The story I believe you are talking about was from Gizmodo and they said he was very ill, not dying and that story actually turned to be right. Jobs went on sick leave not too long after that. ....
Gizmodo has a reputation not only for being wrong a lot of the time, but for just making stuff up wholesale as well. They are one of the least reliable sources of all and the most likely to print almost anything that comes their way.
The story you reference above about Steve Jobs' health is a prime example. It was published at the height of speculation about Steve Jobs' health, (the best time to cash in on web hits), and they not only said he was very ill, they implied that he was dying, and that everyone at Apple knew this. They stated categorically that he would *never* return to Apple. They made out like they had some inside information, but in the end they were completely wrong about almost everything.
John Gruber has called Brian Lam from Gizmodo a "hack," and he's right. Gizmodo has no real inside information and just prints whatever rumours that come their way without (apparently), any fact checking at all. Anyone can set up a blog and just repeat the rumours that people email them.
Worse, some of their stories seem to be just their own wild speculation (based on this same un-sourced and unchecked information), even though they are often presented as "factual."
Why would AppleInsider post a story without revealing the source of the information? They have no problem revealing the bullshit stories from the two financial morons that they always quote. Instead they claim the source mostly gets things right, which means all the other times their source of full of shit.
All this story will do is make the gullible people (almost all of them here) believe this fake story. Apple has never had a problem with the cameras in the iPhone, so it makes no sense to claim they can't get it to work in an iPod Touch, especially days before the release date.
The story may or may not make sense. But journalism (whether as a producer or as a consumer of it) works this way: As a reporter, when you can you attribute your stories, and as a reader you value the information depending upon the credibility of the identified source. As a reporter, if you have a source who's proven reliable in the past but refuses to be quoted, you may choose to publish the story, specifying for the reader's benefit the past reliability of that source, and as a reader, you value the information depending upon the credibility of the news source, rather than of the source himself/herself. That's pretty standard. Your response doesn't acknowledge that--and has been pointed out by others, is unduly hostile, town-meeting kind of static obscuring the discussion.
Yeah, ask Dan Rather about quoting anonymous sources. Or ask Engadget. Or ask all those sites that said Steve Jobs was dying and wouldn't live more than a few more months. Or the anonymous source who said the original iPhone was going to be delayed. Or a million other "anonymous source" stories on the internet that have been total BS.
We should always apply our best critical skills when we read. That doesn't mean every piece of info from an anonymous source is untrue. What about the other "anonymous source" stories that haven't turned out to be BS? Are you old enough to remember events as the watergate scandal unfolded? each story was sourced anonymously ("deep throat") and attacked by critics as nothing but lies--and each story proved to be true. The history of journalism is littered (decorated?) with such events. I agree with your advocacy of skepticism, I just think you've taken an all-or-nothing position on a topic that's more nuanced than that.
AppleInsider? THIS story is a waste of your time. Let along mine and ALL the readers of this site. Which I have to rethink coming too. But on a holiday, anything to get hits I imagine. Pathetic reporting.
Hmmm... A post count of one. Your absence will be heartbreaking, but we'll struggle on somehow.
Aww come on. surely you understand the Apple strategy. The need it now pro-sumer attitude has kept companies intact for decades. So what if the silly camera don't work. Go take a cold shower. I know that the engineers at Apple have been pushed to the limit and beyond.There's a lot of head shaking going on on campus.
...This story reads like a, I want as many hits on my website as possible story....AppleInsider? THIS story is a waste of your time. Let along (sic) mine and ALL the readers of this site...on a holiday, anything to get hits I imagine. Pathetic reporting.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose you publish a blog about things Apple. Suppose you have the highest of standards and principles. Suppose your desire, above all else, is to give your readers the very best information and insights possible into things Apple. (I'm not saying AI is all that, i'm just asking you to flow with this hypothetical).
Now, suppose you hear from a source who has on, let's say, 3 occasions in the past, given you information that you did not publish, but which to even your surprise, proved to be spot on. Suppose the source hasn't been wrong yet.
So you get this information about the camera problems. Do you say nothing about it? Do you publish it as fact? Based on the source's past accuracy with you, do you report what he/she's said this time, while telling your readers of the track record? How would YOU handle it, if someone you believed had an inside line on apple news, came to you with this report, and if you were a writer/editor for a blog about things apple?
