The online store still sells the products. However, my local 7 stores (including a flagship) have exactly zero shelf space for them, and no product in-store.
So yes, we've done some research on the matter, and we continue to do so.
Also, despite there perhaps being stock in your local store, that doesn't change the fact that there is no more internal Airport basestation hardware division at Cupertino -- that link is also in the original post. We'll all see with time.
I just looked for stock of the 3TB Airport Time Capsule, typing in probably a dozen cities in areas across the US. Results show about a dozen stores for each search, and I found precisely one store that did not have the device in stock, available today. If you want one from the Southlake Town Square store in the Dallas area, you'll have to wait 48 hours. Or you could go to one of the other eleven stores in that area and pick one up now.
Your article, before you edited it, said "The AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule products are not currently being sold in Apple Retail stores." So you clearly didn't do much checking to make such an unequivocal claim. As for "the fact that there is no more internal Airport basestation hardware division," that claim comes from a single Bloomberg article from three weeks ago, which is based on info from anonymous sources. There does not appear to be any reporting independent of that article to corroborate the claim that there's no router division, or even what that might actually mean. Isn't that kind of a thin broth to use as a basis for repeated stories here claiming that Apple is actually discontinuing the product? Each such story here and in other places yields plenty of chatter, cursing of Tim Cook and predictions of the doom of Apple, but with no comment from Apple, and no independent reporting (or even additional reporting from Bloomberg), there is literally no basis to keep repeating the claim that Airport is being discontinued. Maybe in the grand scheme of things it's no big deal, but to keep repeating the assertion seems irresponsible to me.
We, like every other surviving Apple-oriented news site, have sources within Apple to talk about things like this, that we have to protect if we want to keep them. We check everything before putting "pen to paper" as it were, with our sources, as best as we can. It would have been a bigger headline and garnered more traffic to have been able to report "Nope, Airport lives!" but we didn't, and haven't, reported that, have we?
Bloomberg isn't the be-all, end-all. Apple's not going to comment on the matter, until they just make it go away.
Look, I have been heavily invested in Airport since the first one. I'm waging a router war with my neighbors in a densely settled neighborhood, and I have so many base stations and Expresses that you can probably see my network from space. It's not a well-supported product. It's not been updated since June 2013, and there are better technologies to include, that Apple has just decided not to.
I don't want the tech to go away, but besides Bloomberg, and our own work, the writing is very clearly on the wall.
Wow. Some of you guys need to get off your high horse. Fake news? Really? You guys come to a rumour site and complain about getting "fake news". Rumours are based on speculation. If that is something that bothers you then here is some advice, stay away from rumour sites. I don't think we need the internet police crying about fake news here.
The facts remain "Apple re-assigned the router team" and to this point "Apple has not denied the end of life of these products even though it was heavily publicized that they are". Based on those two facts, my conclusion matches those of Appleinsider and every other publication. That is, Its highly probable that Apple is done with routers. You are free to believe what you want. If you need Apple to announce "we are done with routers" at one of their keynotes in order for you to believe it, then that's good for you.
The online store still sells the products. However, my local 7 stores (including a flagship) have exactly zero shelf space for them, and no product in-store.
So yes, we've done some research on the matter, and we continue to do so.
Also, despite there perhaps being stock in your local store, that doesn't change the fact that there is no more internal Airport basestation hardware division at Cupertino -- that link is also in the original post. We'll all see with time.
I just looked for stock of the 3TB Airport Time Capsule, typing in probably a dozen cities in areas across the US. Results show about a dozen stores for each search, and I found precisely one store that did not have the device in stock, available today. If you want one from the Southlake Town Square store in the Dallas area, you'll have to wait 48 hours. Or you could go to one of the other eleven stores in that area and pick one up now.
