@evleaks shares some weird details about the alleged HTC Volantis (Update – fake)
Update: @evleaks came out and said this was a hoax.
Rumors about an HTC-made successor to the Nexus 7 (2013) have been surfacing from the beginning of the year. Code fragments found in Google’s repositories suggest this device may be known internally as Volantis, and a recent leak from Android Police pointed to specs including an 8.9-inch 2048 x 1440 display, a Tegra K1 SoC, and 2GB of RAM.
Now @evleaks just came up with a different set of specifications, and some of them are pretty odd. Here’s the blurb:
HTC Volantis macro shot: silver aluminum unibody (earlier renders/concepts were “fake”), 64-bit Tegra K1 (testing w SD810), 5GB DDR3 (non-final), 8.9″ 1680×1050 (should ship with 2560×1600), 64GB, 5MP/1080p (8MP at retail?), Boomsound
The leaker also shared an image (above) that supposedly shows a macro view of the Volantis. We can see some sort of brushed metal and parts of what could be the tablet’s rear camera and flash LED, but not much else.
The processor bit matches the earlier leak, but the mention of Snapdragon 810 is odd, as the next-gen processor from Qualcomm is only expected to ship at the beginning of next year. The 5GB of RAM spec, even if non-final, raises suspicions as well, contradicting the earlier leak, which mentions just 2GB. Moving to 64-bit would allow Android to make use of more than 3GB of RAM, but a massive jump to 5GB would be surprising for a Nexus device.
The storage, camera resolution, and screen resolution don’t match the previous report either. And, 2560 x 1600 (the same as the Nexus 10’s) is a 16:10 format, not 4:3 as AP’s leak claimed.
Perhaps the oddest aspect of the leak, however, is the text superimposed on the camera lens, which reads Android Silver OS Alpha 1.4. As far as we know, Android Silver is an initiative that’s similar to the Play Edition program, not an operating system. Is Google actually going as far as to customize Android for Silver devices? Your guess is as good as ours.
So, what’s going on here? Frankly, this looks pretty suspicious. @evleaks has a good track record, but not a spotless one, and the inconsistencies in this one make it a bit hard to believe. What do you think?