AppleInsider? THIS story is a waste of your time. Let along mine and ALL the readers of this site. Which I have to rethink coming too. But on a holiday, anything to get hits I imagine. Pathetic reporting.
Please don't speak for everyone on this site. Also, take your meds.
That is right guys, this is a rumors and forums site, everything is speculation until proven right. As to the camera, why isn't it possible to have a problem with the device? Every product ramp up runs into issues, Apple is not immune.
As to Touch delays let's hope not but let's not be surprised either.
Since we're being all snarky and rude and feeding the trolls in this thread, I'll join in too.
"the iPod maker has experienced technical problems (bad parts) with the cameras modules."
Apparently a lot of you commenting have failed basic reading comprehension. "Bad parts" means Apple's third-party supplier - the actual manufacturer of said parts, the one Apple buys the parts from - delivered a shipment of BAD, i.e. not functioning as they should, parts. Apple may have manufactured a whole bunch of new iPods and in final testing it turned up that something in the camera modules was not performing to spec. Perhaps Apple tests every X in 1000 units. A larger than expected percentage of them may have come up "bad" - which led to more testing of more units - which also came up "bad". Thus "technical problems (bad parts)". So Apple designed the product, prototyped the product using hand selected "good" parts, ramped up production with a massive order of bulk parts. In final quality checks, it turned out that some part was not performing as expected, i.e. "bad". Apple did nothing wrong. They got bit by a failure on the part of one of their suppliers. Why is that hard to understand?
This puts Apple in a tough spot. Do they ship a bunch of product with known defects (*cough* XBox 360 *cough*) and budget in fixing/replacing a whole bunch of them - thus tarnishing their image? Or do they delay shipping and fix the units before they go out?
I took my meds today. And, I never felt the need to post here before so I registered to respond. God forbid. I'm sure AppleInsider likes another registered user? But I'll be happy to delete my registration if this is the level of reporting we get.
The story is reported like Apple hasn't the ability to put a camera in an iPod. Rumor site or not. It's really a nothing story. And if it was not a holiday, this site normally wouldn't report something like this. But as long as any Apple story generates hits? By all means publish anything.
Since we're being all snarky and rude and feeding the trolls in this thread, I'll join in too.
"the iPod maker has experienced technical problems (bad parts) with the cameras modules."
Apparently a lot of you commenting have failed basic reading comprehension. "Bad parts" means Apple's third-party supplier - the actual manufacturer of said parts, the one Apple buys the parts from - delivered a shipment of BAD, i.e. not functioning as they should, parts. Apple may have manufactured a whole bunch of new iPods and in final testing it turned up that something in the camera modules was not performing to spec. Perhaps Apple tests every X in 1000 units. A larger than expected percentage of them may have come up "bad" - which led to more testing of more units - which also came up "bad". Thus "technical problems (bad parts)". So Apple designed the product, prototyped the product using hand selected "good" parts, ramped up production with a massive order of bulk parts. In final quality checks, it turned out that some part was not performing as expected, i.e. "bad". Apple did nothing wrong. They got bit by a failure on the part of one of their suppliers. Why is that hard to understand?
This puts Apple in a tough spot. Do they ship a bunch of product with known defects (*cough* XBox 360 *cough*) and budget in fixing/replacing a whole bunch of them - thus tarnishing their image? Or do they delay shipping and fix the units before they go out?
- Jasen.
Cough, Cough...
You mean like Snow Leapord? The 1,000's of posting on Apples website with problems with it. No worry, they're already working on 10.6.1, which should actually be the Golden Master.
They chose not to and it's caused havoc with users. Google OSX Snow Leapord Problems.
To announce that it'll be available a couple of weeks hence?
aside from the iphone, which has all sorts of FCC details and contract issues etc, have they ever announced an ipod that would be available 'in a couple of weeks'. I can't recall. at least not in the last couple of years.
Also, i rather doubt that they would have set the date for the big day if they didn't know they had the product in the bag. cause what if they said things would roll on Oct 1 but the problem was bigger than they thought., they look like chumps delaying the release.
