“According to a new report from DigiTimes, Cupertino plans on revealing the sixth generation of its iPhone line at its Worldwide Developers Conference this June,” Mike Schuster reports for Minyanville.
“The date was cited in an interview with a Daiwa Securities analyst in the Chinese-language newspaper Commercial Times,” Schuster reports. “This launch estimate jibes with an earlier rumor from 9to5Mac which stated Apple would be returning to its usual summer release schedule after briefly abandoning it for the iPhone 4S’ fall debut.”
Schuster reports, “Although there’s always speculation when it comes to Apple devices prior to their release, the general consensus seems to point to June as the iPhone 5 release date.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “GetMeOnTop” for the heads up.]
Rumors. Don’t. Register.
Whatever date they choose, my contract on my iP4 runs out at the end of May. I’ll be queuing up for a new phone regardless of when it’s released.
So then the 4S release was intended and planned just for Steve? That is all the atoms in the universe lined up just right so that Steve’s passing and the release of the iPhone went hand in hand, or executives at Apple did truly predict Steve’s passing, months in advance, and then plan the announcement accordingly, finally returning to the regular release schedule, road mapped over the years?
I think God had a hand in it. Can’t prove me wrong.
Yes I can prove you wrong. There is no god. The end.
So there you have it.
haha. But you exist, so now I’ve proved you wrong. And there you have it.
Ooooooookkkkkkkkk, so who made god?
Jony Ives.
Jony would have designed a much better one.
The burden of proof is on the person making extraordinary claims. Try again.
What do you think “God” means? It’s not an extraordinary claim, it’s the most ordinary claim one can make. Is that not totally obvious? If it’s not, I’m not sure how I can spell it out.
You can’t “spell it out,” Nerd Beautiful. Faith is defined as “a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” You and many others believe. I and many others do not. Some non-believers are avowed atheists while many others are agnostics at some level. I fall into the latter group because it is hubris to profess to know the unknowable. I don’t know, and I am fine with that. I just maintain a very healthy level of skepticism.
A key difference between us is that your belief is a central part of your life while my non-belief is not. Another difference is that most organized religions strongly advocate their members to proselytize – to spread the Word. With non-belief there is no Word to spread. You just are. That simplifies a lot of things. For example, I do not react to virtually every forum topic by preaching about how you are wrong because “non-God” had a hand in this or that.
There is another key difference – most non-believers are fine with religion and its practitioners as long as there are no attempts to force those beliefs on us in terms of censorship, textbooks, blue laws, etc. The reverse is not true by the fundamental nature of most religions, which make it their business to “grow the flock” by various means.
I believe that the battle between religion and atheism, is counterproductive. Neither can prove anything, therefore both are acting on faith, in a manner of speaking. My personal opinion is that non-believers who enter into Constitutional battle over those issues are actually strengthening the cause of religion by being intolerant and unreasonable. Let people figure it out for themselves. As far as I am concerned, believers should be able pray in schools and have a moment of silence and all of the rest, as long as it does not get out of hand or force others to participate.
While there are many good people who profess faith in a religion, history indicates to me that far more harm than good has been caused by organized religions and other forms of large scale irrational beliefs. I prefer a more rational approach to life.
+1 @kingmel
I made you, and I can unmake you, smart ass.
Bring. It. On.
Pay attention to the location of my post C1. I was talking to GeekJen.
I know who you were talking to. I was agreeing with GeekJen.
Careful what you wish for!
In the past, I have had my tangles with ChrissyOne and she is not one to back down and your “intelligence” will surely be exposed by her wit, charm and very sharp tongue!
I speak from experience. While I at times do not agree with her sentiment, I do humbly bow and let her pass! So good luck, you’ll need it.
Wow, what are you, a professional groveler? Looks like your name should be Almighty Asskisser.
That sounds pretty weak of you, to give in rather than defend your position (assuming that it is a valid one).
The real reason that it is difficult to argue with ChrissyOne is that she is generally right.
+1
yeah, like god would ever say that. There is no unmaking, only making. And, “there is no god”? That’s like writing, “there is no language”.
“There is no unmaking, only making.”
Don’t tell me what is or isn’t, you insolent pip-squeak.
So whose gOD do you believe in? Xenu? Prophet Mormon Jesus? Christian? Judaism? Ra? Shiva? Spaghetti Monster?
And I dare you to try to confirm your BELIEF is right and the other’s religious BELIEFS are wrong, without disproving yours.
Good luck.. I will enjoy your viewing your failed attempts.
Proceed.
OK, guys (and Gals) I’m going to give this one a go.
God is real. Further more, there is no burden of proof (sorry Crissy One).
Proof implies scientific methodology, which is, by it’s very nature, simply, an abstraction and therefore completely irrelevant. If you insist that science is relevant, than God must also be.
Why? Well science is just a construct of the mind, nothing more, nothing less. That being the case, the fact we are discussing God (with our minds) must mean God is real.
