could be given to MacB in good faith and still be wrong. I'm not sure exactly how these rumor sites work, but I suspect that they work similarly to the real world and most rumors are spread from friend to friend. I doubt if the actual developers and engineers are submitting these rumors directly to these websties. There are probably a few, and those I suspect know some of the people associated with the websites. Otherwise I suspect that rumors are submitted by people in the know but not nessisarily the ones generating the data. For example, when I worked at Adobe as lowly TS, I would talk to my QA friends to find out the latest scuttlebutt on our products. Scuttlebutt that they were getting from various developers they would talk to. Those developers might not even be working on the projects that were talked about. So, while in that position, I would say I was a "respectable source" and knew pretty much what was going on in the company and their roadmap for the next six months, but as you can see, there's already a game of "telephone" going on. Developer tells developers tells QA tells TS tells other people. Could be that that info just simiply isn't that good to begin with. It's not meant for release to the public, so it's not been checked with a fine toothed comb. Benchmarks taken straight from the head engineer's desk may be nothing more than bits and peices thrown together willy nilly for his or somebody else's entertainment. Next, you have the simple fact that the developers don't know what is going to happen with a product 6 months down the line. Good info this week may be compeltly wrong next week depending on decisions made by Marketing or Management. Features added, features killed, builds abandoned. Reading a book on Apple design, there were several working prototypes that were built yet never saw the light of day. You may hear rumors about such devices, and it'd be good information, but you'd never know it until you read a book on Apple history ten years later because it gets killed in development. Keeping up with rumors even when inside a company is constant work because the situation is changing from day to day. Then there is always the possibility of dis-information. The source is seeding his rumors with false info, or changing things so he isn't suspect or to keep his employers from getting upset. Not to mention that the comapny itself may have controlled leaks to spread dis/information. Just like artists releasing fake tracks onto Napster, if rumor sites became too reliable, companies could start releasing false informaiton from undeniably good sources just to keep peopele guessing and their secrets, secret. So, there is never going to be a 100% reliable rumor site.
What's this mean to us. Are we going to stop going to a site because somebody posts some wrong info? Most of us probably aren't betting lots of money on what is posted here and if they were, it'd probably be illegal. I suspect that most are reading these for entertainment, perhaps out of profesional curiosity, but still just as a way to pass the time. If a site just starts posting (non-entertaining) wild made up rumors, yes, we'd probably stop going to it. If one site has a better reputation than another site, we may spend more time there over the other, or at least repeat what it has to say more. Still, rumor sites are rumors sites and they're not going to be reliable, they're not going to always have the right information, and anybody who expects them too or gets mad because they aren't, is just in the wrong place to begin with.
Let's all just remember that these are all rumors. There's multiple reasons why they could be given to MacB in good faith and still be wrong. I'm not sure exactly how these rumor sites work, but I suspect that they work similarly to the real world and most rumors are spread from friend to friend. I doubt if the actual developers and engineers are submitting these rumors directly to these websties. There are probably a few, and those I suspect know some of the people associated with the websites. Otherwise I suspect that rumors are submitted by people in the know but not nessisarily the ones generating the data. For example, when I worked at Adobe as lowly TS, I would talk to my QA friends to find out the latest scuttlebutt on our products. Scuttlebutt that they were getting from various developers they would talk to. Those developers might not even be working on the projects that were talked about. So, while in that position, I would say I was a "respectable source" and knew pretty much what was going on in the company and their roadmap for the next six months, but as you can see, there's already a game of "telephone" going on. Developer tells developers tells QA tells TS tells other people. Could be that that info just simiply isn't that good to begin with. It's not meant for release to the public, so it's not been checked with a fine toothed comb. Benchmarks taken straight from the head engineer's desk may be nothing more than bits and peices thrown together willy nilly for his or somebody else's entertainment. Next, you have the simple fact that the developers don't know what is going to happen with a product 6 months down the line. Good info this week may be compeltly wrong next week depending on decisions made by Marketing or Management. Features added, features killed, builds abandoned. Reading a book on Apple design, there were several working prototypes that were built yet never saw the light of day. You may hear rumors about such devices, and it'd be good information, but you'd never know it until you read a book on Apple history ten years later because it gets killed in development. Keeping up with rumors even when inside a company is constant work because the situation is changing from day to day. Then there is always the possibility of dis-information. The source is seeding his rumors with false info, or changing things so he isn't suspect or to keep his employers from getting upset. Not to mention that the comapny itself may have controlled leaks to spread dis/information. Just like artists releasing fake tracks onto Napster, if rumor sites became too reliable, companies could start releasing false informaiton from undeniably good sources just to keep peopele guessing and their secrets, secret. So, there is never going to be a 100% reliable rumor site.
What's this mean to us. Are we going to stop going to a site because somebody posts some wrong info? Most of us probably aren't betting lots of money on what is posted here and if they were, it'd probably be illegal. I suspect that most are reading these for entertainment, perhaps out of profesional curiosity, but still just as a way to pass the time. If a site just starts posting (non-entertaining) wild made up rumors, yes, we'd probably stop going to it. If one site has a better reputation than another site, we may spend more time there over the other, or at least repeat what it has to say more. Still, rumor sites are rumors sites and they're not going to be reliable, they're not going to always have the right information, and anybody who expects them too or gets mad because they aren't, is just in the wrong place to begin with.