Also, I have to agree with the folks giving the thumbs down. mainly because of the wording. it is one thing to have a source, it is another to 'protest too much' trying to convince us of said sources worth. "AppleInsider has received reports that" would have been enough in my opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard KKN
I also heard that Apple wanna focus on iPod Touch more, and iPod only keep the Nano series.
it does make sense. the Classic is only around for the capacity hogs. when you can have a nano or a touch with 60GB+ the Classic will be on the death march
Indeed. "experienced technical problems with the cameras months ago" - why would they announce an event months later if they hadn't fixed it?
Maybe there was a problem - remember the rumours that Apple bought loads of 5MP cameras? Maybe those cameras had the problems, so Apple used 3.2MP cameras in the iPhone 3GS and in the upcoming iPod Touch instead of the 5MP cameras.
it will just "slip" through QA just like the long list of other issues i read about
If any of you have paid attention, Apple always under-promises, and over-delivers. I doubt they would stretch their proverbial neck out to make a fuss over something when it's not ready.
You mean like Snow Leapord? The 1,000's of posting on Apples website with problems with it. No worry, they're already working on 10.6.1, which should actually be the Golden Master.
They chose not to and it's caused havoc with users. Google OSX Snow Leapord Problems.
there are not 1000s of postings. probably barely 1000.
I myself have done several installs for myself and friends and not one problem. and for every problem post I have seen, here and elsewhere, there have been 2-5 posts that everything worked perfectly.
as for the 10.6.1 comment, there is no way that Apple can test every one of the hundreds of possible configs to avoid all problems. anyone that has spent any time with computers knows this. so even if what will be 10.6.1 was the GM, there would be another half dozen issues for a point release. and i'm talking real issues, not HP didn't update the driver for that printer, Wacom didn't bother to update their tablet driver, so and so didn't test and update their software etc stuff that is outside of Apple's control.
I took my meds today. And, I never felt the need to post here before so I registered to respond. God forbid. I'm sure AppleInsider likes another registered user? But I'll be happy to delete my registration if this is the level of reporting we get.
You mean like Snow Leapord? The 1,000's of posting on Apples website with problems with it. No worry, they're already working on 10.6.1, which should actually be the Golden Master.
They chose not to and it's caused havoc with users. Google OSX Snow Leapord Problems.
Stop talking nonsense. Have you upgraded to SL? If not, shut up.
I upgraded four computers to SL at home today (three from Leopard, one from Tiger) and each one went flawlessly. I am blown away by how Apple has delivered.
PS: Btw, please take the trouble to do a spell-check on how the animal's name is spelled.
aside from the iphone, which has all sorts of FCC details and contract issues etc, have they ever announced an ipod that would be available 'in a couple of weeks'. I can't recall. at least not in the last couple of years.
Also, i rather doubt that they would have set the date for the big day .... blah blah...
Apple has said nothing about much of anything.
Everything about this event is our collective hyperventilation.
The story is reported like Apple hasn't the ability to put a camera in an iPod.
No, the story is reported like Apple got a batch of BAD PARTS - flawed, broken, not working like they should, B. A. D. - from a supplier. Apple's ready to launch a significant new product and the thing gets screwed up because of a supplier's error. That is a significant story.
Stop talking nonsense. Have you upgraded to SL? If not, shut up.
I upgraded four computers to SL at home today (three from Leopard, one from Tiger) and each one went flawlessly. I am blown away by how Apple has delivered.
PS: Btw, please take trouble to do a spell-check on how the animal's name is spelled.
No, we haven't. We are an advertising agency and 1 hour of down time for our printer means $2,000 per hour.
I can't afford to let the floor go as our printers are high speed HP's. Our High Res Cover Proofs are Epson with EFI Rips (none of which worked on the test Snow Job Mac).
We tested 1 mac and with our corporation being on Windows almost every factor failed IT testing.
Unlike the average gaming Apple user we use computer for profit. No email, no printers, sparadic network issues and the recalibrating to of all our screens and printers to match the new Gama that is stock in Leopard (to match Windows PC and the rest of our printers) are the few I can think of.
We are doing our 2010 revised budget and since 1/2 our Macs can't upgrade we're going with Windows across the board.
