Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Media It's funny.  Laugh.

Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time 170

Posted by timothy
from the blasphemous-rumours dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.' Some of the rumors are outrageous, and some came true. The list includes such treasures as the Apple-Nintendo merger, which the article calls 'utterly outlandish,' and the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC — described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.' There is also mention of the iPhone, which CNET says is 'an elaborate hoax dreamed up by Steve Jobs to keep journalists busy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:36PM (#17388432)

    Actually, the criticisms of this particular rumour were spot on. Apple would have to be insane to release Mac OS X for the PC.

    The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC. They just built new Macs around an Intel CPU. That's not the same thing as releasing Mac OS X for PCs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ArcherB (796902) *
      Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.
      • by jcr (53032)
        If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

        -jcr

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ArcherB (796902) *
          If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

          That would be true if Apple's primary target consumer was the business. Since Apple is targeting the home, all they need is a "good enough" office suite. Open Office should fit.
          • So long as MS were to make any effort to maintain compatibility, I might agree with you. Seeing that if Microsoft were to suspend Office development for the Mac, there is no reason to believe that they would then make any attempts to make the two office suites interoperable. Having a platform office suite isn't enough in today's day in age. It needs to be able to create documents that are readable by everyone.
            • by masdog (794316)
              For everything Microsoft tried to break, though, OpenOffice developers could, and probably would, reverse engineer or develop workarounds. Consider Microsoft's own handling of the .doc format. They tried to introduce quirks between different versions of Word that would force people to upgrade to the newest version.

              I believe Microsoft actually tried something like this once. Most OEM PCs, the ones you buy at Best Buy or Walmart anyway, would come with Microsoft Works. Works, for some unknown reason, w
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            <cough>iWork [apple.com]</cough>
            • by jcr (53032)
              Do you see a spreadsheet in iWork? Neither do I.

              -jcr

              • by Korin43 (881732)
                Spreadsheets are lame, like that guy in the suit. Geez, don't you know anything about hip teen culture??
              • by shawb (16347)
                Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is. But Pages does look a lot easier to make something look good or even professional than Word, which fights you every step of the way. Although the video [apple.com] on Apple's site makes it look like there is an over-reliance on templates, which means anything you do will look just like anything else done in pages.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ceoyoyo (59147)
            Open Office is a near impossible sell to Windows users. OO is pretty much the opposite of everything Mac users expect in their software -- it's big, slow and unpolished.
            • iWork is big too -- on my iMac, it apparently takes up 568.2MB. The problem with OpenOffice is mostly the "unpolished" part, I think.

              • by ceoyoyo (59147)
                That's tiny. Mine is about 2GB. But most of it is templates and examples. My copy of Aperture installs at well over 2GB but it's all tutorials and example files. Chuck all of that stuff and the app itself is about 25MB.

                Now, that doesn't mean it takes up any less space on the average user's drive, but it does mean that when you actually go to use the program it works like a 25MB program and not a 2GB one. Whereas OO is so slow it's behaving like it's full couple-hundred-megabyte bulk.

                I'd love a good alt
        • by Gordonjcp (186804)
          MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac

          Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.
          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by king-manic (409855)
            Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

            Actually the majority of the tools needed to do video/audio on a Mac have equivilents ont he PC. The Artistic types simply prefer the mac or need retraining to use a PC as efficiently. To them it's not worth it but there isn't a real reason for the difference, and hasn't been for some time. Some of the nice Max onyl tools do provide some reaso
            • by Mozk (844858)
              In my experience Macs have better color management than Windows environments, mostly due to Macs having a smaller set of hardware which it runs on. Switch the Mac's LCD with a CRT and it's even better. Perhaps color management isn't as important for audio work, but a lot of audio-related software is written for Mac OS, and it's sometimes difficult to find Windows equivalents that perform similarly. It took me a while to find something like Audio Hijack for Windows.

              Macs do have some deficiencies (inefficienc
          • by jcr (53032)
            if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference.

            Don't bet on it. I wish that were the case, but it's not.

