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.
The Prototype iPhone Dissected, No User Removable Battery
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've only seen it mentioned by one person in this thread, so I feel it needs reiterating. The people who swap batteries on the go are in a very small minority. Perhaps it's higher in corporate use, but for the average consumer it's a non-issue. Apple assumes (and rightly so) that people just want a battery which lasts for as long as possible.
They started taking it apart but didn't continue because they didn't want to damage it?What did they care, it wasn't usable by them anyway.
Right... so much doesn't pass the smell test here.
I may be wrong but this whole thing smells to me. My best guess is that either this is a WAY early prototype and will bear scant resemblance to the final product, or its a plant. And that phone looks familiar.
Giz got to the battery by removing two screws and flip the back open. Easy enough.
I hear your good arguments, I'm just in disbelief
Here it just got out of control.
see
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/why-apple-could-sue-gawker-over-lost-iphone-story/19447570/
I dont want to know about gizmodo or what they do or write anymore.
pls. stop citing those reckless thieves who count a story much more worth than a human being.
Sorry, but I'll better turn away from macrumors if you guys support such immoral behaviour.
Have a nice day.
see
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/why-apple-could-sue-gawker-over-lost-iphone-story/19447570/
I dont want to know about gizmodo or what they do or write anymore.
pls. stop citing those reckless thieves who count a story much more worth than a human being.
Sorry, but I'll better turn away from macrumors if you guys support such immoral behaviour.
Have a nice day.
Serious or sarcastic? I'm not sure.
Deadly serious.
Please refer to the photograph you have kindly posted.
The way to replace the battery is to remove the two screws and pop-off the back. This exposes the battery which is connected by a ribbon cable at the bottom. Simples! The photograph makes this rather obvious.
The idea that the phone has a side-panel... Which would afford access to the *side edge* of battery is ... just a little nuts. How would you get the battery out. Pull it and rip-off the ribbon cable?
If the side panel were a sleek bit of detachable metal, I might buy that.
But the side panel contains the earphone socket, two volume controls and the silent switch! All of these need to be wired to internal components!
C.
Exaaaaactly! Could not agree more. That's what makes Gizmodo especially wrong in this instance. The whole buying lost goods, blah blah blah, that's not smart either. But to go as far as to throw someone under the bus? C'mon. That's wrong.
http://ihnatko.com/
I believe Andy got it right.
I've lost a lot of respect for Gizmodo from this iPhone ordeal.
I believe Andy got it right.
I've lost a lot of respect for Gizmodo from this iPhone ordeal.
New Seam Theory
This is the aluminium chassis of the 4G
On the left we can see two matching seams - that cut-through the full width of the case and are about a millimetre across. The seam is filled with a black non-metal material.
My guess is these are shock-absorbers. They allow the case to compress by up to a millimetre when the phone is dropped. And thereby absorb the energy of the impact.
The new Aluminium shell is more rigid than plastic, and thicker than the 1stGen case. The extra rigidity could would make the phone more likely to suffer breakage if dropped.
I reckon the rubber-shock absorbers protect the phone by providing thin crumple zones.
C.
This is the aluminium chassis of the 4G
On the left we can see two matching seams - that cut-through the full width of the case and are about a millimetre across. The seam is filled with a black non-metal material.
My guess is these are shock-absorbers. They allow the case to compress by up to a millimetre when the phone is dropped. And thereby absorb the energy of the impact.
The new Aluminium shell is more rigid than plastic, and thicker than the 1stGen case. The extra rigidity could would make the phone more likely to suffer breakage if dropped.
I reckon the rubber-shock absorbers protect the phone by providing thin crumple zones.
C.
There are many solutions to recharge a battery on the go. From Car adapters to rechargeable and disposable USB solutions from Energizer, Duracell etc. My 3G iphone is nearly two years old and has been depleted and recharged almost daily and still maintains 80% plus battery life. I also own a nearly five year old ipod and one over 7 years old and they are both on their original batteries and still maintain about 80% of their original capacity.
