Confirmed next-gen Apple iPhone seen in person, disassembled - Page 9

What 4g? The iPhone doesn't have 4g. It has 3g.

Are you talking about the 4th gen?

remember when steve jobs and that google exec were spotted at that coffee shop, steve said "soon they will know everything"

....interesting...maybe this was intentional

What do you mean it looks ugly? I love it!

Normally if it was a real apple, the pictures would have been pulled by Apple.

Which might mean it was a fake,

Unless it was an intended leak by Apple ????

What is the effect of an intended leak?

We're not hearing much about flash in the news?
We're not hearing much about developer issues and the new SDK in the news?
Are there any other Apple problems we're not hearing much about?

It's also really beating up the expectation that only a rumor mill could for a new product.

Still.... a pretty much over the top leak, not really typical of Apple, but it could also be a mistake that they're just letting run due to the effect it's getting.

Or using them as photo / video buttons while in the camera app.

If it is real, the look is not unlike the round corner flat slab style of the AppleTV and AirPort devices. On the other hand, those devices were designed years ago, so it's hard to imagine that a new iPhone would be part of that line in look.

Obviously...

I wasn't sure if he was referring to the 4g phones from sprint which are actually 4g.

It All (allegedly) Started When... http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple...yline=true&s=i

It's 3G (not '3g').

And you know what I am talking about. Your passive-aggressive nonsense. ;-)

It's just a small iPad. Whats the big deal?

JK. Looking forward to this. Wonder what Apple will say tomorrow?

Of course AT&T gets them months in advance. At the very least they get prototype models to test with. Unless you have a unit that matches the specs pretty well, any field testing you do is sort of useless.

AT&T said they field tested the original iphone for months prior to launch. I guess Apple could have used a modified enclosure, but since enclosures can have such a large impact on the transmission quality, they wouldn't have modified it too much.

Apple may have NSA level security, but unlike their other products they are not an island when selling the iPhone. Their carrier partners aren't just going to take their word that it has been tested in the field....are they?

If Giz got punked, they did more than run with it. They then falsely reported everything else about the device they have. If the didn't make it all up to perpetuate the hoax, then the lack of extra photos implies nothing.

So, if Giz was tricked, why would they possibly withhold the additional photos you want? Is it
A) they want to assist the hoax. They are lying when they say there components that are labeled by Apple
B) They simply didn't post them and their omission tells us nothing.

Really, those are the only two options, if Giz was 'punked'. So, which is it? Either Giz is intentionally bullshitting us or they are not.

Also, if Giz did get fooled, then they might not have lied about everything else. The device could have so impossibly elaborate that it fooled them. Again, if this is the case, the lack of extra photos implies nothing.

When the photo is on the front page of FoxNews.com, it is too late to pull any photo. Apple has a nightmare on their hands. It's kinda like Levar Burton tweeting his phone number twice in the same day. It happens and I believe this to be real.

You know The Jobs is pissed because his iPhone unveiling just got pooped on.

Getting Jobs to call Gizmodo for it's return was also fake says the NYT too I guess?

Man you're deluded. Wow!

Wow... sure starting to sound legit!

Apple could still come out of this with a bunch of free press (like they've any shortage of that) and looking like a good guy!
If the drunk engineer gets to keep his job with little more than a rap on the knuckles from Steve's ruler, then Apple looks like a really merciful "guy". (By the time it becomes evident that he'll never get another raise or promotion from Apple in this lifetime, people will have forgotten all about this )

Earlier, someone mentioned that if the next iPhone will look like this, imagine how the next iPad will look. This makes me think that this is not what the new iPhone will look like. I think the new iPhone will look more like the new iPad. The aluminum trim around the iPad is beveled on the edges and I would think the new iphone will resemble this design. I can't imagine that the new iPhone will look so different from the just release iPad. I also think that the 2 screws on the bottom just don't look right. The screws in my 3g iPhone are more counter-sunk to prevent them from coming loose. If the new phone would require screws, it would make more sense to have them deeper inside the bezel to keep them from coming loose. Better yet, somehow design the phone to not have any screws at all.

That is one of the ugliest GD phones I have seen in awhile. And to think I just gave a speech tonight that I liked my 3G because it was so sleek. I was even holding out on buying an iPad to see what the 4G was like in case I'd rather have the phone. iPad it is, so disappointed.

This is where the credibility of this leak - if not the design-savvy of Gizmodo - falls apart. It's as if they're attempting to explain-away the very thing that points to the fakeness of the device. First of all, Apple's line of handhelds (iPods and iPhones) have never fully mimicked their computers' form.

Secondly, you can't argue the iPhone 3GS is out of place if both the iMac and the iPad currently have curved backs (which can be aluminium since they don't require a cellular signal); while this prototype is completely flat. Thirdly, Apple products have rim/enclosures that are seamless and flush with the surface of their displays; unlike this prototype's display which is raised above the aluminium rim and its yet-to-be explained notches. Fourthly, it may make sense for the volume buttons to be split if Apple decided to make them touch-sensitive like the old iPod buttons. But other than it being ergonomically clumsy, it also wouldn't makes sense for the buttons to be metal. And the iPad similarity falls apart there as well, since the iPad uses a rocker button for volume like the current iPhone 3GS.

