Agreed - have no real opinion on whether this is fake or not, but it looks surprisingly clunky for an Apple product...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back
- Thread starter CooKieMoNs7eR
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed - have no real opinion on whether this is fake or not, but it looks surprisingly clunky for an Apple product...
I love hearing news about any new Apple gadget, but what Gizmodo has done has gone beyond the pale.
The guy who found the phone, whether or not he waited at the bar as he claimed and/or asked around if it belonged to anyone, knew that the phone did not spontaneously generate and show up there on the stool. He knew it belonged to someone other than him. He should have turned it into the manager of the bar so that when the person who lost it called in, they'd have it - or to the police. There is no other acceptable action.
That he took it home implies that he intended to either keep (theft) or sell it (fencing stolen goods).
That he sold it to Gizmodo for $5000 is evidence that he realized what he had was an unreleased product by a very well known, publicly traded company. He knew it was of great value and sold it to the right buyer/fence.
That Gizmodo was willing to spend $5000 for something they knew did not rightfully belong to the seller shows that they are willing to commit a felony. Not that their behavior is overly shocking as they caused disruption to electronic devices at an event in the past where they were told not to return. The organization appears to be run by a bunch of 15 year olds - in intellect, anyway. Clearly, Gizmodo gets a LOT of traffic. Just go to alexa.com and put in their URL and you will see the significance of the amount of traffic they get and ergo, that they get a lot of high dollar ad revenue. Gizmodo was willing to shell out $5K because it was worth far more $ to them in boosted ad sales due to increased web stats with this bit of 'news.'
A responsible journalist would have contacted the police before engaging in the transaction so that Apple could recover their property, the thief would be arrested and so that they'd be a hero AND be able to report on how honest they were and that they saw a new device by Apple.
That they took the device apart shows their wonton disregard for the property of others. It did not belong to them and they knew it. They disassembled it and showed off the internals, giving an unfair advantage to Apple's competitors months before the product is ready to launch.
For those that admire Apple, their products and hold their stock, this should be an outrage. All of us who are gadget hounds only think of the latest gadget we want to buy - but we are not the only ones reading the online leaks. Those who play the market and those who compete against Apple are also eating this up. This 'leak' by Gizmodo, which is not a true leak, is criminal and acts against Apple's interests.
Frankly, I hope the SEC brings charges against Gizmodo/Gawker for securities fraud. At the very least, they have committed felony in fencing stolen property - and across state lines.
SPOT ON. AND if the "bar" was only a short distance from Apple's HQ, the guy could have strolled in to the facility and dropped the phone off himself, probably roping himself free Apple stuff, in their gratitude. Selling it for $5000, how greedy is that? It all just doesn't add up. Especially the "confirmation letter" by Apple. This is why it seems like a very controlled leak to me.
I am quite confused on what to believe whether it was a accident or all planned.
Its not often the and Apple prototype gets left in a bar then sold for $5000 grand. And if Apple wanted the iPhone so badly why didn't they just go get it back. i mean they remotely wiped it right? So why couldn't mobile me led them to back to the iPhone "4G" As for the design I think its OK. I like the aluminum look but the back looks like a scratch magnet and I think its too square.
i personally am hoping for a iPod touch redesign this year
I have been waiting to upgrade my iPod touch 1st gen for a very very long time.
Its not often the and Apple prototype gets left in a bar then sold for $5000 grand. And if Apple wanted the iPhone so badly why didn't they just go get it back. i mean they remotely wiped it right? So why couldn't mobile me led them to back to the iPhone "4G" As for the design I think its OK. I like the aluminum look but the back looks like a scratch magnet and I think its too square.
i personally am hoping for a iPod touch redesign this year
I have been waiting to upgrade my iPod touch 1st gen for a very very long time.Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
This is unquestionably real. Apple's letter makes that abundantly clear.
JilzVT said:
This is unquestionably real. Apple's letter makes that abundantly clear.
I haven't read this whole thread, but has it been considered that if this was a controlled leak, that the person who "found" the phone was in on it too?
That would seem likely when you figure that 'if' this was Apple's doing, that they would leave nothing to chance. They are not going to assume that whoever 'found' the phone would know to gravitate to a gadget site. They're not going to assume that whoever 'found' the phone would know what they had and what to do with it.
If, and at this point it's still an if, Apple is behind this, the 'finder' of the phone is part of the plan. IMO.
That would seem likely when you figure that 'if' this was Apple's doing, that they would leave nothing to chance. They are not going to assume that whoever 'found' the phone would know to gravitate to a gadget site. They're not going to assume that whoever 'found' the phone would know what they had and what to do with it.
If, and at this point it's still an if, Apple is behind this, the 'finder' of the phone is part of the plan. IMO.
That statement says more about you than others here...
I know plenty of people who would return the iphone, including me.
I would have given it right back, even though I'd have loved to know more about it.
Messing with other people's property, especially when you know they own it, is wrong.
Dear Steve Jobs, Don't Fire Gray Powell!
I hear ya bro, but man it was not done intentionally, well, as far as we know. lol
DON'T FIRE GRAY POWELL!!!
Don't fire Gray Powell Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=114703018559347&ref=ts
I hear ya bro, but man it was not done intentionally, well, as far as we know. lol
DON'T FIRE GRAY POWELL!!!
Don't fire Gray Powell Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=114703018559347&ref=ts
Hahaha, couldn't have wrapped up the events of the last 3 days into a more perfect sentence.
Apple's Design department and Law agencies around the country should just come to the macrumors forums the next time they need to hire someone, what with all the experts we have here.
Frankly, I hope the SEC brings charges against Gizmodo/Gawker for securities fraud. At the very least, they have committed felony in fencing stolen property - and across state lines.
What are you talking about? There's not even an iota of securities law violation here (and I speak as a corporate securities lawyer).
What Gizmodo needs to be cautious of is paying for stolen property. As John Gruber just pointed out, Gizmodo seems to have admitted to Apple that the iPhone wasn't "lost" but stolen. He notes that Gizmodo's response to the letter from Apple's counsel said this:
Now there's a lot of steps before you get to conclude that Gizmodo faces legal consequences for paying for this device, including whether Gizmodo knew or should have known that this device was stolen. Gruber thinks there's no way it could not have known but I don't think it's so clear cut. It's possible that they suspected it was a real iPhone but didn't know for sure until they took it apart, after they bought it. It's also possible they honestly believed the "lost in a bar" story they were told.
But Gizmodo response that characterizes the iPhone as "stolen" implies that it is slowly dawning on them that the "hey I found this iPhone at a bar" story it was told by the seller is pure BS. Maybe that's why Gizmodo isn't saying a word on its site about how it paid for the phone. It's worried that it may be in some legal trouble for the payoff.
kdarling said:
To answer myself, Gizmodo says it's because the 4.0 beta doesn't support MobileMe locating:
I'm not so sure Apple has a case against Gizmodo but I do believe Gray Powell certainly does have one. I am sure some lawyer would be willing to take this on.
And that's why we have paranoid conspiracy theories. Apple is good, but they are by no means perfect.
My guess is that wiping the model was considered more important since it had 4.0 on it which was going to be announced shortly. There could have been any number of confidential info on it. Corporations do that all the time with smart-phones - they wipe them instead of locating them.
They might exist, but that doesn't mean they get used. My guess is that Apple figured that using Geo location tracking would be too time consuming or not accurate enough or figured that it would turn up honestly.
If the iPhone was the property of Apple (which it almost certainly is) they would have a case - It isn't the personal property of Gary.