The overall cycle of Apple Rumors tends to be fairly predictable. A mainstream publication breaks a story, and other publications of great over time, with slight variations in the item itself, roughly approximate the product that Apple will announce a few months later.
But the current and back on a rumored iPhone Nano is rare. Do you see the New York Times often directly refutes rumors of Apple that appear in the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. And certainly do not see the type of clash undertone that ooze in his scoop.
Yes, the Times ' Miguel Helft and Nick Bilton writes, Apple wants to broaden the appeal of the iPhone with a cheaper model (and more voice commands), but no, there is no iPhone. The article goes on to take the iPhone Nano rumor piece by piece: a small device would not necessarily cheaper to manufacture, says one source, and it would be more difficult to operate. Also would force developers to rewrite their applications, causing fragmentation that Apple doesn't want it.
The nail in the coffin is the Times ' final paragraph, which calls out the Wall Street Journal (but not by name) to trip the codename of iPhone smaller as "n97." In fact, the Times says, that has been designated the codename for Verizon iPhone 4. Ouch.
I am persuaded by the Times ' version of the story, but I don't know if there is one big takeaway is different from the fact that sometimes the Apple Rumors are wrong (and I'm guessing most people I know already). Still, there's another Nugget in the report the Times ' which seems plausible: a cheaper iPhone reportedly would be a way to Apple to penetrate the market, in particular pre-paid telephone outside of the United States where the carrier grants and contracts are rare. I hadn't thought of that when I said carrier subsidies are the key to profits of Apple.
For more smart takes on technology, visit Technologizer.com. Story copyright © 2010 Technologizer. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment