What’s that Digitimes? One stupid Apple rumour per day isn’t enough for you and you want to post another?

From the laughably titled Real iPad 3 reportedly to launch in 3Q12:

Apple’s new generation iPad will enter mass production soon with the launch set for March 2012, according to sources from the upstream supply chain; however, the sources revealed that internally Apple does not view the new iPad product as iPad 3, but rather an upgraded iPad 2 and the real iPad 3 will not be launched until the third quarter of 2012 at the earliest.

Remember when the iPad 2 showed up in March 2011, and then the iPad 3 showed up in September? No? That’s because it didn’t fucking happen! And I predict the same will be the case next year: there will be an iPad update, but we won’t get two. Oh, and this is a gem:

The iPad 2 upgrade will be thinner than iPad 2, and will offer longer battery life.

Yeah, because the one thing people love is having to replace all their accessories because the form-factor of their expensive iOS device changes every six months.

*87 headdesks*

See, this is the problem with sites that depend on eyeballs rather than sites that just happen to quite like eyeballs. The former needs HITS HITS HITS and churns out any old article that, too often, ends up with a quality level akin to a cunning anagram of the capitalised text earlier in this sentence. A case in point: MacRumors. Now, I sometimes like MacRumors, and I earlier today linked to a great piece on OS X sandboxing. So how is this followed up? With a load of unsubstantiated crap, based on claims by ‘sources’ that spoke to Digitimes—presumably, the same kind of ‘sources’ that have been so stunningly accurate about everything Apple in recent years.

To be fair to MacRumors, the site’s reason for existence is in its name, but, just once, I wish one of these sites would start pushing out informative, interesting analysis, rather than reporting any old crap that comes their way and misinterpreting it. From the latest post:

Digitimes claims that Apple is going to “completely overhaul” its product lineups in 2012. The site specifically lists the iPad, iMac, iPhone and MacBook Air lines.

MacRumors then quotes the following from the original Digitimes report:

Apple plans to completely overhaul its product lineups, including iPad, iMac, iPhone and MacBook Air, in 2012 and is expected to finalize order volumes for key parts and components for the next-generation iPad in December, according to sources in the upstream supply chain.

And comes to the following conclusion:

We interpret the report to mean new designs for the listed product lines.

I interpret things slightly differently: Digitimes, which far too often just flings bullshit guesswork about Apple on to the internet, has just flung some bullshit guesswork on to the internet. Maybe Apple will or won’t redesign some of its products next year, but unless you’ve got some solid, hard facts, please just stop reporting on rumours that have no substance.

Mashable:

After nearly exiting the PC business, then changing its mind last week, Hewlett-Packard has proved it’s still interested in capturing a piece of the tablet market with the launch of Windows 7-based Slate 2.

I’d actually forgotten there’d been a Slate 1.

The device sports an 8.9-inch capacitive multi-touch screen, an Intel Atom Z670 CPU, 32 GB of storage space and a 3-megapixel back camera, as well as a front-facing VGA camera for video calls.

If all of this sounds familiar, you’re right: the device is just a slight upgrade of the business-oriented Slate 500 which launched in October 2011, with the addition of HP’s Swype technology for easier text entry.

And I’ve never heard of the Slate 500.

The HP Slate 2 starts at $699 and is expected to be available worldwide later this month.

Lucky that’s not $100 more than the 32 GB iPad 2, or HP’s pricing might look a bit daft. *checks US Apple Store* Oh.

Arnold Kim has written a great article for MacRumors about the upcoming sandboxing restrictions on OS X. I admit to not really thinking about this a great deal, but it’s clear Apple’s new approach could be a very big problem for any Mac user who uses anything beyond pretty basic apps:

Examples of Mac Apps that will be affected include iTunes controllers (Tagalicious, CoverSutra), inter-app communication (Fantastical), apps that browse the file system (Transmit), system-wide keyboard shortcut utilities (TextExpander), file syncing, and backups utilities.

