Apple Black Friday Deals Leaked

Dennis Faas's picture

Another Thanksgiving is upon us, and that means so too is another round of dog-eat-dog Black Friday mayhem. And as usual, there are plenty of rumors circulating about which companies will offer the biggest and best deals. Let's get things started with high-end hardware maker, Apple.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems Black Friday is now a bigger deal than Thanksgiving, a holiday as old as Puritans. But as the first major bargain day in the long lead-up to Christmas Eve, Black Friday means a green weekend for most retailers.

Rumor: iPods Slashed 30%

Kicking things off this year is Apple, which according to a rumored leak of a Black Friday flyer could be cutting the price of some of its wares by as much as 30 per cent. The flyer prominently displays iPods at 30% off, with Macs cut by 25%.

The initial leak came courtesy of BGR, and in the time since has actually updated the rumored flyer with info from a source it says is "pretty credible". Apple has admitted it will have a Black Friday sale, but hasn't specifically outlined which products will be affected or what prices they'll retail for.

Here's the full list of the rumored sale, with prices:

  • iMacs starting at $1,098
  • iPod Nanos starting at $138 (presumably 8GB)
  • iPod Touch starting at $178
  • MacBook Pros starting at $1,098
  • Apple TVs starting at $208
  • Airport Express starting at $88
  • Magic Mouse, Wireless Keyboard for $64 each.

Surprisingly, a very recent addition to the rumor is that all of these prices will be found exclusively online, meaning there won't be the traditional in-store holiday blitz Black Friday is known for. Some insiders, such as ZdNet's Jason O'Grady, hint that this could be a sign that BGR is full of BS. (Source:

Excited consumers should note that, historically, Apple's big sale prices have been between 5 and 7 per cent off the regular retail price -- not numbers five times that, as suggested by the rumor. (Source:

Hey, here's hoping both history and ZdNet are very, very wrong.

Rate this article: 
No votes yet