Rumors sites' sources not what they're rumored to be?

[jeb1138]

MacWhispers (http://www.macwhispers.com), which at first glance seems to be a newcomer to the rumor arena (its 'archives' only go back to November of last year with 2 articles in November and 5 in December) claims in a recent "Exposed" article (http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/0000011.html) to be the Mac Daddy () of Apple rumors. A quote:

We have previously given our information to existing, well-known rumor sites, and they have published our conclusions... but often "massaged" them in a way that lessened their accuracy. You have certainly read many stories on these other sites that were, in reality, based upon our information. We recently decided to publish our information on our own site...
...
We wouldn't doubt we have much better data to work from (as our data comes from paying customers with these many companies) than any of the other folks in the pure Mac rumor site business.

They also claim that rumors sites that say they have insider information from sources inside Apple are lying.

This is the holy grail of the rumor business: having someone send an email or give a telephone call and just hand over perfectly credible inside information about Apple workings. The reality is that this simply does not happen. Ever. And, while some well-known rumor sites gently (or blatantly) make claims of having "insider" sources at Apple, again, that just doesn't happen.

Is this the truth? I guess "never say never" doesn't apply to macwhispers...? For example, fryke's site (http://mac.fryke.com) recently started an article saying:

Sources close to the PowerBook development team at Apple..."

I always took something like this to mean sources (close to the team) inside Apple. I guess I was reading it wrong and "close to" means manufacturing suppliers &etc...?

So is this just a publicity stunt by MacWhispers (death to them if it is!) or is this the straight story? Fryke? Anybody got any inside information on the subject?

[boi]

basically this new rumors site is saying "our rumors are right, theirs are wrong".

i'd take that with a grain of salt.

anyway, here's the pattern i see:
typically price changes, hardware changes, etc. are fairly accurate. new products, however, are kept a little better over at apple. afaik, nothing huge has been predicted in the past 3 or so years. not the ipod, not the new imac, not the new 12"/17" pb line, not the emac, not the bluetooth integration, etc.
however, rumor sites can make educated guesses, like 'a flat panel imac', 'a digital device', and the sort. just like with horoscopes, the broader the prediction, the more 'accurate' it is.

anyway, just use your head when it comes to rumors. i'm really debating selling my 17" apple LCD because of the rumors of a new widescreen model that swivels. i'd save a lot of money that way (selling now as opposed to after the new, $200 cheaper model comes out, if it comes out), but i'm not going to sell it because macwhispers has info from 'OEM sources'.

[Ms. V]

Rumor sites can be tough sometimes.


They can be completely off (iWalk ) or they can be right on the mark (Macrumors last-minute report on the 12" and 17" Powerbooks) the only real way to tell if they're credible or not is to wait.

This looks like more of a publicity stunt than anything, none of they're other reports seem out of line with just about every other rumors site out there so I'd be skeptical of this claim.

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by Ms. V
Rumor sites can be tough sometimes.
They can be completely off (iWalk ) or they can be right on the mark (Macrumors last-minute report on the 12" and 17" Powerbooks) the only real way to tell if they're credible or not is to wait.

True, but one of the questions that pops into my head from reading this article is: Are the rumor sites "gently" and/or "blatantly" lying to us, as macwhispers claims?

[Ms. V]

Originally posted by jeb1138
True, but one of the questions that pops into my head from reading this article is: Are the rumor sites "gently" and/or "blatantly" lying to us, as macwhispers claims?

I don't think they're lying at all, unless they pass off one of their stories as 'truth' (again, iWalk ) and it doesn't come true, the way rumor sites work is (at least the one I frequent) someone submits a story and the admin decides if it's front page worthy and opens up discussion about it.

For a rumor site to claim that one of their stories is truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is suicide.

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by Ms. V
I don't think they're lying at all, unless they pass off one of their stories as 'truth' (again, iWalk ) and it doesn't come true, the way rumor sites work is (at least the one I frequent) someone submits a story and the admin decides if it's front page worthy and opens up discussion about it.

For a rumor site to claim that one of their stories is truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is suicide.

Yes, but macwhispers isn't saying that rumor sites often have bad track records (everybody knows that! ) -- what macwhispers is claiming is that major rumor sites blatantly (or gently) lie about who and where their sources are.

I know that rumor sites' info needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- the rumor sites themselves usually say so. But this article by macwhispers is about rumor sites' sources and how their sources aren't what they say they are.

It's one thing for rumor sites to have a bad track record, it's completely another for rumor sites to be straight-out lying to their readers about where they get their info from. I don't know if that's true, but I'd like to hear what people here have to say about it.

[kendall]

i'll tell you straight up, rumor sites for the most part are full of sh*t!

once in awhile things get leaked and they get the scoop but most of what they are telling you are educated guesses. when enough people email them with the same educated guess, it becomes "insider info."

if they really had someone on the inside, we'd know a lot more than we do today, don't you think?

they're fun to read because its fun to dream but for the most part, they're all just hit and miss.