From what I’d heard in the past, apps that require ‘deep’ system access and hacks were most at threat, but it’s clear that such access and hacks are actually pretty commonplace. For example, if apps that browse the file system (beyond, I suspect, Open/Save dialogs) are at threat from being booted out of the Mac App Store, that’s practically every app related to web design.

Jason Snell commented for Macworld about the plans:

Not only does this approach risk turning the Mac App Store into a wasteland of arcade games and one-trick-pony apps, it risks dumbing down the Mac app ecosystem as a whole.

What’s clear is that Snell might have been being optimistic here, since many of the very best one-trick-pony apps are those that provide extra functionality to existing apps. A case in point: I Love Stars, which shows a rating for the currently playing iTunes track in the menu bar and enables you to amend it by clicking dots/stars. It’s pretty depressing to think that even apps like this might soon disappear.

Snell:

While developers can always opt out of the Mac App Store, they’re reluctant to do so.

There are good reasons for this. First, most Mac users never buy new software, but Apple is using the Mac App Store to change this, training users to buy apps in much the same way it did on iOS. But I suspect it’ll be increasingly rare for people to stray beyond the store, and so if your app isn’t included, you risk losing a lot of sales. Secondly, I still suspect the Mac App Store is only temporarily an optional means of installing Mac software. At some point, it’s going to become the only way, perhaps with OS X Whatever 10.8 Is Called, in 2013. If this all comes to pass, we really will have seen a lot of iOS come back to the Mac—perhaps a bit too much.

Note: I’d welcome any comments from developers on this article, not least if I’m misinterpreting how things might come to pass next year on OS X.

Jason Gilbert for Huff Post Tech Argle Wargle (a couple of those words might be wrong, but they somehow get the direction of the site across better) argues Google are huge idiot-faces for making a Gmail app for Apple’s iPhone, a phone that, note, is somewhat popular.

One of the biggest advantages of owning a Nintendo (or Super Nintendo, or N64) when I was growing up was Super Mario Brothers.

Ooh, ooh, let me guess: you’re going to make a half-arsed analogy about the advantages of device lock-in for goodies, despite, you know, Google generally (and, lately, sometimes failing to) advocate openness?

[argle wargle bargle…]

Checking your Gmail on an Android phone carries with it a similar sense of superiority. For all the disagreements between Fandroids and the Apple partisans, there should be no dispute that the native Gmail for any Android phone is far, far better than however you’re checking your Gmail on an iPhone. It is one of the great selling points of Android devices over iPhones: The ability to star conversations, the real-time push notifications, the feeling that the inbox was truly integrated to the phone. If you were only buying a smartphone to check Gmail and surf the web, you would be crazy not to get an Android phone that fit your specs.

Also: you’d be crazy. Anyway, Gilbert is surprised that Google might be able to unleash an iOS client.

Which is why it is so surprising that Google is apparently going to release a Gmail app for the iPhone.

See?

Why is Google doing this?

Why indeed? TELL US, GILBERT! WE NEED TO KNOW!

Why, after three and a half years of ignoring the App Store,

Ignoring, obviously, its 11 apps that are currently in the App Store…

and after surpassing iOS with their own mobile operating system,

With lots of low-cost devices made by manufacturers thinking that the 1990s and 2000s was a great time to build Windows PCs, because everyone made SO MUCH MONEY…

would Google relent and give up one of its great, tangible, unarguable advantages over Apple’s iPhone? You’re in a vicious, ugly, man-on-man tussle with Apple, trying to win over every customer you can to your operating system. Apple doesn’t have a weapon in this fight, and you’re going to let them borrow your knife?

It doesn’t compute.

Perhaps because Google is an advertising company and everything else it does is a means to an end? Or perhaps because Google’s board aren’t complete dicks and recognise that  because iOS is a massive market, Google can ultimately make more money by working with it as well as fighting against it?

Argle wargle fargle bargle.

Yes, well, that’s quite enough of that.

Update: Or perhaps Google really does hate iOS. Twitter dev Loren Brichter says on Twitter:

The Gmail app is a fucking web view. Even the list of messages. Why?

Personally, I blame Jason Gilbert.