Your article, before you edited it, said "The AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule products are not currently being sold in Apple Retail stores." So you clearly didn't do much checking to make such an unequivocal claim. As for "the fact that there is no more internal Airport basestation hardware division," that claim comes from a single Bloomberg article from three weeks ago, which is based on info from anonymous sources. There does not appear to be any reporting independent of that article to corroborate the claim that there's no router division, or even what that might actually mean. Isn't that kind of a thin broth to use as a basis for repeated stories here claiming that Apple is actually discontinuing the product? Each such story here and in other places yields plenty of chatter, cursing of Tim Cook and predictions of the doom of Apple, but with no comment from Apple, and no independent reporting (or even additional reporting from Bloomberg), there is literally no basis to keep repeating the claim that Airport is being discontinued. Maybe in the grand scheme of things it's no big deal, but to keep repeating the assertion seems irresponsible to me.
We, like every other surviving Apple-oriented news site, have sources within Apple to talk about things like this, that we have to protect if we want to keep them. We check everything before putting "pen to paper" as it were, with our sources, as best as we can. It would have been a bigger headline and garnered more traffic to have been able to report "Nope, Airport lives!" but we didn't, and haven't, reported that, have we?
Bloomberg isn't the be-all, end-all. Apple's not going to comment on the matter, until they just make it go away.
Look, I have been heavily invested in Airport since the first one. I'm waging a router war with my neighbors in a densely settled neighborhood, and I have so many base stations and Expresses that you can probably see my network from space. It's not a well-supported product. It's not been updated since June 2013, and there are better technologies to include, that Apple has just decided not to.
I don't want the tech to go away, but besides Bloomberg, and our own work, the writing is very clearly on the wall.
Help me understand your work, then. The assertion that the devices are not available at retail is simply not true, but you wrote it. What's that about? The data online is pretty easy to search, and others here say they've personally put eyes on the things. Maybe your sources said they were going away next week or soon, but that's not what you wrote. You only linked to your own article from last spring saying they were being pulled, and even that article did not have follow-up to indicate that the devices were re-stocked. That gives the impression that they're gone and have been gone for months, which simply isn't true. Is that what you actually believed when this article was written, that they've been gone from stores since last spring?
With regards to the mystery router division, you also didn't even write in this most recent article that you inependently checked your info with your own anonymous sources at Apple. You just linked to writing that leads right back to Bloomberg. Also, in the process of not stating you have your own anonymous sources, you don't indicate the nature of those sources, whether 'highly placed' or 'some guy who works at the genius bar,' or even what specifically they have or haven't said about the subject. I don't know about everybody else, but in this age of rampant "fake news," I pay attention to how things are reported. Aside from your comment here way down in the weeds, I haven't seen anything reported on this subject that doesn't appear to exlcusively lead back to the one Bloomberg article. For me, one report based on unnamed sources is pretty weak. I know Bloomberg isn't the be-all, end-all. That's actually why I raised the issue. A couple of reports based on unnamed sources is better than one, but not much. Having little or no characterization of the placement of unnamed sources is also problematic. Reporting without indicating at all that you have independent sources seems even odder to me, though. Look, I have no doubt that you are an intelligent, decent, reasonable person. I have difficulty assessing the information you present, however, if you're not as forthright as you can be about where that information came from. I totally understand the concept of protecting sources, but the other side of that coin is telling your readers as much as you can. People are clearly making decisions based on this information, and it's incomplete.
Wow. Some of you guys need to get off your high horse. Fake news? Really? You guys come to a rumour site and complain about getting "fake news". Rumours are based on speculation. If that is something that bothers you then here is some advice, stay away from rumour sites. I don't think we need the internet police crying about fake news here.
The facts remain "Apple re-assigned the router team" and to this point "Apple has not denied the end of life of these products even though it was heavily publicized that they are". Based on those two facts, my conclusion matches those of Appleinsider and every other publication. That is, Its highly probable that Apple is done with routers. You are free to believe what you want. If you need Apple to announce "we are done with routers" at one of their keynotes in order for you to believe it, then that's good for you.
I expect speculation in the comments. I expect speculation in the articles, too, but maybe not speculation written as though it is fact. As far as Apple not denying rumors, it is clearly in their nature to mostly neither confirm nor deny rumors, rendering any given lack of a denial to have little meaning. I'm pretty sure that's their intent.