Are the artists upset? Yes. But it's that or be out of a job. The profit margin has taken a huge hit and we can buy 3 PC's for the price of a Mac Pro. We've done the testing with Adobe (all the software we use on the floor) and they will honor our Mac Licenses and swap them out with PC versions for free.
I was able to cut my budget by about 15%.
So Kindly shut your holier than thou attitude and try using Macs OS to make money.
Comments
The story I believe you are talking about was from Gizmodo and they said he was very ill, not dying and that story actually turned to be right. Jobs went on sick leave not too long after that. ....
Gizmodo has a reputation not only for being wrong a lot of the time, but for just making stuff up wholesale as well. They are one of the least reliable sources of all and the most likely to print almost anything that comes their way.
The story you reference above about Steve Jobs' health is a prime example. It was published at the height of speculation about Steve Jobs' health, (the best time to cash in on web hits), and they not only said he was very ill, they implied that he was dying, and that everyone at Apple knew this. They stated categorically that he would *never* return to Apple. They made out like they had some inside information, but in the end they were completely wrong about almost everything.
John Gruber has called Brian Lam from Gizmodo a "hack," and he's right. Gizmodo has no real inside information and just prints whatever rumours that come their way without (apparently), any fact checking at all. Anyone can set up a blog and just repeat the rumours that people email them.
Worse, some of their stories seem to be just their own wild speculation (based on this same un-sourced and unchecked information), even though they are often presented as "factual."
Why would AppleInsider post a story without revealing the source of the information? They have no problem revealing the bullshit stories from the two financial morons that they always quote. Instead they claim the source mostly gets things right, which means all the other times their source of full of shit.
All this story will do is make the gullible people (almost all of them here) believe this fake story. Apple has never had a problem with the cameras in the iPhone, so it makes no sense to claim they can't get it to work in an iPod Touch, especially days before the release date.
The story may or may not make sense. But journalism (whether as a producer or as a consumer of it) works this way: As a reporter, when you can you attribute your stories, and as a reader you value the information depending upon the credibility of the identified source. As a reporter, if you have a source who's proven reliable in the past but refuses to be quoted, you may choose to publish the story, specifying for the reader's benefit the past reliability of that source, and as a reader, you value the information depending upon the credibility of the news source, rather than of the source himself/herself. That's pretty standard. Your response doesn't acknowledge that--and has been pointed out by others, is unduly hostile, town-meeting kind of static obscuring the discussion.
Yeah, ask Dan Rather about quoting anonymous sources. Or ask Engadget. Or ask all those sites that said Steve Jobs was dying and wouldn't live more than a few more months. Or the anonymous source who said the original iPhone was going to be delayed. Or a million other "anonymous source" stories on the internet that have been total BS.
We should always apply our best critical skills when we read. That doesn't mean every piece of info from an anonymous source is untrue. What about the other "anonymous source" stories that haven't turned out to be BS? Are you old enough to remember events as the watergate scandal unfolded? each story was sourced anonymously ("deep throat") and attacked by critics as nothing but lies--and each story proved to be true. The history of journalism is littered (decorated?) with such events. I agree with your advocacy of skepticism, I just think you've taken an all-or-nothing position on a topic that's more nuanced than that.
AppleInsider? THIS story is a waste of your time. Let along mine and ALL the readers of this site. Which I have to rethink coming too. But on a holiday, anything to get hits I imagine. Pathetic reporting.
Hmmm... A post count of one. Your absence will be heartbreaking, but we'll struggle on somehow.
Ciao
...This story reads like a, I want as many hits on my website as possible story....AppleInsider? THIS story is a waste of your time. Let along (sic) mine and ALL the readers of this site...on a holiday, anything to get hits I imagine. Pathetic reporting.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose you publish a blog about things Apple. Suppose you have the highest of standards and principles. Suppose your desire, above all else, is to give your readers the very best information and insights possible into things Apple. (I'm not saying AI is all that, i'm just asking you to flow with this hypothetical).
Now, suppose you hear from a source who has on, let's say, 3 occasions in the past, given you information that you did not publish, but which to even your surprise, proved to be spot on. Suppose the source hasn't been wrong yet.
