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 seen alot of people like you. I'LL NEVER SHOP HERE AGAIN... I'LL NEVER VISIT YOUR SITE ANYMORE...
You know whats common for them all? 14 days, and they're back visiting or shopping.
It is certainly plausible. Presumably the seam at the top of the case is off centre as a purely aesthetic decision, or is there some different value to its placement? I still think we're missing something here, but if the seams do allow for shock-absorbing, then I think that's a useful concession to functionality from Apple.
That little crumple zone is probably for when it hits and there is a jack in the headphone port so it allows some movement to the side so it doesn't bed/break the jack and damage the port.
Considering we now know the thief of the phone never attempted to contact the bar while the Apple engineer phoned often to find out if it had been returned, we know with certainty this is THEFT.
Gizmodo (via its parent company) paid at least $5000 for stolen property. They were motivated thoroughly and recklessly by greed. The negative impact of the leak to Apple could be, as they say, "ginormous."
To me Gizmodo should be torched & their land salted so nothing else grows. They are finished as a reputed ethical resource and should be shunned by other sites who might wish to maintain some credibility.
Ignoring the fact that it was THEFT...
I like to watch movie trailers so I can get glimpses of upcoming movies. They're called teaser trailers for a reason.
I'd be incredible pissed if I were to watch a movie trailer that said "...and you'll be shocked at the twist ending that reveals the main character was DEAD THE ENTIRE TIME!"
Kind of ruins the tease aspect a little bit.
There's a difference between building anticipation and giving away trade secrets because you bought a company's prototype phone off a thief.
.
I like to watch movie trailers so I can get glimpses of upcoming movies. They're called teaser trailers for a reason.
I'd be incredible pissed if I were to watch a movie trailer that said "...and you'll be shocked at the twist ending that reveals the main character was DEAD THE ENTIRE TIME!"
Kind of ruins the tease aspect a little bit.
There's a difference between building anticipation and giving away trade secrets because you bought a company's prototype phone off a thief.
.
Circumstantial evidence that's pretty easily dismissed. And it's certainly no chain of remarkable coincidences, it's rather pedestrian for stories like these.
If someone wanted to forge a letter from Apple, they'd immediately pounce on Myriad Pro and the monochrome logo since everyone and his brother knows that's Apple's style now. A stinky old Garamond-style letterhead can only come from some conservative, ham fisted, computer illiterate geezer in a suit. I've seen it a million times, those guys are blind and deaf to any new directives about visual guidelines, they'd rather give up their own children than the precious PowerPoint and Word templates they've always used for the last 15 years. If anything, that letterhead makes the whole thing more plausible than a slick-looking contemporary one would.
If you're sound minded like that, you should read all of Gizmodo's articles again, they describe the whole timeline in minute detail and it's perfectly plausible. The one about the ridiculousness of the whole conspiracy theory (it has a picture from JFK the Movie where the magic bullet drawing has been replaced with a picture of an iPhone) says it all.
You know the old Sherlock Holmes saying, 'once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
Heck no, they had 200 original iPhones out in the wild for field testing.
I'm sure Apple has this pipe dream of one day being able to keep products like these in a sealed vault until launch day, but it's just not realistic. It's 8 weeks from launch, production is starting (or has already started) in China, field tests must be performed (hardware QC, durability, signal, the works), accessory manufacturers need phones, dummy phones or at least 3D blueprints for creating molds, ad agencies need to film and photograph the final product so that their work can be post-produced and greenlighted by Apple well before launch day... the bizarre secrecy measures is something they can only apply during the R&D phase. That phase ended long ago.
WTF?
So this is the 3GS logic board
This is the new logic board
Really? That tiny little thing holds all the stuff necessary?
that board is impressive. it looks like Apple have taken battery life very seriously in the 4G, if you cant increase battery density then its has to be size, from that board i'm thinking there is a whole new SOC CPU at play here, based on the A4 but smaller,i doubt it would be clocked at 1Ghz like the iPad, I'm guessing somewhere around 750mhz.
better battery life, new features and OS4 this is shaping up to be the A++ Steve spoke about, lets be honest if it does ship like i said its going to be one hell of a phone.
The incident happened in California, so the applicable law is California Penal Code Section 485:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft.
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft.
Additional information about how Gizmodo obtained the phone is provided in an article by Sarah Jacobsson, this fills in some important details left out in Gismodo's account of their own actions. Apparently, the "finder" turned the 4G on to find it logged into the owner's Facebook page, so the "finder" did have knowledge of who the true owner was. With a bit of effort the "finder" probably could find several ways to get in contact with the owner. The "finder" did not make "a reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him", but instead sold it. So by California Penal Code Section 485 the "finder", "is guilty of theft". Hypothetically, if the finder couldn't identify the owner, the appropriate thing to do would have been to hand it over to the police (if unclaimed after 6 months the finder can claim it) , or to simply leave it at the bar to give the owner a chance to return and claim it.
If Gizmodo was willing to pay $5K for the phone, they must have believed that it was in fact a next generation iPhone, and Gizmodo would know that Apple was not selling them to anybody yet. Gizmodo would have known that the person selling the phone was not the rightful owner, and was not authorized to sell the phone on Apple's behalf. Regardless of the story the "finder" told Gizmodo, Gizmodo should have had reason to believe they were purchasing stolen property. While Gizmodo's claims to have made attempts to return the phone to Apple, they were pretty lame for a company that's in the business of investigating stories and digging to find details. I would definitely put more effort into returning the phone to Apple than Gizmodo claims to have. And Gizmodo should have known that they were using that property in a way that caused the proper owner harm that went beyond the simple theft of the device.