So my point is a non user replaceable battery is hardly a sore point that would affect most users. If non user replaceable means saving an ounce on weight or a few cm then it is well worth it. Over a five year plus period one may have to replace the battery just once at most and that is with very heavy use. How many of you have actually kept a primary use cell phone for over 5 years? or for that matter even 3 years? The longest cell phone I kept was a Sanyo 49XX series that lasted me about 3.5 years as an everyday use phone. I never replaced the battery and even now after 7 years since purchase it can still hold a charge. THe last time I replaced a cell phone battery was about 10 years ago on a Nokia 51XX series phone.
So my point is a non user replaceable battery is hardly a sore point that would affect most users. If non user replaceable means saving an ounce on weight or a few cm then it is well worth it. Over a five year plus period one may have to replace the battery just once at most and that is with very heavy use. How many of you have actually kept a primary use cell phone for over 5 years? or for that matter even 3 years? The longest cell phone I kept was a Sanyo 49XX series that lasted me about 3.5 years as an everyday use phone. I never replaced the battery and even now after 7 years since purchase it can still hold a charge. THe last time I replaced a cell phone battery was about 10 years ago on a Nokia 51XX series phone.
Fingers crossed
This is a terribly elitist statement, but I really hope apple takes there time, and completely dismantles gizmodo the way the did the iPhone prototype.
Gizmodo is the TMZ of tech news, all gossip all the time, but about technology. They are basically pure fodder for fanbois to get all in a huff and start flaming all knowledgable tech site's quality forums with their innaccurate, rushed to press, shoddy journalism.
Just look here, where the first thing they loudly proclaim is removable as storage and a user removable battery. Then, quietly, they admit neither is true and they had there heads too far up their asses to actually logically think about their articles before pressing post.
Engadget is bad enough, do we really need two of these "newsies" polluting our discussions?
This is a terribly elitist statement, but I really hope apple takes there time, and completely dismantles gizmodo the way the did the iPhone prototype.
Gizmodo is the TMZ of tech news, all gossip all the time, but about technology. They are basically pure fodder for fanbois to get all in a huff and start flaming all knowledgable tech site's quality forums with their innaccurate, rushed to press, shoddy journalism.
Just look here, where the first thing they loudly proclaim is removable as storage and a user removable battery. Then, quietly, they admit neither is true and they had there heads too far up their asses to actually logically think about their articles before pressing post.
Engadget is bad enough, do we really need two of these "newsies" polluting our discussions?
Legality
Gizmodo knew exactly what they were doing was illegal. They spent the money as a stunt to drive traffic to their web site. The identity of the owner was known so they purchased a stolen item. It went from lost to stolen when someone made money off the incident. You find knockoffs in Asia you don't find a knockoff within minutes of Apple's corporate campus. I'm sorry but would any of you expect someone to take apart your cell phone if you lost it? Much less publicly name you as having lost your phone and post photos of it?!?!? I hope Apple's legal team nails them to the wall. This wasn't journalism, it was theatrical grandstanding.
Gizmodo knew exactly what they were doing was illegal. They spent the money as a stunt to drive traffic to their web site. The identity of the owner was known so they purchased a stolen item. It went from lost to stolen when someone made money off the incident. You find knockoffs in Asia you don't find a knockoff within minutes of Apple's corporate campus. I'm sorry but would any of you expect someone to take apart your cell phone if you lost it? Much less publicly name you as having lost your phone and post photos of it?!?!? I hope Apple's legal team nails them to the wall. This wasn't journalism, it was theatrical grandstanding.
