Digitimes

Written by

Interesting perspective from Eric Slivka. I still think Digitimes is a bit too loose with the rumors.



  • KvH

    they can report rumors on parts shipping or changing suppliers but they pretty much have a zero track record on guessing what those parts will be used for, or even if shipping in quantities.

    • http://twitter.com/WildCowboy Eric Slivka

      That’s simply not true. They were very early on the Retina MacBook Pro story, although there was some confusion early on about whether it would be a MacBook Pro or a MacBook Air. But by December 2011 they had nailed it:

      http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/14/apple-to-launch-2880×1800-resolution-retina-display-macbook-pro-in-q2-2012/

      And they were laughed at for again saying there would be an early update to the full-size iPad:

      http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/09/report-claims-7-inch-ipad-in-august-new-iphone-in-september-new-10-inch-ipad-by-end-of-year/

      They also seem to have been correct on anti-reflective glass for the new iMac:

      http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/02/apple-to-utilize-anti-reflective-glass-in-next-generation-imac/

      And they were part of the first wave of reports claiming in-cell touch sensing for the iPhone 5:

      http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/20/next-generation-iphone-to-use-thinner-in-cell-technology-for-multi-touch-display/

      • http://www.aichon.com/ Brad

        Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Sure, they get stuff right sometimes, but essentially all of the rumors that they break turn out to later be incorrect. They definitely jump on the bandwagon and get stuff right occasionally, but when it comes to stuff they break, you’d be hard-pressed to find much that they get right.

        Shawn posted a report card last March over at Stupid Apple Rumors, scoring how the rumors sites did, and if you read through it you’ll see that Digitimes went 0 for 13 with the provable rumors that it broke in the six months prior.

        http://stupidapplerumors.com/news/2012/six-month-rumor-report

        • http://twitter.com/WildCowboy Eric Slivka

          IMO, Shawn is far too harsh on rumors, but I’m of course biased as a rumor guy. A rumor can be 90% right but they get one tiny aspect wrong, and Shawn trashes the whole thing as an erroneous rumor.

          And I think I just linked three original rumors they were correct on right there in my previous post…Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro with 2880×1800 in Q2 2012, anti-reflective glass on 2012 iMac, and update to full-size iPad in late 2012. They get partial credit for in-cell iPhone 5 display tech since there were others saying the same thing. As far as I can tell from Shawn’s post, he doesn’t list the 13 rumors they got wrong, but I’d be interested in seeing what he chose to include.

          Digitimes is by no means right about everything, and it would be great if they could be relied upon consistently. But the entire point is they’re also not always wrong. They do have good information in many cases, but don’t always draw the correct from conclusions from it.

          • http://www.aichon.com/ Brad

            I’d agree that he can be a bit harsh on the various sites, and I also agree that I’d like a bit more transparency in that report card, detailing some of those sorts of things. As for the rumors you cited, you’re likely correct (there’s a reason yours is the only dedicated rumor site I have in my RSS feeds these days ;) ), though I’m not invested enough in this topic to research it myself.

          • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

            Far as I’m concerned, a “90%-right” rumor is about as desirable as a swimming pool that contains 10% piss. Neither provides me what I need.

          • http://twitter.com/WildCowboy Eric Slivka

            You can have 100%-right rumors if you like…just stick to Apple PR and Jim’s “Yep/Nope” posts.

            But some of us like to push the envelope a bit further to try to get a glimpse of the future, and the rumor mill actually does a pretty darn good job of digging out Apple’s plans.

            Take this iLounge post:

            http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/new-details-on-apples-next-iphone-ipods-ipad-mini-ipad-4th-gen-cases/

            It’s not 100% right (no iPhone cases from Apple, and they did actually update the iPod nano), but it gave a pretty darn good idea of Apple’s plans for the fall, way back in July.

            Of course, Shawn gave this one his vaunted “zero chance” rating:

            http://stupidapplerumors.com/new-details-apple’s-next-iphone-ipods-ipad-mini-ipad-4th-gen-cases

            And I’m sure he’d mark this one as wrong because it wasn’t 100% right. iLounge is actually pretty darn good with its original rumors.

          • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

            Brag all you like, but you’re not pushing any envelopes. You’re just gossiping. And in the process, you’re not only making purchasing decisions more difficult for people who can’t discern gossip from fact… you’re helping perpetuate expectations for products that we’ll never see. No, thanks.

            I can wait for genuine news that has reliable sources. Rumors are for idle middle-schoolers.

          • http://twitter.com/WildCowboy Eric Slivka

            No bragging intended. I simply meant that there are plenty of people who are interested in keeping up with and discussing Apple’s possible future without waiting for the official word to come down.

            Clearly rumors aren’t your cup of tea, and that’s cool. Nobody’s forcing you to read ‘em.

            And we’ll have to agree to disagree about their usefulness. Certainly some unreasonable expectations crop up from time to time, but for the most part when taken as a whole the rumors are pretty decent. They provide for good discussion and in many cases do help customers (sorry, idle middle-schoolers) be more informed.