I totally understand the concept of protecting sources, but the other side of that coin is telling your readers as much as you can. People are clearly making decisions based on this information, and it's incomplete.
We strike a balance every day in what we say, and how we say it, to protect the sources. When I can quote somebody inside Apple, I do. When I can say generally where they work, I do. When I can say more about the data, I do, and we all I toe that line every day, in just about every piece.
Here's the thing, though. The information on the AirPort division and the future of the product is going to remain incomplete, until Apple outright declares it, one way or another. I'd like to write a blistering expose about the history and future of the Airport at Apple, and I've been trying to get somebody on the record about it, but nobody's really doling out any details beyond what we've got -- and that's telling.
You're assuming that we're holding back, or not telling you everything we can. We tell you everything we can, all the time. I agree that not having the data you want for verification on the reader's end is problematic, but we go to war with what we're confident we have. Plus, there's a difference between "fake news" and "news that isn't popular" and "news I don't agree with" though. We don't ever do the first.
In the interest of full disclosure, this evening I've called to re-check the stores that I generally rely on, the same ones as I had before. None of them have them on the shelves. Here's an important point of data, though -- if you ASK at three of the stores, you can get a 3TB Time Capsule, or the Airport Extreme base station, but that's it, and extremely limited stock.
AZ, if you want to continue this conversation in PM, I'm fine with that. I've said what I have to say in here on how the sausage is made. We do what we can, with what we have.
Most home owners would not expend the funds to acquire a top model Cisco router. The Apple equipment has worked well enough for years and was slightly more expensive than the bottom tier models. The sad removal of control over the devices and removal of features by changing software in the last three or four years is a big disappointment.
To correct an error in a prior post above about availability, these Airport products are still for sale at Apple stores both in the USA and the UK as I recently had orders filled in both countries in the last two weeks.
You don't need a "top-model" device. I've been futzing with my personal network for a while. Currently moving away from a Juniper system running four access points and two controllers (4x WLA532, 2x WLC2; total cost $400) to an Aerohive system running four access points (2x AP130, 1x AP230, 1x AP250; total cost $360). It's not dirt-cheap, but it's far more capable than high-end consumer gear.
Being that this is a rumour site. Some of us here really do appreciate hearing even the tiniest bit of info you can find, even if incomplete. We are all free to make our own conclusions from it and I would hate for that to stop just because a few people don't understand what a rumour site means.
I totally understand the concept of protecting sources, but the other side of that coin is telling your readers as much as you can. People are clearly making decisions based on this information, and it's incomplete.
We strike a balance every day in what we say, and how we say it, to protect the sources. When I can quote somebody inside Apple, I do. When I can say generally where they work, I do. When I can say more about the data, I do, and we all I toe that line every day, in just about every piece.
Here's the thing, though. The information on the AirPort division and the future of the product is going to remain incomplete, until Apple outright declares it, one way or another. I'd like to write a blistering expose about the history and future of the Airport at Apple, and I've been trying to get somebody on the record about it, but nobody's really doling out any details beyond what we've got -- and that's telling.
You're assuming that we're holding back, or not telling you everything we can. We tell you everything we can, all the time. I agree that not having the data you want for verification on the reader's end is problematic, but we go to war with what we're confident we have. Plus, there's a difference between "fake news" and "news that isn't popular" and "news I don't agree with" though. We don't ever do the first.
In the interest of full disclosure, this evening I've called to re-check the stores that I generally rely on, the same ones as I had before. None of them have them on the shelves. Here's an important point of data, though -- if you ASK at three of the stores, you can get a 3TB Time Capsule, or the Airport Extreme base station, but that's it, and extremely limited stock.
AZ, if you want to continue this conversation in PM, I'm fine with that. I've said what I have to say in here on how the sausage is made. We do what we can, with what we have.
I totally understand the concept of protecting sources, but the other side of that coin is telling your readers as much as you can. People are clearly making decisions based on this information, and it's incomplete.