            -jcr

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by krakelohm (830589)
        I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.
        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

          Well, I should have pointed out that I don't buy expensive Dell hardware either. I roll my own. Maybe I should have said "proprietary" hardware.
      • by Bastian (66383) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @01:53PM (#17389414)
        Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

        That's true, but it's only a tiny, tiny little part of the truth. The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

        Drivers
        Application support
        Microsoft's bundling deals with nearly every hardware manufacturer
        Microsoft already having a massive headstart on the PC market (essentially 100%)

        As well as an unknown number of other compatibility issues. For example, Apple includes lots of libraries that are heavily optimized for specific hardware, such as VecLib. Right now VecLib works with G3's, G4's, G5's, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo, and only certain chipsets for each of those CPUs. I have no idea if VecLib would work on a Pentium III or a Celeron. I do know that if it doesn't work, it will in turn break a whole lot of OS X applications, including a large number of the ones I've written.

        Also keep in mind that the first four issues all support each other. For example, Microsoft doesn't have to write drivers for every random piece of hardware that comes out for the PC market, because hardware manufacturers do that for them. For Apple to jumpstart OS X on the PC market, they would have to spend time and money getting a whole lot of hardware working, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of doing so is greater than all the money in Apple's coffers.

        So drivers alone most likely renders OS X for PCs as something that just can't possibly happen outside of Apple critics' wet dreams. Add all the other issues on top of that and it's easy to see why CNet pointed out that the idea is so silly that it's doubtful that Apple has ever even given a moment's serious consideration to the idea.
        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

          I don't know enough about Apple coding to comment about VecLib or any other required libraries, but I see no reason why a software emulation couldn't take over (other than performance) until specific drivers could be written and applied as hardware detection warranted.

          I neve
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Bastian (66383)
            Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

            No offense, but your counter-example is extremely naive.

            When new versions of Windows come out they include a compatibility layer that makes it possible to use drivers for older versions of Windows. Furthermore, lack of driver support isn't nearly as crippling for Windows bec
        • The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

          I would argue that Apple's chances of success are higher than you are estimating. BUT, I still agree with your conclusion that it might not be smart for Apple to do it. Let me explain.

          Basically, I think A

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rucs_hack (784150)
        that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

        Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.
        • by ArcherB (796902) *
          that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

          Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.


          It wouldn't be easy, but keep in mind that in the beginning, Apple was bigger than Microsoft. Compatibility
          • by rucs_hack (784150)
            I think they had the right idea too. Life would be so much easier if the pc didn't have so many possible variations in hardware.

            Alas, the real world doesn't work like that, or not since IBM released the pc spec they used for anyone to use.

            My only problem with apple is the cost of their machines, and that just because I'm not overloaded with cash. Otherwise I'd own all macs. As it is I have to use many pc's for cluster work.
      • Yeah, because Apple sure doesn't want people to buy their expensive hardware.
      • Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

        About 50% of the Apple advantage is the hardware and how it "just works". The majority of stability issues on a non malware/worm infested Windows Pc is due to poor drivers. Apple would be stupid to step into that mire.
      • by lseltzer (311306)
        That would be great for Mac users, but not so good for Apple. Remember one of the first things Steve Jobs did when he came back was to stop allowing 3rd parties to build Mac-compatible systems. He wants to control the hardware sale as well as the software.
    • by JimBobJoe (2758)
      The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC

      On this note, one of the more fascinating rumors that I remember hearing (a lot actually) during the late 1990s when Apple didn't have an oar to paddle with--was that Apple would build the next Mac OS around the NT kernal.

      In retrospect, I find it more plausible today that they would have/could have done that than I did then.
    • by kosmosik (654958)
      > The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't
      > release Mac OS X for the PC.

      Well that depends on definition of a PC. There are few:

      1. A PC is a Personal Computer which Macs always were. Just from the begining. With this definition Mac is and always was a PC.

      2. A PC as an Intel/x86 clone - well now Mac *is* an Intel PC and can run Windows and other PC OSes - so it is a PC. Therefore Apple released Mac OS X PCs.

