May 16, 2012, 1:57 PM — !>
Image via TIME.com/Techland.
Your dad’s Wall Street Journal was the sheet that aimed to tell you everything you needed to know that morning to face the many-headed, irrational beast known as The Market. Your Wall Street Journal? It wants to have the very best sourcing on what your next iPhone is going to look like, and it usually succeeds.
This week’s Rumor Roundup has not one, but two significant Wall Street Journal hints and allegations, about the iPhone and the purported next wave of Android tablets. Meanwhile, Harry McCracken at TIME looks at the flip side of the coin: the frequently linked, and often horrendously wrong, site known as Digitimes.
Oh, and Chrome might be coming to iOS. Which would be weird, and seemingly unlikely.
The next iPhone is at least a half-inch bigger (diagonally)
Source: WSJ.com, citing “people familiar with the matter.”
Details: The iPhone 4S, like the iPhone 4, is 3.5 inches diagonally, across its screen. The next iPhone is rumored to be at least 4 inches diagonal. Rumors of lower prices and other changes, though, are likely untrue, according to WSJ’s sources.
Likelihood: Hard to tell. The Journal is sticking its neck out on this one, as it’s been the most frequent year-to-year rumor, and, obviously, shot down every time. But one gets the sense that the phone market in general is heading toward a slightly larger screen--not Samsung size, but a bit bigger than the current iPhone. Side note: I wish I knew a bunch of designers who worked on jean pockets, just to weigh in on this.
Get excited?: A bit more room inside that crisp Retina display is something most iPhone owners would want, minus the set that really like the way it fits into their pocket. Exciting to see the WSJ really get out there on a rumor, though.
How wrong can one tech rumor site be?
This isn’t the usual rumor-review template; I’m just going to point you to “Fact-Checking Digitimes, the Taiwanese Apple Rumor Source That Keeps Crying ‘Wolf!’” at TIME.com, and tell you to read it (or Instapaper it, or Pocket it, or whatever you normally do with longer texts). It is one of those blow-by-blow debunkings of an oft-cited source that—like certain Monty Python skits or, to a lesser extent, Family Guy routines—gets funnier as the joke just pounds and pounds on you, until you relent and laugh.