Apple for the day

Jared Newman has a Time article about Apple rumors:

Thanks to Chris Rawson at TUAW, we now have a thorough body of evidence to prove that the majority of Apple rumors shouldn’t be trusted.
Rawson, apparently at the provocation of 9to5Mac editor Mark Gurman, combed through every 9to5Mac rumor post from 2013 to determine how many were accurate:
The tl;dr summary of 9to5 Mac’s 2013 track record:

73 rumor articles turned out to be true, and 30 of those were derived from their original sources 91 rumor articles turned out to be either partially or entirely inaccurate, or else completely unverifiable That gives them an overall accuracy record of just under 45 percent. You’d do better by flipping a coin.

Although Rawson was settling a quarrel with 9to5Mac, there’s no need to pick on that particular publication. The practice of regurgitating rumors without skepticism from industry analysts, “supply chain sources”, and the notoriously inaccurate DigiTimes is far too common among tech blogs. (To 9to5Mac’s credit, the site contributed mightily to the number of accurate Apple rumors last year with its own original reporting, but drowned out its stellar track record with all the bogus stuff from other sources.)
Here at Time Tech, we like to occasionally remind you that Apple rumors can be pure nonsense, and treat most of them with skepticism. But we’re not infallible. For instance, I was too lenient on KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo because of his accurate track record in 2012. Rawson rightly shreds Kuo to pieces for a year full of crazy predictions. Kuo’s no longer looking much better than Peter Misek and Gene Munster, both of whom continue to get press despite a long history of being wrong.
So let this be a learning experience for us all as we head into 2014, a year that will surely bring even more inaccurate reporting about non-existent Apple products.

Rico says that Apple plays its cards pretty close to the chest, so it's no wonder people guess wrong...