"In fact" I would say that sitting next to an iMac or iPad, this prototype looks far less appropriate than an iPhone 3GS. It would be far more believable to claim this is one of multiple prototypes being considered by Apple. However, as it stands, it seems more like an attempt by some geeks to pressure Apple into slipping-up their usual secrecy or pursuing an un-Apple direction of design.

I work next door in Foster City. I for one will be heading to that bar to check it out. Mission accomplished!

Possibly because further digging into the hardware would require damaging the device.
And that might expose Gizmodo to criminal charges?

C.

Okay....


...does that not undermine your first point?

But a curved back is inappropriate on a phone. Man people use a phone by placing it on a flat surface and pressing down. Curved backs are bad for this.

The curved back allows a device to have a thick profile but have a thin edge. This is a thin device (period) it's 9mm. No need for curves!


Please notice that some people use the phone as a camera. One major shortcoming is the absence of a shutter button. These buttons double up for that function. A rocker would not. Who would enjoy using a touch sensitive camera?


The design language of the 3GS is tired. The heavy use of plastics, and the rather camp presence of a chrome trim belongs in a previous era. The new design looks more solid, more professional and more importantly is both more durable and more functional.

The only criticism is that it is a more masculine design. But I think the solution for that is in the case-friendliness of the shape. This phone was found in a rubberised case that completely encloses the screen. It's going to be very easy for users to customise their phone's appearance with all manner of slip-on cases.

C.

The picture is showing you a prototype, not a production model. The real thing will have a curved back, like the iPad and the current iPhone. Hopefully they are using Aluminium with a black Apple (including all the antennas).

I really can't imagine Jonathan Ive going back to the flat aesthetic. It just doesn't feel right in the hand. This prototype phone just looks too geeky to me.

The whole story proves it's the first Apple product which's come in hands of Giz's linuxoids. Goodness, they've torn Apple's product down and now are happy to return it to Apple. They should have first tried that with any AASP around the corner...

It looks like a LG or Samsung from 2006. Don't like it.

Definitely a prototype. I expect that they design these things from the inside out so the overall look would probably be one of the last things they tweak. I can totally see why they would experiment with a glass back though. First of all, it fits with their current environmental strategy.

Apple has been systematically reducing the plastic parts in their products. The new iMacs are a great example of this. The problem however is that the metal interferes with wireless reception.

Typically Apple has used the black Apple logo to make a window for the antenna but I can see why that would be difficult to do on a phone which has more antennas (3G, WiFi, and GPS) where everything is so tight.

A glass back is the only logical material that can replace the plastic without interfering like aluminum would. Cell phone signals (microwaves) can pass through glass very easily. Also the glass would provide scratch resistance and would be easy to make since it matches the front glass in size and shape.

Clearly, the design could change drastically. They could still easily stick with the plastic. Its still just a prototype after all....

Wow! So odd a resolution.
BTW, how did they count?

P.S. Giz, while behaving absolutely wildly, should be given a certain credit for their much more reasonable account:

No need, AI, to show once more how careless and unprofessional your editors are. We all know.

I think the guys at Giz already have their hands full in that department.

How so? It's exactly double the ppi. Even if the display was slightly smaller or larger than it currently is developers would have to change to little to nothing (if they followed the rules) to have their apps look good on the new device.

This is not like the iPad's scale system which does a 1-to-1 mapping and then allows for a 2-to-1 mapping, all on a display with considerably less ppi.

At this point I'm operating under the idea that Giz's legal team told that showing or explaining aspects of the logic board would be a different issue than some photos of the casing and comparison shots.

You are, of course, saying that every phone that Apple has ever released has an "inappropriate" back.

Likely you didn't realize.

It is boxy and ugly.

I for one have never liked the curved back (not to mention the plastic, ugh).

If these are actual images of an actual iPhone, then why don't we see it turned on?
If they were real wouldn't Apple be issuing Cease and desist letters to these sites that posted the pics?

Here on AI:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...a_lawsuit.html

MacRumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/20/...e-iphone-back/

TUAW:
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/20/apple...t-device-back/

Even Giz themselves:
http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-...et-iphone-back

WTF? Four links that don't have anything to do with a lack of cease and desist letters? That do not, in anyway explain the lack of photos showing it turned onbefore the subsequent letter (not a C&D) was sent?

Did you read the post you replied to before posting 4 links to the same letter, which was unrelated to either of the two questions asked?

Am I really the only one that thinks that the ONLY break in the frame edge could be for an IR transceiver? I'd at least like a rational answer as to why Apple would never include one in the iPhone.

haven't they really gotten away from them on all of their devices (other than to support the Apple Remote)? If they were to include one, would it require a break in the frame instead of just a hole?

The MBPs IR receiver is a thin slit. It could be a round hole, but that wouldn't look as slick as this. The picture has a clear break in the frame with support on either side for reinforcement. I think it has to be for something and that is the only thing I can think of that fits (actually it was NasserAE that first proposed the idea).

Programmable remote controls can be expensive devices yet limited in functionality. The only thing holding back the iPhone, Touch and iPad from being one is an IR sensor. Since all these devices are often used at a home I can see deciding to offer it if it doesn't interfere with their other design choices. IR may be old hat, but it's not going anyway. WiFi and BT consume way too much power to compete with it and this is placed in the right position for this to work.