Here's the thing, though. The information on the AirPort division and the future of the product is going to remain incomplete, until Apple outright declares it, one way or another. I'd like to write a blistering expose about the history and future of the Airport at Apple, and I've been trying to get somebody on the record about it, but nobody's really doling out any details beyond what we've got -- and that's telling.
I'm not sure Apple's silence on a rumor is "telling" as you suggest. Apple is historically and notoriously tight-lipped. Their silence on this rumor is no difference than silence on a thousand other rumors over the years. That silence in and of itself is not telling of anything.
First thing I did when I got my r7000 router, years ago is install dd-wrt software for all the extra features. Just tested and it's working fine, no vulnerabilities.
DD-WRT is indeed proof against the attack, but that install is beyond what most users are willing to do.
I tried DD-WRT on an old LinkSys (I think it was LinkSys), but I still had problems, still had to reboot about once per month. Once I went to the AirPort Extreme, no problems at all. Haven't had reboot problems for the last two years, when I switched. I am not looking forward to Apple's exit from routers.
Wow. Some of you guys need to get off your high horse. Fake news? Really? You guys come to a rumour site and complain about getting "fake news". Rumours are based on speculation. If that is something that bothers you then here is some advice, stay away from rumour sites. I don't think we need the internet police crying about fake news here.
The facts remain "Apple re-assigned the router team" and to this point "Apple has not denied the end of life of these products even though it was heavily publicized that they are". Based on those two facts, my conclusion matches those of Appleinsider and every other publication. That is, Its highly probable that Apple is done with routers. You are free to believe what you want. If you need Apple to announce "we are done with routers" at one of their keynotes in order for you to believe it, then that's good for you.
I expect speculation in the comments. I expect speculation in the articles, too, but maybe not speculation written as though it is fact. As far as Apple not denying rumors, it is clearly in their nature to mostly neither confirm nor deny rumors, rendering any given lack of a denial to have little meaning. I'm pretty sure that's their intent.
Please keep in mind, Neil our EIC, worked with dead trees at The Sun in Florida; a paper that just won a Pulitzer. He has an honest-to-goodness degree in Journalism from a prestigious school. Mike is a veteran Apple reporter -- while you may see him as the "new guy" around these parts, he lead up the team at MacNN for years before they shut down (due to no fault of his own).
Even though we're a rumor site, we jump through a lot of
traditional journalistic hoops because we want to make sure what we're
saying is factually accurate. Doesn't mean we're immune from a screw-up
or error every now and again, but we work very hard to ensure that what
we post is as factual as possible, given the nature of the rumor mill.
We want people to know that if they read something on AI we stand behind it. If we make an error, yeah please point it out, we will work to correct it.
I've been encouraging the editors to be more active on these forums, because I think the interaction is good for everyone, but please don't jump down the editor's throats and question their credentials. It makes it my job of encouraging them to interact very difficult. We want positive change 'round these parts.
I'm not sure Apple's silence on a rumor is "telling" as you suggest. Apple is historically and notoriously tight-lipped. Their silence on this rumor is no difference than silence on a thousand other rumors over the years. That silence in and of itself is not telling of anything.
Apple as a corporation's silence isn't the telling part. The void from our regular sources to either say "nope, bogus" or "yeah, dead on" is the telling silence part that I was referring to.
I'm confident enough in what we've got to say that there is no stand-alone Airport Base Station division at Apple any more. What that portends for the future of wireless base stations at Apple is not quite clear.
I would hope no one considers trash like Netgear or DLink to replace an AirPort. Something higher end like Ubiquity would be more appropriate.
Oh my. I'm quite surprised someone on here actually knows their tech! You mean Apple can't do everything perfect, and right, and awesome!? WOW. That's thinking different!! Way to go WhireFalcon, I absolutely agree with you man. Ub, is good good stuff! - Although there have been a few exploits known on this platform. None on Airport that I can think of actually. Fuck you Apple if you really are killing off airport. It lacked features, but it was definitely secure. There was only one exploit I knew about on Airport, but had to already be in the LAN.
Apple seems to have a history of making something nice and then letting them die a slow death. To not have upgraded it since June 2012 seems to already say they can't be bothered.
I was looking into Mesh networking products the other day. I see that there are some highly regarded offerings. I understand the argument that Apple thinks they have nothing to offer relative to those players.
But I think those arguments are wrong.
Even if Apple can't add anything in terms of the product's technical spec sheet, they can add a highly credible claim that they will do their best to keep your local network secure. And when they pair that with TimeCapsule, they can make a highly credible claim to keep your data safe and secure.
Now... I'm NOT suggesting that Apple has zero security/reliability issues with their products. They aren't perfect.
But compared to alternative vendors who exist in the real world, there is no other company that I trust more (at least none that is in my price range, offering products that more or less "just work" for consumers, prosumers, and small businesses). There might occasionally be a company that offers a better product, but none that do it consistently year after year.
I really want Apple to figure out how to produce, update, and maintain more than just a small handful of products. I want a grown-up version of Apple. Some people misinterpret that to mean that I want Apple to become just like other big companies, but that's not it. I want Apple to become a grown-up version of itself -- to be the best it can be.
Apple's game isn't to produce a large variety of products. "A thousands No's for every Yes" is their motto. They aren't google, hyping up stuff then shelving it. If you want a large product portfolio you'll likely be eternally disappointed.
"A thousand No's for every Yes" does not mean that Apple must kill existing product lines (turning "yes" into "no") or cannot expand the number of product lines they support. It doesn't mean they can't grow. It just means they grow carefully, deliberately.
I'm not sure Apple's silence on a rumor is "telling" as you suggest. Apple is historically and notoriously tight-lipped. Their silence on this rumor is no difference than silence on a thousand other rumors over the years. That silence in and of itself is not telling of anything.
Apple as a corporation's silence isn't the telling part. The void from our regular sources to either say "nope, bogus" or "yeah, dead on" is the telling silence part that I was referring to.
I'm confident enough in what we've got to say that there is no stand-alone Airport Base Station division at Apple any more. What that portends for the future of wireless base stations at Apple is not quite clear.
See, if I were to speculate ('cause this a rumor site, right?), that sort of silence -if it means anything at all- might suggest that there is something else out there, some other product line or enhancement of existing products that addresses future networking needs in a different way and provides continuity for retiring the current devices. If some other thing is coming but not ready for primetime, it would mean neither of those answers you're looking for would be correct. If your sources tell you with their eyes "yeah, dead on," then they're telling customers (through you) to abandon ship and buy other companies' networking devices. That would be bad advice if there's something else in the pipeline. If they wink wink, nudge nudge a "nope, bogus," that would also be untrue, because there's something else in the pipeline.
Or it doesn't mean anything, and they're not talking because they're not talking.
I'm not sure Apple's silence on a rumor is "telling" as you suggest. Apple is historically and notoriously tight-lipped. Their silence on this rumor is no difference than silence on a thousand other rumors over the years. That silence in and of itself is not telling of anything.
Apple as a corporation's silence isn't the telling part. The void from our regular sources to either say "nope, bogus" or "yeah, dead on" is the telling silence part that I was referring to.
I'm confident enough in what we've got to say that there is no stand-alone Airport Base Station division at Apple any more. What that portends for the future of wireless base stations at Apple is not quite clear.
See, if I were to speculate ('cause this a rumor site, right?), that sort of silence -if it means anything at all- might suggest that there is something else out there, some other product line or enhancement of existing products that addresses future networking needs in a different way and provides continuity for retiring the current devices. If some other thing is coming but not ready for primetime, it would mean neither of those answers you're looking for would be correct. If your sources tell you with their eyes "yeah, dead on," then they're telling customers (through you) to abandon ship and buy other companies' networking devices. That would be bad advice if there's something else in the pipeline. If they wink wink, nudge nudge a "nope, bogus," that would also be untrue, because there's something else in the pipeline.
Or it doesn't mean anything, and they're not talking because they're not talking.