I agree 100%. Apple is getting so much press right now, they don't want to take it negative by taking legal action now. IMO They will ride the high of all the free press until after the launch and then press charges. As pointed out earlier in this thread, there are statutes in California that demonstrate this is a stolen phone. Even if Apple does not win, they could keep GIZ tied up in court until they go under from legal expense. I bet the guy who found and sold the phone will also catch some legal heat. However I say all this with the assumption this is what really happened. If Apple leaked it on purpose, no charges will be filed. Any before I get flamed, I have no inside knowledge - just my opinion.
Agree!
Corporate secret-keeping amounts to playing a game. Depending on how good a player you are, you can keep the public from knowing much about what you're working on MOST of the time. But it's still just a game.... If you slip up and let something leak out, you lost that round, period. Nobody else owes you that secrecy ... and certainly not the press (web OR print based), who make a living reporting any and all newsworthy items they can find.
Honestly, in this situation, I can't see how this is anything but GOOD for Apple anyway? The phone's release is only 2 months or so away, so it's not like competitors have time to analyze these photos and react to them with a new product that comes out first with the same capabilities. Meanwhile, it prevents a lot of people with AT&T contracts expiring soon from jumping ship to an Android or other phone.
Corporate secret-keeping amounts to playing a game. Depending on how good a player you are, you can keep the public from knowing much about what you're working on MOST of the time. But it's still just a game.... If you slip up and let something leak out, you lost that round, period. Nobody else owes you that secrecy ... and certainly not the press (web OR print based), who make a living reporting any and all newsworthy items they can find.
Honestly, in this situation, I can't see how this is anything but GOOD for Apple anyway? The phone's release is only 2 months or so away, so it's not like competitors have time to analyze these photos and react to them with a new product that comes out first with the same capabilities. Meanwhile, it prevents a lot of people with AT&T contracts expiring soon from jumping ship to an Android or other phone.
So let me understand this correctly. Right around the time of an earnings call, almost to the day, when we know that Apple's stock drops, Gizmodo magically happens on an iPhone in a bar, and they break all ethics by not only taken the stolen property, leaking the name of the guy who "left" the phone, but then proceed to dismantle it while in their possession, during which time they get a dubious return letter on a letterhead with Apple's extinct corporate font, Garamond Narrow... Then even AFTER the letter which suggests a potential legal threat they PROCEED with publishing the photos of the dismantled phone anyway...
And you're telling me this isn't a carefully-orchestrated, carefully-timed leak to refuel anticipation right when the earnings anticipation ends, always followed by a dip in stock price?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist... JFK was shot by Oswald and the WTC attacks were a controlled demolition. But there is a confluence of events here that raises some considerable doubt.
Gizmodo already got one guy banned from CES for a lapse of ethics... I sincerely doubt they would risk multiple lawsuits.
And as the few testers of the original iPhone weren't allowed to so much as leave the campus without a prototype, how does some random engineer manage to just lose a prototype off-campus?
And you're telling me this isn't a carefully-orchestrated, carefully-timed leak to refuel anticipation right when the earnings anticipation ends, always followed by a dip in stock price?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist... JFK was shot by Oswald and the WTC attacks were a controlled demolition. But there is a confluence of events here that raises some considerable doubt.
Gizmodo already got one guy banned from CES for a lapse of ethics... I sincerely doubt they would risk multiple lawsuits.
And as the few testers of the original iPhone weren't allowed to so much as leave the campus without a prototype, how does some random engineer manage to just lose a prototype off-campus?
Under clocking it would be a very good move. It would stretch battery life and reduce the heat generated. I would hope they had more than one level of under clock. Idle speed, normal and warp would be good choices.
Inductive charging?
Inductive charging *seems* like a great idea, except it's very inefficient and requires an expensive charging "pad" of some sort for the device to sit on or next to. It just doesn't make any practical sense right now, or else I'm pretty sure Apple would have been using it for their notebooks, iPods and iPhones years ago.
Inductive charging *seems* like a great idea, except it's very inefficient and requires an expensive charging "pad" of some sort for the device to sit on or next to. It just doesn't make any practical sense right now, or else I'm pretty sure Apple would have been using it for their notebooks, iPods and iPhones years ago.