      The point you was trying to make is that Apple makes Mac OS X for Apple-Branded-P
  • by sczimme (603413) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:37PM (#17388452)

    "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.'

    Or, you know, like a yo-yo.

    • by creimer (824291)
      If it was a yo-yo running another popular OS, the string would break and the user dead from a virus infection.
    • by M-G (44998)
      Yeah, but Jobs and Woz were probably both virgins at Apple's birth.
    • by dangitman (862676)
      A holy yo-yo, that is.

      Watch out, this could cause a schism with pastafarians and kibologists.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:37PM (#17388456)
    He didn't play a lot of games either.
  • And the list (Score:4, Informative)

    by JayTech (935793) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:40PM (#17388492)
    1. Apple to buy Nintendo 2. Mac OS for PC users 3. The return of Newton 4. Apple to buy BeOS 5. The secret OSX build 6. The Apple iPhone 7. iTunes as a record label 8. Widescreen Video iPod 9. 30TH anniversary Mac 10. Apple to buy Disney
    • 1. Apple to buy Nintendo
      2. Mac OS for PC users
      3. The return of Newton
      4. Apple to buy BeOS
      5. The secret OSX build
      6. The Apple iPhone
      7. iTunes as a record label
      8. Widescreen Video iPod
      9. 30TH anniversary Mac
      10. Apple to buy Disney
    • That was a big one [uakom.sk] for a while.

      Seems now the rumors have flipped [marketwatch.com] on that one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CrazyTalk (662055)
      When I saw the "30th anniversary Mac", I did some quick math - Mac came out in 1984, plus 30 years equals 2014 - it didn't make sense until I realized they meant the 30th anniversary of APPLE. In which case, the 30th anniversary computer should be a new version of the Apple ][ - now THAT would be cool. (OK technically the Apple 1, but that would be kind of silly)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Malfourmed (633699)
      The return of Newton

      The Newton will return ... as the iSaac!
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:41PM (#17388504)
    > CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.

    ...or toilet seat, yo-yo, and Windows server, for that matter.

    Which reminds me of an ancient Minbari textfile I found once.

    "We are Insanely Grey.
    We stand between the candle and the flame.
    The darkness and the light.
    The marketroid and the engineer.
    Between the Jobs and the Woz."

    • Wait, an ancient Minbari textfile in English? Shouldn't it be in Minbari, or am I missing something?
      • Re:Mixed Metaphor (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Knara (9377) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @01:29PM (#17389104)
        Though attempting to avoid spoilers for Babylon 5 may be outdated at this point, I'll just point out that if the term "ancient" means the standard Minbari "A thousand years ago when Valen came", then it's entirely possible that the text could be in English, given that Valen knew English (or, at least, Earth Standard).
  • iPhone (Score:3, Informative)

    by sgt.greywar (1039430) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:48PM (#17388618) Homepage Journal
    The iPhone meme is my favorite here. Despite the fact that Cisco owns the rights to iPhone and has for years even Slashdot has people who simply refuse to believe. I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks. Never will be either. Its just a Skype phone.
    • Caught up on names (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bastian (66383)
      The focus of the rumor is not the name iPhone, that's just the popular name for the rumor because Apple prefixes everything with a lowercase I. The point of the rumor is the idea that Apple might make a cell phone. It'd be essentially the same rumor whether it's called the iCell, the MacPhone, the PhoneBook Pro, or even if the phone were going to be called the iChat and Apple's instant messaging client were going to just be renamed Bonjour AV or something.
    • Too Literal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:58PM (#17388762)
      I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks.

      Yes we all know Cisco owns the 'iPhone" trademark.

      However it's just as obvious Apple CAN release a phone and name it something else. The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface. You are being way to literal in claiming that just because Cisco has released a phone apple cannot because one name in the vast universe of possible names is now taken...

