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.
Circumstances Surrounding Lost Next Gen iPhone Detailed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First. This particular iPhone prototype was lost by an Apple engineer in a public spot, and found by someone who forwarded it to Gizmodo, which is pretty normal since such prototype is a highly newsworthy item, and Gizmodo will return it, then Gizmodo can publish their pictures and story simply because they are in no way obligated to be silent about anything. Not until Apple steps in, which they [Apple] did, but all they did was to claim the device. They did not ask Gizmodo to remove the pictures, which Apple could have done. Easily. Which begs the question... will it be anything like this prototype, or not?
p.s. Don't forget that the person who found the iPhone also contacted Apple, but Apple staff wasn't even aware of it at the time!!!
I disagree. Apple got loads of free publicity about a [possible] next iPhone model... and all this for free. Nothing lost.
And we have jet to be informed about the future of the Apple engineer involved. I mean if he will be fired. Which won't even happen when Apple needs the guy. And don't forget that we are all humans, and we all make mistakes [like your post here] and should not be fired over a potentially great and news worthy story, that could potentially help remind people about the upcoming iPhone.
I'm pretty sure Apple would have noticed their valuable prototype was missing pretty quickly.
Even so, if this software engineer was the only guy who knew, why didn't HE use Mobile Me to just locate the phone and send a message to it with his contact info instead of simply bricking it? For that matter, he is a baseband software engineer - presumably he and / or other folks at Apple could get AT&T to help them locate the phone even without Mobile Me's find my iphone.
There are so many simple and easy things that Apple could have done to quickly recover this phone but apparently did not that the whole story is very hard to believe at face value.
Lots of folks are speculating a deliberate leak by Apple or an Apple subcontractor. Here' another thought - a deliberate leak by Apple in one of their infamous internal investigations to track down the source of leaks. Remember 'Asteroid', the long rumored Firewire audio connection box?
How has all this news and excitement about the iPhone cost Apple millions of dollars??
Apple can remote brick an iPhone? Since when? Yes, remote wipe, but since when does that mean that the phone is unusable and won't even turn on?
I smell a cleverly placed ruse... Someone 'just happens' to leave a 'fully working' unseen and unheard of prototype iPhone in public? With Apple's notoriously highly anal security? Is this guy that 'lost' the phone now chained to a wall in the basement of Apple with Steve throwing darts at him and Dick Cheney is electrocuting his short hairs? This is too convenient... An uncharacteristic 'Oops...'
I smell a cleverly placed ruse... Someone 'just happens' to leave a 'fully working' unseen and unheard of prototype iPhone in public? With Apple's notoriously highly anal security? Is this guy that 'lost' the phone now chained to a wall in the basement of Apple with Steve throwing darts at him and Dick Cheney is electrocuting his short hairs? This is too convenient... An uncharacteristic 'Oops...'
Kindof a 'seed' unit to grow the anticipation? I agree... Now Apple has to make like it's some secret and hop on the stage and 'demand' the phone back, squirting more fuel to the fire... They aren't playing 'marketing 101' here boys and girls... This is genius...
![[DL]](/data/avatars/m/410/410081.jpg?1266785706){kind=avatar}
Since the day I got my iPhone in 08, I have known its exact location for all but about 10 minutes combined.
I never let it lose my site, or my pocket generally - I have to imagine if I had a protoype in my possession I would be even more careful with it. Why wasn't this guy sprinting back to the bar looking for it??
I never let it lose my site, or my pocket generally - I have to imagine if I had a protoype in my possession I would be even more careful with it. Why wasn't this guy sprinting back to the bar looking for it??
Frankly, the whole thing is sleazy as hell to me. The person that found it should have simply located the owner and returned it. If Gizmodo paid someone for a device that they knew did not belong to the seller. They are even sleazier and i am no longer interested in anything they have to say and I will have no problem letting their sponsors know.
Rumors and speculation are all fun little games, but when it turns into this kind of low life behavior, it has crossed the line.
GoodBye Gizmodo!
Rumors and speculation are all fun little games, but when it turns into this kind of low life behavior, it has crossed the line.
GoodBye Gizmodo!
Releasing his name was a good move!
None of you seem to understand that naming the guy is actually good for him and protects him? A true human error can always occur and now he's protected by the world knowing. If Apple fired him now it would be VERY bad publicity and I bet they won't. If the name was not public chances for him getting fired might have been way bigger!!!