"What that portends for the future of wireless base stations at Apple is not quite clear."
The online store still sells the products. However, my local 7 stores (including a flagship) have exactly zero shelf space for them, and no product in-store.
So yes, we've done some research on the matter, and we continue to do so.
Also, despite there perhaps being stock in your local store, that doesn't change the fact that there is no more internal Airport basestation hardware division at Cupertino -- that link is also in the original post. We'll all see with time.
jSnively's tone is appropriate and defuses the situation. Yours is not and is highly defensive. That only feeds fuel to the fire.
A journalist would have simply done what he did. Accept that the fact checking done for the article was insufficient, that there is indeed stock at some apple stores (as opposed to imply some doubt on the matter) and print a retraction no one will read rather than double down on how awesome you did your job.
I don't want the tech to go away, but besides Bloomberg, and our own work, the writing is very clearly on the wall.
AI clearly believed the writing was very clearly on the wall for the mini.
Therefore, it comes as little surprise that sources, for whom AppleInsider holds the utmost respect, are now pointing towards the mini's impending demise. For it's according to those people that the miniature Mac will soon follow in the wake of its similarly-proportioned counterparts of years past: the PowerBook 2400, the PowerMac G4 Cube, and, most recently, the 12-inch PowerBook. Whether Apple will squeeze another revision from the mini, and how long it plans to allow existing models to linger, are both unclear. But as the extended Memorial Day break dawns upon us, the point being driven should be clear:
Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead.
One would have thought that AI writers would have learned not to be defensive about folks doubting that their inside sources and proclamations of the imminent demise of an Apple product would face skepticism given that nearly 10 years later another product AI claimed was dead, while currently somewhat neglected, is still being sold.
A little humility would go a long way in reducing the amount of crow that must be consumed if it turns out your sources are wrong.
. The facts remain "Apple re-assigned the router team"
This not a fact.
The fact is: "undisclosed inside sources at Apple report that the router team has been reassigned".
and to this point "Apple has not denied the end of life of these products even though it was heavily publicized that they are".
While this is a fact, my recollection is that Apple also did not deny the end of life for the mini that was equally heavily publicized. Maybe they did, if so then an AI editor or writer can point to that denial as supporting evidence that they are correct this time.
Based on those two "facts", my conclusion matches those of Appleinsider and every other publication. That is, Its highly probable that Apple is done with routers. You are free to believe what you want. If you need Apple to announce "we are done with routers" at one of their keynotes in order for you to believe it, then that's good for you.
I put facts in quotes for you.
Done with routers doesn't require an announcement. All it requires is that Apple stops selling them. They have not stopped selling either the Mac Mini nor the Airport Extreme at this time (not even in retail stores). Given the track record of AI for predicting the end of Apple product lines it is not incumbent on those who disbelieve these "facts" to provide justification for disbelief that the prediction has any validity.
Eventually these products (mini, airport) could go away just like eventually Apple might sell a TV. But that doesn't mean that these predictions were accurate if it happens years after the prediction. Otherwise you could say that the myriad predictions that Apple will go out of business are also inevitability true.
Comments
Look, I have been heavily invested in Airport since the first one. I'm waging a router war with my neighbors in a densely settled neighborhood, and I have so many base stations and Expresses that you can probably see my network from space. It's not a well-supported product. It's not been updated since June 2013, and there are better technologies to include, that Apple has just decided not to.
The facts remain "Apple re-assigned the router team" and to this point "Apple has not denied the end of life of these products even though it was heavily publicized that they are". Based on those two facts, my conclusion matches those of Appleinsider and every other publication. That is, Its highly probable that Apple is done with routers. You are free to believe what you want. If you need Apple to announce "we are done with routers" at one of their keynotes in order for you to believe it, then that's good for you.
