iOS 17 rumored to get big updates to Wallet & Find My

It’s becoming increasingly clear that these rumor scores and reputation descriptions of track records of leak and rumor makers is entirely an act of whimsy. 

AppleZulu said:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that these rumor scores and reputation descriptions of track records of leak and rumor makers is entirely an act of whimsy. 

Um … are you sure you understand what a “rumor” is? Literally it is an unsubstantiated report with no way to confirm it. Mark like all the other reporters is speculating based on unreliable reports from possibly-accurate, possibly-not sources, alongside his own experience with what Apple tends to do.

Sites like AppleInsider would be glad to drop rumor reporting entirely, precisely because it is unreliable and prone to flip-flops, but readers on this and the other Apple sites demand that rumors be covered. The best a site can do is try to put a “warning label” on how likely they think something is.

If you’re just now waking up to the fact that even frequently-correct-in-the-end rumor mongers like Gurman and Ming-Chi Kuo often flip=flop because new sources contradict the old ones, thus forcing them to rewrite their predictions sometimes as much as a full 180 degrees, you really haven’t been paying attention to the rumor “market.” This happens all the time, in predictable yearly cycles.

Apple tries to keep a tight lid on this stuff, creating a vacuum for information, and that leads to dodgy sourcing. Most rumors are just educated guesses about where Apple will go next, not soon-to-be-fired factory workers blabbing about Apple’s actual process and plans. I’m sorry if you did not know that, but again — if readers didn’t demand this coverage, and prove it over and over again by driving hits and clicks here and YouTube and other sites and pretty much everywhere, most of these sites would largely avoid reporting on unverified stuff like this.

chasm said:

AppleZulu said:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that these rumor scores and reputation descriptions of track records of leak and rumor makers is entirely an act of whimsy. 

Um … are you sure you understand what a “rumor” is? Literally it is an unsubstantiated report with no way to confirm it. Mark like all the other reporters is <em>speculating</em> based on unreliable reports from possibly-accurate, possibly-not sources.’’

Sites like AppleInsider would be glad to drop rumor reporting entirely precisely because it is unreliable and prone to flip-flops, but readers on this and the other Apple sites demand that rumors be covered. The best a site can do is try to put a “warning label” on how likely they think something is.

If you’re just now waking up to the fact that even often-correct-in-the-end rumor mongers like Gurman and Ming-Chi Kuo often flip=flop because new sources contradict the old ones, thus forcing them to rewrite their predictions sometimes as much as a full 180 degrees, you really haven’t been paying attention to the rumor “market.”

Apple tries to keep a tight lid on this stuff, creating a vacuum for information, and that leads to dodgy sourcing. Most rumors are just educated guesses about where Apple will go next, not soon-to-be-fired factory workers blabbing about Apple’s actual process and plans. I’m sorry if you did not know that, but again — if readers didn’t demand this coverage, and prove it over and over again by driving hits and clicks here and YouTube and other sites and pretty much everywhere, most of these sites would largely avoid reporting on unverified stuff like this.

I get what a rumor site is, but thanks for the vaguely condescending primer. 

What I don’t get is the practice of lauding some of these prognosticators for having fantastic track records when there’s clearly no quantitative criteria for making the claim. It’s especially ridiculous lauding the track record of someone who is literally contradicting something they said just six days ago. It’s even more hilarious that the contradiction comes in an article that notes the change from prior predictions using language that implies it’s unnamed others who are being corrected, rather than the guy with the great track record contradicting himself. 

In politics, there’s spin, like describing the flop-sweaty Richard Nixon in the famous televised debate with Kennedy as ‘more genuine, a real candidate who sweats the important stuff.’ Then there’s just lying, like claiming Nixon wasn’t sweaty, and that it was Kennedy who looked like a drippy wet mess. 

Praising Gurman’s track record in an article that neglects to mention that it’s his own very recent self that he’s contradicting is more like the second thing than the first. 

chasm said:

AppleZulu said:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that these rumor scores and reputation descriptions of track records of leak and rumor makers is entirely an act of whimsy. 

Um … are you sure you understand what a “rumor” is? Literally it is an unsubstantiated report with no way to confirm it. Mark like all the other reporters is speculating based on unreliable reports from possibly-accurate, possibly-not sources, alongside his own experience with what Apple tends to do.

Sites like AppleInsider would be glad to drop rumor reporting entirely, precisely because it is unreliable and prone to flip-flops, but readers on this and the other Apple sites demand that rumors be covered. The best a site can do is try to put a “warning label” on how likely they think something is.

If you’re just now waking up to the fact that even frequently-correct-in-the-end rumor mongers like Gurman and Ming-Chi Kuo often flip=flop because new sources contradict the old ones, thus forcing them to rewrite their predictions sometimes as much as a full 180 degrees, you really haven’t been paying attention to the rumor “market.” This happens all the time, in predictable yearly cycles.

Apple tries to keep a tight lid on this stuff, creating a vacuum for information, and that leads to dodgy sourcing. Most rumors are just educated guesses about where Apple will go next, not soon-to-be-fired factory workers blabbing about Apple’s actual process and plans. I’m sorry if you did not know that, but again — if readers didn’t demand this coverage, and prove it over and over again by driving hits and clicks here and YouTube and other sites and pretty much everywhere, most of these sites would largely avoid reporting on unverified stuff like this.

Wow, so condescending and missing the point completely. AppleZulu wasn’t complaining about the rumours themselves or the fact they weren’t accurate. They were highlighting issues with the rumour rating system and the fact the article didn’t mention Gurman was changing his own prediction. Many of the things you mentioned about how the rumour mill works are the very issues AppleZulu was pointing out were not being addressed well in the article. 

Wallet tabs, please. Or some other way to organize everything more logically than a big pile.