So you get this information about the camera problems. Do you say nothing about it? Do you publish it as fact? Based on the source's past accuracy with you, do you report what he/she's said this time, while telling your readers of the track record? How would YOU handle it, if someone you believed had an inside line on apple news, came to you with this report, and if you were a writer/editor for a blog about things apple?
AppleInsider? THIS story is a waste of your time. Let along mine and ALL the readers of this site. Which I have to rethink coming too. But on a holiday, anything to get hits I imagine. Pathetic reporting.
Please don't speak for everyone on this site. Also, take your meds.
As to Touch delays let's hope not but let's not be surprised either.
Dave
"the iPod maker has experienced technical problems (bad parts) with the cameras modules."
Apparently a lot of you commenting have failed basic reading comprehension. "Bad parts" means Apple's third-party supplier - the actual manufacturer of said parts, the one Apple buys the parts from - delivered a shipment of BAD, i.e. not functioning as they should, parts. Apple may have manufactured a whole bunch of new iPods and in final testing it turned up that something in the camera modules was not performing to spec. Perhaps Apple tests every X in 1000 units. A larger than expected percentage of them may have come up "bad" - which led to more testing of more units - which also came up "bad". Thus "technical problems (bad parts)". So Apple designed the product, prototyped the product using hand selected "good" parts, ramped up production with a massive order of bulk parts. In final quality checks, it turned out that some part was not performing as expected, i.e. "bad". Apple did nothing wrong. They got bit by a failure on the part of one of their suppliers. Why is that hard to understand?
This puts Apple in a tough spot. Do they ship a bunch of product with known defects (*cough* XBox 360 *cough*) and budget in fixing/replacing a whole bunch of them - thus tarnishing their image? Or do they delay shipping and fix the units before they go out?
- Jasen.
The story is reported like Apple hasn't the ability to put a camera in an iPod. Rumor site or not. It's really a nothing story. And if it was not a holiday, this site normally wouldn't report something like this. But as long as any Apple story generates hits? By all means publish anything.
Cio
Since we're being all snarky and rude and feeding the trolls in this thread, I'll join in too.
"the iPod maker has experienced technical problems (bad parts) with the cameras modules."
Apparently a lot of you commenting have failed basic reading comprehension. "Bad parts" means Apple's third-party supplier - the actual manufacturer of said parts, the one Apple buys the parts from - delivered a shipment of BAD, i.e. not functioning as they should, parts. Apple may have manufactured a whole bunch of new iPods and in final testing it turned up that something in the camera modules was not performing to spec. Perhaps Apple tests every X in 1000 units. A larger than expected percentage of them may have come up "bad" - which led to more testing of more units - which also came up "bad". Thus "technical problems (bad parts)". So Apple designed the product, prototyped the product using hand selected "good" parts, ramped up production with a massive order of bulk parts. In final quality checks, it turned out that some part was not performing as expected, i.e. "bad". Apple did nothing wrong. They got bit by a failure on the part of one of their suppliers. Why is that hard to understand?
This puts Apple in a tough spot. Do they ship a bunch of product with known defects (*cough* XBox 360 *cough*) and budget in fixing/replacing a whole bunch of them - thus tarnishing their image? Or do they delay shipping and fix the units before they go out?
- Jasen.
Cough, Cough...
You mean like Snow Leapord? The 1,000's of posting on Apples website with problems with it. No worry, they're already working on 10.6.1, which should actually be the Golden Master.
They chose not to and it's caused havoc with users. Google OSX Snow Leapord Problems.
To announce that it'll be available a couple of weeks hence?
aside from the iphone, which has all sorts of FCC details and contract issues etc, have they ever announced an ipod that would be available 'in a couple of weeks'. I can't recall. at least not in the last couple of years.
Also, i rather doubt that they would have set the date for the big day if they didn't know they had the product in the bag. cause what if they said things would roll on Oct 1 but the problem was bigger than they thought., they look like chumps delaying the release.
Also, I have to agree with the folks giving the thumbs down. mainly because of the wording. it is one thing to have a source, it is another to 'protest too much' trying to convince us of said sources worth. "AppleInsider has received reports that" would have been enough in my opinion
I also heard that Apple wanna focus on iPod Touch more, and iPod only keep the Nano series.
it does make sense. the Classic is only around for the capacity hogs. when you can have a nano or a touch with 60GB+ the Classic will be on the death march
Indeed. "experienced technical problems with the cameras months ago" - why would they announce an event months later if they hadn't fixed it?