With regards to the mystery router division, you also didn't even write in this most recent article that you inependently checked your info with your own anonymous sources at Apple. You just linked to writing that leads right back to Bloomberg. Also, in the process of not stating you have your own anonymous sources, you don't indicate the nature of those sources, whether 'highly placed' or 'some guy who works at the genius bar,' or even what specifically they have or haven't said about the subject. I don't know about everybody else, but in this age of rampant "fake news," I pay attention to how things are reported. Aside from your comment here way down in the weeds, I haven't seen anything reported on this subject that doesn't appear to exlcusively lead back to the one Bloomberg article. For me, one report based on unnamed sources is pretty weak. I know Bloomberg isn't the be-all, end-all. That's actually why I raised the issue. A couple of reports based on unnamed sources is better than one, but not much. Having little or no characterization of the placement of unnamed sources is also problematic. Reporting without indicating at all that you have independent sources seems even odder to me, though. Look, I have no doubt that you are an intelligent, decent, reasonable person. I have difficulty assessing the information you present, however, if you're not as forthright as you can be about where that information came from. I totally understand the concept of protecting sources, but the other side of that coin is telling your readers as much as you can. People are clearly making decisions based on this information, and it's incomplete.
Look through some pieces I've done.
AZ, if you want to continue this conversation in PM, I'm fine with that. I've said what I have to say in here on how the sausage is made. We do what we can, with what we have.
Being that this is a rumour site. Some of us here really do appreciate hearing even the tiniest bit of info you can find, even if incomplete. We are all free to make our own conclusions from it and I would hate for that to stop just because a few people don't understand what a rumour site means.
I'm not sure Apple's silence on a rumor is "telling" as you suggest. Apple is historically and notoriously tight-lipped. Their silence on this rumor is no difference than silence on a thousand other rumors over the years. That silence in and of itself is not telling of anything.
Even though we're a rumor site, we jump through a lot of traditional journalistic hoops because we want to make sure what we're saying is factually accurate. Doesn't mean we're immune from a screw-up or error every now and again, but we work very hard to ensure that what we post is as factual as possible, given the nature of the rumor mill. We want people to know that if they read something on AI we stand behind it. If we make an error, yeah please point it out, we will work to correct it.
I've been encouraging the editors to be more active on these forums, because I think the interaction is good for everyone, but please don't jump down the editor's throats and question their credentials. It makes it my job of encouraging them to interact very difficult. We want positive change 'round these parts.
I'm confident enough in what we've got to say that there is no stand-alone Airport Base Station division at Apple any more. What that portends for the future of wireless base stations at Apple is not quite clear.
Ecosystems that cannot grow, die.
Or it doesn't mean anything, and they're not talking because they're not talking.
A journalist would have simply done what he did. Accept that the fact checking done for the article was insufficient, that there is indeed stock at some apple stores (as opposed to imply some doubt on the matter) and print a retraction no one will read rather than double down on how awesome you did your job.
AI clearly believed the writing was very clearly on the wall for the mini.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/24/closing_the_book_on_apples_mac_mini.html
One would have thought that AI writers would have learned not to be defensive about folks doubting that their inside sources and proclamations of the imminent demise of an Apple product would face skepticism given that nearly 10 years later another product AI claimed was dead, while currently somewhat neglected, is still being sold.
A little humility would go a long way in reducing the amount of crow that must be consumed if it turns out your sources are wrong.
The fact is: "undisclosed inside sources at Apple report that the router team has been reassigned".
While this is a fact, my recollection is that Apple also did not deny the end of life for the mini that was equally heavily publicized. Maybe they did, if so then an AI editor or writer can point to that denial as supporting evidence that they are correct this time.
I put facts in quotes for you.
Done with routers doesn't require an announcement. All it requires is that Apple stops selling them. They have not stopped selling either the Mac Mini nor the Airport Extreme at this time (not even in retail stores). Given the track record of AI for predicting the end of Apple product lines it is not incumbent on those who disbelieve these "facts" to provide justification for disbelief that the prediction has any validity.
Eventually these products (mini, airport) could go away just like eventually Apple might sell a TV. But that doesn't mean that these predictions were accurate if it happens years after the prediction. Otherwise you could say that the myriad predictions that Apple will go out of business are also inevitability true.