      That said I'm only about 50% sure Apple will really release a phone, and it's not just a hoax as CNet is claiming. Personally I would like a more fully featured phone that could work on an MVNO network just as Virgin Mobile phones do today (no virgin mobile phone supports Bluetooth, for example), and also a phone that synchronized better with a computer and was more seamless to use as a data connection (something you cannot get with TMobile pay as you go plans even if the phone supports it). So there is a lot Apple could bring to a phone, I just don't know if they really want to enter that market.
      • Re:Too Literal (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @01:10PM (#17388890)
        I think with new Apple products, it comes down to this:

        If it's a gadget that Steve Jobs uses in his everyday life, he wants it to be better. And if it makes sense for Apple to build it, they do.

        Steve uses computers - Apple improves the Mac line and OS X to where they're the most stylish, well-designed computers on the market.

        Steve listens to music - Apple comes out with the iPod

        Steve doesn't play video games - I'm an unabashed Mac fanboy, but I gotta admit that OS X just blows for game selection.

        Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting. Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no. Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?

        Aye, there's the rub.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by kosmosik (654958)
          > Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting.

          Quite a different matter. Steve likes to control things. They have a tight grip over iPods/iTunes (main revenue stream) - they own it. They have tight grip on Mac OS X - it can run only their hardware.

          In fact it is a semi monopoly. Thiking of a PC I can get a PC that runs Windows/Linux whatever from any vendor I like. Be it IBM/Lenoovo, Dell, HP, smaller shops etc. - if I don't like HP I go to Dell and vice versa.

          Now if from some r
          • Control... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by SuperKendall (25149)
            So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.

            I agree with your basic premise (control). However, that is what makes the chances of them coming out with a phone 50/50 in my mind.

            True they do not exactly control the networks, nor would they build thier own or rely only on WiMax or some other crazy scheme. Howeve
            • by kosmosik (654958)
              > I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the
              > interface s better often again signal quality is low,

              And you think that oh-so-great-praise-Apple can make, a better phone than companies that do it for years? Nokia, Ericsson and so fotrth right now do great phones and lots of research on communication and such. So I am not exactly convinced that if Apple would do a Phone it would have better signal qualit. In fact I can also think the opposite - since Apple is known for doing stupid stuff l
      • The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface
        I'd so totally enjoy entering phone numbers - or even better, SMS messages - with that little wheel thingy.
  • technological Jesus's mac doesn't crash. Of course, the miracle is that neither does his windows PC!

    technological Jesus downloads just 1 song onto his iPod, and 500 people can listen to it simultaneously.

    technological Jesus just has to touch a windows PC, and it turns into a mac.

  • by amichalo (132545) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @01:00PM (#17388780)
    I was shocked that after I forwarded a personal email from Steve Jobs to 100 of my closest friends, I did NOT receive a free iPod as promised.
  • by DreadfulGrape (398188) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @01:02PM (#17388808)
    "Apple will be out of business in X years."
    • by tbone1 (309237)
      I think my old friends at The Mac Observer [macobserver.com] did a great thing when they came up with the Apple Death Knell counter. It's interesting, for those of us who follow this sort of thing, what some of the Death Knells involve and who makes them and why. Heck, I think the editor-in-chief even included himself once.

    • by Phat_Tony (661117)
      You forgot the word "beleaguered."

      It's "Beleaguered Apple will be out of business in X years," with X usually approximately equal to 5.
    • by jjeffries (17675)
      You're expecting it in about 10 years, then?
  • That's my favorite rumor anyway....
  • OS X started out running on Intel.

    The idea that Apple *wouldn't* keep a version running on Intel was always the staggering thing about this. It's like you said "Prince Charles has routine health checkups" and got the response "How do you know? have you ever seen him?"
  • ...how many of them were started or at least propogated -- as news -- by the editors of CNET? The "Apple will be out of business" one that was mentioned by /.ers but elided over by TFA, was certainly an example.
  • by litewoheat (179018) * on Thursday December 28, 2006 @04:49PM (#17391738)
    They forgot the rumor that's been around since the Apple I:

    Apple is going out of business.

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...