Rumor Roundup: Zero revolutionary devices
iPhone 6 Rear Camera to Retain 8-Megapixel Sensor, Offer Improved Image Stabilization? (MacRumors; also covered by 9to5 Mac, BGR)
From the article: "The report cites analysts from Nomura Securities" - and we all know how "accurate" these analysts are when it comes to Apple.
Also, check this out: "iPhone camera module supplier Largan Precision saw its stock take a significant dip yesterday amid rumors that Apple will not be upgrading the resolution of the rear camera for the iPhone 6 later this year."
Real companies are losing real money because of stupid rumors. I wonder how many people at this company will end up losing their jobs just to keep the echo chamber echoing?
Half of iPhone 6 Orders Expected to Go to Pegatron (MacRumors; also covered by BGR, 9to5 Mac)
And thus we hit our mandatory quarterly quota of "Pegatron will take over a significant chunk of iPhone production" articles sourced from Asian tech publications. We also hit our mandatory weekly quota of 9to5 Mac calling a poorly-sourced rumor "sketchy" but passing it along anyway.
"Apple has never been interested in being first to market, so no-one should be remotely surprised that others launched the smartwatch first." No one should be remotely surprised if Apple never makes a smartwatch, either. Seriously, who is this still-hypothetical device supposed to appeal to besides the analysts who insist it exists and the gadget nerds who breathlessly speculate on what it could be like?
Apple doesn't make products for gadget nerds. It makes products designed to have as much appeal as possible to a specific audience: "normal" human beings with a penchant for good design and a thirst for tools that let them get things done that they couldn't do before.
"The first revolutionary device would be ... a watch." Okay. And how many people care about watches anymore? If I look around the office at my day job, the only people I see wearing watches are either sports enthusiasts or people over fifty.
"Integrated fitness functionality in a smartwatch, then, will be the second revolution." Good luck making such a device have wide appeal in a country where over a third of the population is obese. Fitness bands are still an edge-case tool. You know who doesn't tend to enter edge-case markets? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Mapple."
"Which leaves the third revolution: the smartwatch functionality [...] I see an iWatch as mostly a secondary screen for an iPhone rather than a standalone gadget." This was the first suggested use case for a potential Apple-branded smartwatch, all the way back when the last-gen iPod nano came out and sparked off all this "iWatch" piffle in the first place.
No one has convinced me that being able to read notifications on my wrist, sent from my phone, is somehow better than just reaching into my pocket and grabbing my phone.
Considering this is Apple we're talking about, any hypothetical iWatch product would more than likely start at a base price of US$150 to $200. Those three "revolutionary devices" put together wouldn't be enough for me to shell out that kind of money, and I've got a house stacked high with Apple products already.
The iWatch is nothing more than an analyst's bad acid trip. Sadly, it looks like a trip we'll all have to endure for most of 2014.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Software Updatesmore updates
- OS X Yosemite 10.10.2, iOS 8.1.3 updates now available
- Sports Illustrated 120 SPORTS channel comes to Apple TV
- Logic Pro X update brings AirDrop support, new effects, tools, and more
- Parallels Access 2.5 released, adds file manager, computer-to-computer remote access
- The Google Translate iOS app is about to get a lot smarter
- Dropbox adds file/folder renaming and Office document editing to iOS app