So andrew0122, is there other law or legal terms you would like to point out that apply here?
While it is good to see that many posters agree that Gizmodo is wrong, I fail to see any justification by the posters who think Gizmodo did the right thing.
It doesn't matter that there are more units out there for field testing, it doesn't matter that production of parts is probably already starting.
Besides no ethics in acquiring it, Gizmodo then took it apart, taking pictures etc.
How can that be okay with anybody?
As soon as they paid for it they bought stolen goods!
One phone call to Apple and giving it back untouched would have been the only right thing to do.
It doesn't matter that there are more units out there for field testing, it doesn't matter that production of parts is probably already starting.
Besides no ethics in acquiring it, Gizmodo then took it apart, taking pictures etc.
How can that be okay with anybody?
As soon as they paid for it they bought stolen goods!
One phone call to Apple and giving it back untouched would have been the only right thing to do.
It's amazing watching all the people in this thread debate the legality of this entire story. So stupid.
No one broke any laws. Stop wasting your day debating this nonsense. No one is getting charged with any crimes here.
Do you really think Apple would send a letter requesting their phone back if someone had broken a law in all of this? They would have just called the cops and had it taken back immediately.
No one broke any laws. Stop wasting your day debating this nonsense. No one is getting charged with any crimes here.
Do you really think Apple would send a letter requesting their phone back if someone had broken a law in all of this? They would have just called the cops and had it taken back immediately.
Hello!!
Soy nuevo por aquí. ¿Quieres aprender algo de español mientras te enteras de lo que pasa por estos mundos de mac? Visita mi página: http://www.macsparrow.blogspot.com/
Soy nuevo por aquí. ¿Quieres aprender algo de español mientras te enteras de lo que pasa por estos mundos de mac? Visita mi página: http://www.macsparrow.blogspot.com/
Is it just me or anyone else get a tickle in their stomach when they see someone make a total fool out of someone else?
much appreciated ppp :]
Crumple zones? What if it lands on the other end?
A thermal break maybe?
Apple was afraid the case would get too hot from prolonged sexting now made easy because of the otherwise useless front camera.
A thermal break maybe?
Apple was afraid the case would get too hot from prolonged sexting now made easy because of the otherwise useless front camera.
Soy nuevo por aquí. ¿Quieres aprender algo de español mientras te enteras de lo que pasa por estos mundos de mac? Visita mi página: http://www.macsparrow.blogspot.com/
The answer is 42.
I haven't visited Gizmodo for at least 4 months. I don't remember the post that drove me over the edge, but it has been awhile.
Some are fickle and forget about their ban a few weeks later, but many people do in fact do what they say.
Singapore too...
Open the Straits Times today and page three has a half page on Gizmodo and the leak. Crikey - I think pretty much everyone and their dog will know about it by now. Probably getting better media coverage from this than when they actually release it!!!
Open the Straits Times today and page three has a half page on Gizmodo and the leak. Crikey - I think pretty much everyone and their dog will know about it by now. Probably getting better media coverage from this than when they actually release it!!!
Powers of deduction
Surely it is almost certain that this was a controlled leak by Apple. Assessing the situation:
The finder of the device knew what they had - hence they went to Apple. I know phones pretty well but that wouldn't be my natural response; would probably assume it was a fake.
Even if it is plausible the finder worked out it was Apple property, he was also smart enough to set out to make monetary gain for his find. However, if you found a phone like that would you really sell it for $5000? Wouldn't you take 20 photos of it inside and out, email them to Steve Jobs and say "found something of yours; how much do you want for it and my silence?" If Apple were seriously trying to keep it hush, wouldn't their carefully controlled enormous marketing budget factor in a much greater figure?
On a lighter note the volcano has delayed delivery of my customised i7. I wish I'd listened to the sales guy and taken out volcano insurance, but I already spent the rest of my money on handsome cream.
Surely it is almost certain that this was a controlled leak by Apple. Assessing the situation:
The finder of the device knew what they had - hence they went to Apple. I know phones pretty well but that wouldn't be my natural response; would probably assume it was a fake.
Even if it is plausible the finder worked out it was Apple property, he was also smart enough to set out to make monetary gain for his find. However, if you found a phone like that would you really sell it for $5000? Wouldn't you take 20 photos of it inside and out, email them to Steve Jobs and say "found something of yours; how much do you want for it and my silence?" If Apple were seriously trying to keep it hush, wouldn't their carefully controlled enormous marketing budget factor in a much greater figure?
On a lighter note the volcano has delayed delivery of my customised i7. I wish I'd listened to the sales guy and taken out volcano insurance, but I already spent the rest of my money on handsome cream.
I concur with this analysis. Both the finder and Gizmodo knew who the owner was. The finder, instead of returning it, shopped it around and eventually sold it. Gizmodo, once it had possession, instead of returning it first disassembled it.
Gizmodo's story is it just trying to cover its ass. Unsuccessfully.
Gizmodo's story is it just trying to cover its ass. Unsuccessfully.
Cool, Apple is following classic engineering standards. Tinfoil, Super Glue and Duct Tape!