Blog Post

Rumor Mill Friday…

While cruising around the web I noticed a major trend in the stories posted about Apple today: none of these ‘announcements’ came from Apple.

Take for example, AppleInsider’s post of the obvious possibility that the PowerMac G5 replacement will have 2 CPU’s. “Apple and Intel somehow plan to wedge two high-end dual-core chips into some Mac Pros”.
First, several motherboard manufacturers, including Intel themselves, are certainly capable of making a board to support Apple’s needs. Why they choose to word it such that it is a technologically difficult challenge escapes me. Second, somehow the replacement systems is certainly named Mac Pro, even though no official announcement on that has happened. The rabbit hole gets deeper when MacRumors solidifies this ‘announcement’ by repeating the rumor (as they do all the time) like fact.

Then, somehow Apple will buy Nintendo because 1) Apple wants to dominate the consumer computer industry (which isn’t true – that is called a Monopoly which is illegal) and 2) Apple has the capital or credit power to purchase Nintendo if the companies agreed to do so. Then the rumor sites turn it into fact because, frankly, CNet has more credibility.

Here is the problem: CNet’s Crave isn’t reporting on fact, they are commenting on the idea of the companies either working together on a project or merging. While in concept this would be fantastic for the community, Apple and Nintendo certainly wouldn’t announce it until there was something to announce.

People forget that Apple doesn’t discuss internal projects publicly. If you look at the feature list dwindle from Vista, you can see why this strategy is good. As I did work for Apple at one time, I can tell you one thing about the culture there. 1) Speculation is Apple’s enemy – not Microsoft, not Sony, not anything else. 2) If it isn’t on, it isn’t true. I think that Crave didn’t do a good job researching for his article, and it is disappointing to see on this Friday the rumor mill has churned out bad gouge based on conjecture alone. I realize in all of this discussion the rumor sites are what they are, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Yet, Apple customers often discuss rumors as fact, thus damaging the company’s reputation when nothing was done wrong on their part.

Perhaps I’m out of line here, perhaps not. Maybe these things will prove true, but until any announcement is made hold on to your pennies.

6 Responses to “Rumor Mill Friday…”

  1. “pet peeve: monopolies are not illegal”

    YES THANK YOU! Man I don’t get why people think monopolies are illegal. It makes no sense.

  2. “If it isn’t on, it isn’t true.”
    That is totally the way it is with Apple. They’re not beyond changing, or cancelling months of work at the last minute for any one of a number of reasons, or bring forward another project, just to make a particular announcement or milestone…
    Apple are in a fortunate position that they can, and do, get away with this, and they keep everyone else (me included) guessing =)

  3. I say that Apple doesn’t want to dominate because of this:

    Shoot over to 5:08 – To me I see a man who isn’t looking for domination but a simple statement of “You know, if we convince 5% of the people then that is fantastic”. Very humble if you ask me. I don’t think domination is neccessary, and one can say that is strategy by suggesting that Apple isn’t out for that.

    Secondly, I don’t suspect Jobs would want to lead the company into the domination arena. I think that his strategy is to just let Apple do everything they do very well. As my fortune cookie reads, “Make use of your finest talents”. Sure, every company wants to see growth. I want to see my company grow, but I wouldn’t want it to dominate. I just feel that Apple and it’s management know where to go, and it’s exciting times for Apple fans.

    Today is different because it is in my view getting worse out there. Apple is picking up market share, and it’s customers are finding these sites and taking them to the stores. These stories are posted as one thing, churned, and then outputted as fact more and more. How many readers, if it could be measured, don’t differentiate between rumor and fact – especially when the chances of these readers seeing the same story corroborated on multiple sites?

  4. Weldon

    pet peeve: monopolies are not illegal. However, a company can be charged with illegally *maintaining* a monopoly by using their market power to keep other companies out or otherwise compete unfairly.

  5. Apple wants to dominate the consumer computer industry (which isn’t true – that is called a Monopoly which is illegal)

    Of course it wants to dominate the consumer computer industry. All companies would rather dominate the industry in which they operate. It makes things so much easier (until governments start intervening, of course). I am no advocate of monopolism, but your suggestion – which seems to be a common one amongst the Mac faithful, borne of the idea that Apple is in some way more benevolent than other corporations – is sadly mistaken. A company which does not pursue profit and growth is a company on the road to extinction.

    And, as Microsoft has so ably demonstrated, in the USA, the legality (or otherwise) of monopolisation depends entirely on the government in power.

    So go easy on the hyperbole next time.

    Oh, and rumours are great for Apple. They stoke public interest and get all heads looking in the right direction on a given day; other companies would kill for that kind of attention. And it has always been thus, which is why I have no idea what you mean by:

    While cruising around the web I noticed a major trend in the stories posted about Apple today: none of these ‘announcements’ came from Apple.

    How is today differnet from any other day?

    Anyway, as to the two specific points, a moment’s thought and it’s all quite obvious – Nintendo won’t buy Apple because the Japanese won’t let them (c|net are not reputable enough for this to be a valid scoop); the Mac Pro will likely come in two versions – one with one dual core CPU and one with two. Same as now.