Maybe there was a problem - remember the rumours that Apple bought loads of 5MP cameras? Maybe those cameras had the problems, so Apple used 3.2MP cameras in the iPhone 3GS and in the upcoming iPod Touch instead of the 5MP cameras.
it will just "slip" through QA just like the long list of other issues i read about
Cough, Cough...
You mean like Snow Leapord? The 1,000's of posting on Apples website with problems with it. No worry, they're already working on 10.6.1, which should actually be the Golden Master.
They chose not to and it's caused havoc with users. Google OSX Snow Leapord Problems.
there are not 1000s of postings. probably barely 1000.
I myself have done several installs for myself and friends and not one problem. and for every problem post I have seen, here and elsewhere, there have been 2-5 posts that everything worked perfectly.
as for the 10.6.1 comment, there is no way that Apple can test every one of the hundreds of possible configs to avoid all problems. anyone that has spent any time with computers knows this. so even if what will be 10.6.1 was the GM, there would be another half dozen issues for a point release. and i'm talking real issues, not HP didn't update the driver for that printer, Wacom didn't bother to update their tablet driver, so and so didn't test and update their software etc stuff that is outside of Apple's control.
I took my meds today. And, I never felt the need to post here before so I registered to respond. God forbid. I'm sure AppleInsider likes another registered user? But I'll be happy to delete my registration if this is the level of reporting we get.
Cio
Ciao to you too!
Cough, Cough...
You mean like Snow Leapord? The 1,000's of posting on Apples website with problems with it. No worry, they're already working on 10.6.1, which should actually be the Golden Master.
They chose not to and it's caused havoc with users. Google OSX Snow Leapord Problems.
Stop talking nonsense. Have you upgraded to SL? If not, shut up.
I upgraded four computers to SL at home today (three from Leopard, one from Tiger) and each one went flawlessly. I am blown away by how Apple has delivered.
PS: Btw, please take the trouble to do a spell-check on how the animal's name is spelled.
aside from the iphone, which has all sorts of FCC details and contract issues etc, have they ever announced an ipod that would be available 'in a couple of weeks'. I can't recall. at least not in the last couple of years.
Also, i rather doubt that they would have set the date for the big day .... blah blah...
Apple has said nothing about much of anything.
Everything about this event is our collective hyperventilation.
The story is reported like Apple hasn't the ability to put a camera in an iPod.
No, the story is reported like Apple got a batch of BAD PARTS - flawed, broken, not working like they should, B. A. D. - from a supplier. Apple's ready to launch a significant new product and the thing gets screwed up because of a supplier's error. That is a significant story.
- Jasen.
Stop talking nonsense. Have you upgraded to SL? If not, shut up.
I upgraded four computers to SL at home today (three from Leopard, one from Tiger) and each one went flawlessly. I am blown away by how Apple has delivered.
PS: Btw, please take trouble to do a spell-check on how the animal's name is spelled.
No, we haven't. We are an advertising agency and 1 hour of down time for our printer means $2,000 per hour.
I can't afford to let the floor go as our printers are high speed HP's. Our High Res Cover Proofs are Epson with EFI Rips (none of which worked on the test Snow Job Mac).
We tested 1 mac and with our corporation being on Windows almost every factor failed IT testing.
Unlike the average gaming Apple user we use computer for profit. No email, no printers, sparadic network issues and the recalibrating to of all our screens and printers to match the new Gama that is stock in Leopard (to match Windows PC and the rest of our printers) are the few I can think of.
We are doing our 2010 revised budget and since 1/2 our Macs can't upgrade we're going with Windows across the board.
Are the artists upset? Yes. But it's that or be out of a job. The profit margin has taken a huge hit and we can buy 3 PC's for the price of a Mac Pro. We've done the testing with Adobe (all the software we use on the floor) and they will honor our Mac Licenses and swap them out with PC versions for free.
I was able to cut my budget by about 15%.
So Kindly shut your holier than thou attitude and try using Macs OS to make money.
Until then Kindly GET OFF MY ASS YOU TROLL.