Science is just thought, like 1+2=3. What exactly does that mean? Theses are just symbols created in our minds to act as representatives for something else. These symbols are agreed upon by other minds to mean something. Remember 1 also = one. Again different symbols which are agreed to mean the same thing. These mean nothing outside of our collective thoughts. What if I said 1+2=4. This wouldn’t make sense, right? But remember, these are symbols and only constructs of our mind.
Therefore, if you can conceive of God then God exists, even if only in our collective minds. You may believe in science and not God, someone else may believe the opposite, while I believe in both science and god. Therefore our collective reasoning makes God very real.
Now, realize that science cannot explain what a thought is, where it comes from or how it originates. Nor can it explain life or any, except the simplest, aspects thereof. Even the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) cannot explain the metaphysical or that which exist outside the physical realm.
It also cannot explain that which is larger?
The hand does not know what it is to be a brain. Your brain may think it knows what it is to be a hand, But it does not! Your brain receives info, that leads it (you) to think it can explain, that which it cannot. Your brain is not a hand, it’s a brain! So your brain cannot even remotely begin to explain what it is to be YOU. To be HUMAN. To be ALIVE. So it is with God.
Science cannot explain that, which is bigger than itself.
Again, science is an abstraction. It’s just a part of the thought process, which is just a part of life and which, if life was created, is but a part of God.
A simple diagram: science<thought<life<God = science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
Now KingMel, I understand your healthy skepticism,but I must ask how you've drawn your conclusions of religion.
You claim the objective of religion is to proselytize.
What exactly do you think believers in science and only science are doing. Every time someone says "show me the proof" or "The burden of proof is on" (sorry Chrissy One) they are asking you to believe in certain concepts and precepts. They are basically proselytizing science as thier religion. Many a fine individual has done this, without even realizing a certain level of hypocrisy.
So to end this, God does exist, if only in our minds. This is not to say that people who believe, only believe in their own thoughts. No, quite the opposite, they are every bit as right as anyone who believes in science. Faith in either is just that, simple faith. Faith is believing something that cannot be explained. Science, for all it's wonder, cannot explain the mysteries of the mind, much less life and therefore God. The dreams each of you had last night are unexplainable , yet they are no less real as a result.
Until science can explain where dreams come from, why the occur and what they mean, I will continue to believe that there is a God. AND BE RIGHT since I cannot be proven wrong. Or as, Chrissy would say, the burden of proof is on you. You see, i don't have to prove anything, you have to disprove what I believe.
I'm very open minded so give it your best shot. If you can disprove anything I've just said, I'm reasonable enough to be convinced to change my mind! But I doubt that anyone can. I've spent years pondering these ideas, and believe my grasp on these concepts are firmly grounded.
My response to ArtimusMacimus can be found here:
http://chrissyone.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/southworth-morning/
I believe that you should add an “s” to your handle – Artimus Macimus. Macsimus sounds Maximus.
I read your response and, while it is well-written and sound reasonable, it is based upon some fundamental logical flaws and contradictions. If you have spent years pondering this subject and remain unaware of those logical flaws, then I doubt that anything I can say or write will dissuade you from your beliefs. But that was the main point of my post – I do not feel the need to change your mind, because your faith or lack thereof in a higher being is not important to me as long as you do not attempt to force your beliefs upon me. That is, indeed, a fundamental difference. However, as you appear to be a rational and thoughtful individual, I will offer up a few thoughts for your consideration.
You begin your counterargument with, “God is real. Further more, there is no burden of proof.” You start with your conclusion, which leaves no room for debate and represents a quantification fallacy.
You then progress directly into a propositional fallacy:
“Proof implies scientific methodology, which is, by it’s very nature, simply, an abstraction and therefore completely irrelevant. If you insist that science is relevant, than God must also be.”
That is followed by yet another propositional fallacy – one of affirming the consequent:
“Why? Well science is just a construct of the mind, nothing more, nothing less. That being the case, the fact we are discussing God (with our minds) must mean God is real.”
Any yet another propositional fallacy:
“You may believe in science and not God, someone else may believe the opposite, while I believe in both science and god. Therefore our collective reasoning makes God very real.”
Under this rationale, everything that is thought of by any individual is “very real.” As a consequence, you argue that God is no more or less real than anything that can be imagined by human beings.
You ideas regarding “thought” and “metaphysical” constructs are interesting, but can in no way be logically followed to your conclusions.
You state that, “Science cannot explain that, which is bigger than itself.” The key difference between science and religion is that science attempts to explain the universe through a systematic and verifiable exploration of its substance and behavior. Science works on theories and, by its very nature, invites debate and scrutiny.
You state that, “science is an abstraction.” That is inaccurate. Just because science uses symbols and such to represent ideas and processes does not make the field, itself, an abstraction.
You then restate your initial circular argument: “It’s just a part of the thought process, which is just a part of life and which, if life was created, is but a part of God.”
I do not need to disprove the existence of God. I am not trying to disprove the existence of God. If you read and fully understood my post on this subject, then you would understand that I do not care one way or the other. It is truly not important to me.
