Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Reuters Pulls Story on Phil Schiller's iPhone Comments Following 'Substantial Changes' to Source Article [Updated]

Yesterday, a report from the Shanghai Evening News including comments made by Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller about Apple's refusal to build "cheap" devices was widely re-reported throughout both the Apple-focused rumor scene and in mainstream media.

Schiller's comments were viewed by some as a direct rebuttal to recent rumors from The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg that Apple is working on a less expensive iPhone for launch as soon as later this year, although he actually appeared to simply be noting that any product Apple releases would not sacrifice quality in order to grab market share at lower price points.

Reuters has now issued a brief statement retracting its re-reporting of the Shanghai Evening News piece, citing "substantial changes" to the source article. Reuters will not be publishing an amended version of its story.

It is unclear exactly what changes Reuters is referring to, as the online version [Google translation] of the Shanghai Evening News piece appears to be essentially the same as when it was first covered by English-language media.

Still, the retraction by Reuters casts significant uncertainty on the original report and raises questions about whether Schiller's comments were mistranslated or misinterpreted.

Update 12:30 PM: Reuters has now published an explanation for its retraction, citing the changes made to the original Shanghai Evening News article.
[I]n a new version of the story published after the original, the Shanghai Evening News removed all references to cheaper smartphones, except for a mention of a "cheaper, low-end product." It also amended its original headline from "Apple will not push a cheaper smartphone for the sake of market share," to "Apple wants to provide the best products, will not blindly pursue market share."

Apple confirmed the interview had taken place and that it had contacted the Chinese newspaper about amending its original article, but had no further comment and declined to provide a transcript of the interview.


Related roundup: iPhone 6

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

22 months ago
Couldn't releasing the iPad mini without a retina display be seen as Apple "sacrific[ing] quality in order to grab market share at lower price points"?
Rating: 12 Votes
22 months ago

You're using google translate to verify the story? :eek:


I know. should have used BabelFish.
Rating: 9 Votes
22 months ago
This is why I laugh when I read quotes from "old media" journalists at established news organizations whining that bloggers and online news isn't true journalism. I can't tell the difference. In both instances it seems to be publish first, fact check later. Simple case of pot calling kettle black.
Rating: 6 Votes
22 months ago

Couldn't releasing the iPad mini without a retina display be seen as Apple "sacrific[ing] quality in order to grab market share at lower price points"?


I thought releasing mini without retina was so the tablet could be thin and light with great battery life.
Rating: 5 Votes
22 months ago
Budget = 3.5", 320x480 non-retina display (like the first versions of iPhones)
Regular = 4.0", 640x1136 retina display (iPhone 5 and up)

No fragmentation, no headaches for developers.
Rating: 4 Votes
22 months ago

Budget = 3.5", 320x480 non-retina display (like the first versions of iPhones)
Regular = 4.0", 640x1136 retina display (iPhone 5 and up)

No fragmentation, no headaches for developers.

They already have this, right now. Except the cheaper one has a retina display.

Sometimes I wonder if this place is just filled with people taking a break from debate class. So little reality.
Rating: 4 Votes
22 months ago

You're using google translate to verify the story? :eek:


No, our original article used a partial human translation provided by The Next Web. We're simply including a Google translation link so that readers can look for themselves and get a general idea of the piece if they're so inclined.

We simply don't see that anything much has changed since the original version of the article was published...a couple of minor additions and tweaks, but the basic text and Schiller's comments seem to be the same.
Rating: 3 Votes
22 months ago

Couldn't releasing the iPad mini without a retina display be seen as Apple "sacrific[ing] quality in order to grab market share at lower price points"?


No. It was a functional issue. A retina display would have required a larger battery making it heavier and thicker thus violating the concept of "mini". The draw of the Mini for me at least is in no small part due to its thinness and light weight.
Rating: 3 Votes
22 months ago

A lower cost version of the iPhone is coming.

Probably now 'lower end market', more like 'mid range'


Honestly think now is the time for Apple to put out 3 iPhones:

1) A 'budget' 3.5" one for emerging markets

2) The 4" iPhone

3) A new 5-5.5" iPhone

That's it, just 3 options. Sink or swim.
Rating: 3 Votes
22 months ago

Still, the retraction by Reuters casts significant uncertainty on the original report and raises questions about whether Schiller's comments were mistranslated or misinterpreted.


100% of everyone’s comments are misinterpreted by the media. How else could they possibly manage to sensationalize enough to get readership?

----------

Honestly think now is the time for Apple to put out 3 iPhones:
1) A 'budget' 3.5" one for emerging markets
2) The 4" iPhone
3) A new 5-5.5" iPhone

That's it, just 3 options. Sink or swim.


Right, let's go back to the late '80s/early '90's business model that worked so well for Apple. :(
Rating: 3 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]