Happy?? No! Able to press legal charges and it actually be prosecuted? Never!
Where in any of my posts did I say otherwise? I said like three times that I think there is more to the story. By Apple waiting a month to do anything about the "missing" phone makes the story less believable. If you would read my ENTIRE post you would have seen the part that I wrote stating that.
Ok so because it says APPLE on the back one should automatically assume that APPLE owns the phone??? My phone says APPLE on the back, but I'm pretty sure that I'm the owner. A wallet with a licenses inside of it that clearly identifies the owner is totally different than an electronic device that has the manufacturers name stamped on the back just like 5 million others in the US do. ...and please if you actually think you can get a jury to believe that a reasonable person would have known that the phone was a super secret prototype that belonged to Apples development team when it looks almost identical to the current iphone to 90% of the population, you're crazy.
As far as the elements of a crime pertaining to permanently depriving one of their property... Take it up with the law makers, not me. Have you ever tried to prosecute a case that didn't meet all the elements of the crime? The guy tried to call Apple twice to return it and they turned him away. When Apple requested, Giz returned it. There is NO WAY that this case as its stated now will ever see criminal prosecution.
AGAIN I'll say it. I THINK THIS WHOLE STORY IS BS! I'm simply commenting on the current information we have now because its fun and because this is what these message forums are for.
I pretty much took the image at face value, and it was the only way it would make sense that one side is cut through like that. I can't see any other purpose it would serve, if it's not about access to that side then ditch the seams and make it all one piece. If they can make unibody laptops laser cut from blocks, then why would the need to split this puny little chassis in three parts (bottom 1/4 + main + one side)?
Anything's possible .....
Personally, I see a number of possibilities here.
What if the Apple employee in question purposely "left his phone at the bar" after having a discussion with someone who knew he was in possession of a prototype 4G iPhone and badly wanted to get his hands on it? Not trying to cast any blame here, but just saying it HAS to be one possibility. Maybe he got paid thousands in cash, on the spot, to walk away and pretend he accidentally left it? (And to extend this idea out a little further? Perhaps the person who initially paid for it planned on making a big profit by contacting tech. web sites to try to resell it to them, but found out $5,000 was the most he could get anyone to pay him for it? Maybe that's the price he paid the Apple employee for it in the first place, so that's why they came to agree on that price?)
As for why this guy was allowed to take the prototype off-site in the first place? Well, he WAS one of the engineers working the *baseband* code for the phones. That would mean he probably needed to be able to field-test changes they made to it, since the baseband is the part talking to the cellular towers and enabling the phone portion to work properly. Also remember the release of the device is only a couple months away. Earlier versions of the iPhones were cited in use at area restaurants and the like, too, a few months before their release. They have to test the stuff in the real world at some point!
Personally, I see a number of possibilities here.
What if the Apple employee in question purposely "left his phone at the bar" after having a discussion with someone who knew he was in possession of a prototype 4G iPhone and badly wanted to get his hands on it? Not trying to cast any blame here, but just saying it HAS to be one possibility. Maybe he got paid thousands in cash, on the spot, to walk away and pretend he accidentally left it? (And to extend this idea out a little further? Perhaps the person who initially paid for it planned on making a big profit by contacting tech. web sites to try to resell it to them, but found out $5,000 was the most he could get anyone to pay him for it? Maybe that's the price he paid the Apple employee for it in the first place, so that's why they came to agree on that price?)
As for why this guy was allowed to take the prototype off-site in the first place? Well, he WAS one of the engineers working the *baseband* code for the phones. That would mean he probably needed to be able to field-test changes they made to it, since the baseband is the part talking to the cellular towers and enabling the phone portion to work properly. Also remember the release of the device is only a couple months away. Earlier versions of the iPhones were cited in use at area restaurants and the like, too, a few months before their release. They have to test the stuff in the real world at some point!