I also have to point out that just because something cannot be proved does not make it false. Similarly, the corollary is not valid – just because something cannot be disproved does not make it true.
Your argument regarding proselytization is weak. Science seeks the truth. Religion attempts to proclaim the truth.
And your self-proclaim conclusion is similarly weak and circular: “So to end this, God does exist, if only in our minds. This is not to say that people who believe, only believe in their own thoughts. No, quite the opposite, they are every bit as right as anyone who believes in science. Faith in either is just that, simple faith. Faith is believing something that cannot be explained. Science, for all it’s wonder, cannot explain the mysteries of the mind, much less life and therefore God. The dreams each of you had last night are unexplainable , yet they are no less real as a result.”
I can only conclude from your statement that everything that can be conceived or imagined is real and right. Therefore, there is no valid debate…on anything.
You end your post with yet another formal syllogistic fallacy – an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise – as well as a mixture of other logical fallacies. And, yet again, you fail to understand my position. There is no burden of proof upon me, because I neither affirm nor refute the existence of God. I will be more than happy for you to shoulder that burden because it would be a waste of my time.
If you want to persist in your beliefs and comfort yourself with fallacious logic, then feel free to do so. I believe in everyone’s right to attempt to reason their way towards their own conclusions, as long as they do not attempt to impose those conclusions upon me.
I believe SIRI decided on the release date. Just ask her.
In this September 21, 2011 Macdailynews item:
5 things you won’t see at Apple’s October 4th special media event
I commented this:
“I said in another post, regarding an iPhone 5 coming in September or October, that September is usually reserved for iPod announcements; now I say IF there will be a media event in October, then it will be for an announcement about ipods.
I said then that iPhone 5 would come only in March, or June I believe, next year but that it could be announced in January. Apple’s big product announcements are usually announced in big events like Macworld, which is held in January.
Let’s see. Now, everyone wish I’m wrong.”
Today February 2, 2012 I can say this:
From October 2011 to June 2012 it is barely 9 months for Apple to unveil a new iPhone model, be it iPhone 5 or not, specially when sales of iPhone 4S are on fire. However, I feel like it can happen. Again, don’t be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.
I’m not a cellphone user. If Apple unveils a new iPhone in June, I’m wondering what new features/things will it have when, all we need is in the amazing iPhone 4S. Unveiling it just for a change in design or form factor?
wow, what a waste of my time. Yes, I mean reading your comment.
“I’m not a cellphone user.”
Heretic!
Well, I’m glad that’s settled…
What about iPhone 6?
I’m betting it’ll be out in the latter half of 2013. That’s what we need to focus upon when the 5 comes out.
The reports will start coming out around 40 minutes after the actual iP5 is announced.
Really? Apple is going to release a new iPhone this year? You don’t say!
In other news, water is wet. Film at 11.
——RM
Hoping for a more iPhone 3-like shape. Please!!
I do like iPhone 3GS design though…
Not. Going. To. Happen.
For many reasons; bigger battery, more memory, bigger camera, faster processor, better antennas.
Yeah, like all the iPhone rumors were SO accurate last year. 🙂
I think it makes more sense to release iPad in June (because that’s just before the education-related shopping season and closer to the holiday shopping season), and continue with the Fall release for iPhone (because that maximizes the overall Apple hype before holiday shopping season). Apple used to do an “iPod” event in the Fall, but it iPod is currently not as important as it was before.
When we make rum ours, we get weird and crazy rumours.
Keep it in perspective folks. Remember, the iphone 5 rumors from last fall? No iphone 5, no bigger screen, no LTE, no quad core. just a beefed up iphone 4. I WILL NEVER BELIEVE ONE OF THESE STORIES AGAIN. ONLY WHEN APPLE SAYS WHAT AND WHEN – I’LL LISTEN. Ok, I’ll stop yelling now.
There got to be a new iPhone this year my friend.
It has been the case every year so far. They won’t skip it in ’12.
Now you’ll agree with me they won’t launch an iPhone 4SS or 4S2.
So there will be a 5 this year. The question is in which month?
There an article by a “Stacy Curtin” that reeks of absolute stupidity coming our way. It’s about “all the things Apple has to change before it is good enough for her to buy”. I almost pucked at the silly thoughts going through her head……not to mention the devils-advocate-kind-of-half-truths.
She’s either totally ignorant or trying to be a click hoar by intentionally pulling all the wrong strings. I doubt she understands what tech is.
I hate it when I puck.
Is that guy above you Paul Turdrot, the ex-M$ shill?
I hate being called a hoar. I’m not THAT old.
The thing that reeks you can find that just below your nose and Oo yea that spot your sitting too.
Yea, MDN, after last fall predictions fiasco and romours galore … I really, really trust you, lol.
i-phone 5 ok lets see if its gonna be another dumb recaseing or a total new phone cause apple has not really delivered anything new since the original i-phone and the only thing i have gathered so far is that it will be updated for LTE or something to do with new generation of mobile connectivity, nothing significant we shall see.