None of you seem to understand that naming the guy is actually good for him and protects him? A true human error can always occur and now he's protected by the world knowing. If Apple fired him now it would be VERY bad publicity and I bet they won't. If the name was not public chances for him getting fired might have been way bigger!!!
Umm, no, the car keys/car to phone analogy just ain't working for me...
Too far fetched of an analogy.
On something like a phone or small item, the legal responsibility would be to attempt to find the owner in some way shape or form, that's about all and it appears the person who found it did the minimum legally required.
Unless it could be legally proven that the phone's owner's contact info was seen by the person who found the phone or the owner's cell phone account continued to be used and/or hacked, I can't imagine any legal case being brought. In fact there might have not been any contact info on the phone. So there would also be no legal responsibility to contact Apple.
Does that make him Good Samaritan of the Month?
Nope, but not a criminal either.
And selling found items also is not illegal, so it's not dealing in stolen goods either.
Although Apple could make a case against Gizmodo, since they obviously knew it was Apple intellectual property. I doubt the original person who found the phone would be in any trouble.
Geez, everyone here is so uptight, it's just a damn phone in the eyes of the law!
It's only Steve Jobs who wants to castrate someone right now! LOL
Gizmodo may have had time to take legal advice, but any advice they received was either bad advice or they ignored what they were told. They bought stolen goods with the object of enriching themselves, profiting from property--both intellectual and physical--to which they had no right, legal or moral. As a result they are both liable to Apple for damages and the involved individuals are subject to criminal prosecution as well.
These "journalists" didn't simply document something being exhibited in public--they bought something that was obviously secret, paid $5,000 to a thief to have access to it, took it apart, and published it to make money for themselves, knowing it would harm the true owner. Then they went out of their way to publish the name and particulars of the employee of the owner who misplaced it. This is not some crusading great metropolitan newspaper exposing government misconduct--this is a morally bankrupt corporation violating social norms as well as laws for its own benefit.
The finder in this case knew very well the device was not abandoned, but simply misplaced. Under the law he was obliged to deliver the device to either the owner of the property on which it was found, or to take it to the police. He knew very well the device didn't belong to him, knew that the police or the courts could return it to the true owner, and yet decided to make $5,000 rather than follow the law. He is a thief.
It is not the owner who is obliged to make a demand for his property from a thief or from a receiver of stolen goods. It is the obligation of anyone in wrongful possession of the property of another to follow the legal process for returning it. Yes, now that Gizmodo has received the benefits it sought, it will return the property, but that does not expiate the liability it has incurred.
You shouldn't need a lawyer to know that what the finder did was just plain wrong, and that what Gizmodo did was worse. If you have any questions, don't go googling California law, don't consult a lawyer, just go ask your mother. And be prepared for her to be ashamed of you.
He changed his name on FB and locked his twitter. I am pretty sure he will have to move to some remote place. Would be f'd up if people still recognize him.
The finder was obliged to make a reasonable attempt to contact the owner. This attempt was made.
It could be argued that no attempt was made to deprive the rightful owner of the property. After all, as soon as the rightful owned asked for it was returned.
It would be very surprising if Gawkers lawyers have not been over this with a fine tooth-comb.
My bet is that after securing the item, the first.... no the second thing they did was inform Apple.
This is a great story, it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
C.
maybe it's a new OS 4 feature?
personally I think this is PR. a company that is paranoid about security of unreleased products, locks them down and chains them in labs, has people working on fakes and only parts of products. yet this same company lets a young recent college grad take it out drinking. is this a new trend at Apple? why haven't we seen pics at Starbucks of people using other unreleased Apple products?
Meh, I also think something is up. Why didn't the guy go back for it, or ask around for it? Giz's story claims that the guy who found it tried to contact the owner + Apple and was more or less rebuffed. If this was really that important to Apple - why wait so long to claim it? Now several days later, after millions of page views and tons of hoopla, Apple's like, "Oh yeah... our phone! It'd be cool if we could have it back."
I worry about the cultural context that leads you to that conclusion.
Gizmodo protected this guy by publishing his identity.
C.
Slowly I am starting to agree with those who think this may not have been an accident
If it was, I am interested if Apple does anything funny with this....which I know their past says they won't and will just fire him....but they could really spin this in a funny and entertaining way by putting this guy on a commercial or something
I don't see it as him being protected in any way at all. What, Apple will get a bad name from firing him? No they won't. Did Apple get a bad name from an iPhone prototype being lost and the holder committing suicide?