or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone - Page 4

post #121 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Re: 1) In this case they didn't know the owner, and they should have handed it in to the police.

Dismantling and taking detailed pictures of the insides and publishing them is not the same as taking a picture of the outside of a new model car on a road.

In this case, they dismantled the phone and immediately determined the owner.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #122 of 267
"We'll do anything for a story," he wrote. "Our only obligation is to our readers." -Wow. Talk about integrity. I sure hope the courts feel that their only obligation is to their readers, not the law or any ethical standards. What an a-hole. Could they not have returned this to Apple, and published the story of how they retrieved the iPhone for Apple and then just alluded to what they had seen while showing that they have some sort of integrity.

I wonder if Apple can sue them for damages and loss of 3GS sales since no one will buy a 3GS anymore knowing what is coming down the road in a very short time.
post #123 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Assume apple is the owner because it is a prototype phone not on the market. Obviously taking apart a normal iPhone 3GS would yield you nothing, but a prototype?

So you know it's a prototype ... and thus the owner, and you decide to take photos and publish them for profit.

It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Gizmodo just took a gamble - that it wouldn't be worth Apple actually taking action against them for what they did.

Quote:
And according to the story, you can't call the owner back because the phone was bricked.

The owner phoned the bar, and would have left an alternative number for the bar to phone back on. That's why I wrote that contacting the bar is what should be done. Simple English.
post #124 of 267
...and one more thing. The phone was in a case with that actually didn't look any different from the existing iPhones, I mean, at least from as far as you can't recognize the front camera.
So, in a black plastic cover, taking it to public place, there was hardly anything of the secrecy visible. Because the OS that can be different from your iPhone also exists in beta outside.
In this new phone, what was secret:
- the design that was covered
- the new parts inside, that wasn't recognizable
- the already known but not even ready OS4

that's why they could walk out with it from the Apple ranch, only restricting not to give it to unauthorized hands.
post #125 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

1) The trade secret law doesn't apply to objects that aren't secret. Leaving stuff on a bar stool out in the public will destroy the "secret" nature of the trade secret. Thus, it doesn't apply.

2) Handing the phone over the police would have done nothing since the phone was never reported lost or stolen to the police.

3) Actually the fact that the phone could have been taken apart to determine the origin of the prototype and thus the owner (being the maker) is actually quite determinative. It's the next best option. The CIVIL law states that it should be returned to the police if the owner cannot be determined. Here, it was determined by taking apart the phone. Gizmodo then arranged for the phone to be returned to Apple (which they had every intention of doing as soon as it came into their possession).

Handing the phone to the police would have stopped this from happening and potentially could have returned the item to the owner. There is nothing stopping it from being reported now. The finder was not to know it had not been reported to the police, hindsight is a wonder thing!

It would have been easier for Giz just to call Apple, simple.
Even if they needed to pull it apart to find the owner - WHY PUBLISH THE PHOTOS?
They should have quietly retuned the photo to Apple - the decent and honest thing to do.

Instead they chose to profit from it. That is the issue we all have with this story.
Sure intend to return to the own, sure pull it apart to find who it belongs to, I will let you have all those points. But to them publish the photos and tell the whole story contradicts their so called 'honest' intentions.
post #126 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

did giz call apple? No! They wanted the money!!

No, because calls had already been made. And the had every reason to believe it was a fake, as many, many people did. Even a fake would have been a good story for them.

They wanted a story. If money was their only interest, they would stop pissing off Apple to get their lucrative ad revenue back. Which they lost by doing a story on Jobs health. Ads are how they make money. Pissing off a huge customer doesn't seem like a great way to get their business.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #127 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Thousands of people must be stupid, because even after Giz released the first set of pics there were a lot of people that did not believe it was a real Apple device. Did you consider it could have been a chinese knockoff? There are a few of those around. If you look on this thing we like to call the 'internet' you might even be able to see some examples for yourself. there was no way to know it was an Apple device until it was opened. In fact with all the fakes out there, which is more likely, you find a phone and think "this MUST be a top secret Apple prototype!" or "This looks like a knock off..even the UI is different"?

use some common sense.

So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.

Of course people who see pictures on the internet are going to question it - ever hear of Photoshop?
post #128 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartin684 View Post

"We'll do anything for a story," he wrote. "Our only obligation is to our readers." -Wow. Talk about integrity. I sure hope the courts feel that their only obligation is to their readers, not the law or any ethical standards. What an a-hole. Could they not have returned this to Apple, and published the story of how they retrieved the iPhone for Apple and then just alluded to what they had seen while showing that they have some sort of integrity.

That's actually pretty much what happened. They retrieved the phone from the finder, returned it to apple. Posted a story of how it happened (and what happened in between).

Quote:
I wonder if Apple can sue them for damages and loss of 3GS sales since no one will buy a 3GS anymore knowing what is coming down the road in a very short time.

Theres no relationship between the parties and no wrongdoing by Gizmodo. Perhaps Apple can go after Gray Powell for the lost profits due to his negligence, but not Gizmodo.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #129 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Re: 1) In this case they didn't know the owner, and they should have handed it in to the police.

Dismantling and taking detailed pictures of the insides and publishing them is not the same as taking a picture of the outside of a new model car on a road.

No, but the same conditions to the trade secret laws apply. By removing it from the Apple facilities, the are no longer taking necessary steps top protect it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #130 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Calls were made{to Apple}. Calls were ignored.

But who at Apple? If it was to Apple Security Office you have a point. Otherwise.... not so sure
I'm still a bit confused 'ticket number'. Apples customer relations (not customer support) gives a ticket number? And what did they say on the ticket as the issue?

Alot of missing details.

But ultimately, he drove to Gizmo instead of One Infinity Drive. So in the end... FAIL.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #131 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.

Do you think that Gizmodo paid the money before they could get their hands on the device and figure out that it was real? How is it in any way a criminal act if Giz intended to return the device to Apple?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #132 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Gizmodo got all this information third hand from the "finder." When the story first broke out on Engadget, no one believed it. Why should Gizmodo take the "finder" at his word?

So did they make any attempt to verify the fact, perhaps contact Apple themselves?
You excuses for Giz in this are getting very thin.
post #133 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).

Yeah. I hear emailing Steve Jobs works a lot better these days than calling Apple's call center. I'm sure that Gizmodo has a lot more contacts to try than to rely on the finder's "attempt' to contact Apple.

Gizmodo could have also just sent over the pictures to Apple's leadership (you know, the ones that would actually KNOW what the new iphone might look like) and asked if this was indeed an Apple prototype. Anyone who wasn't directly involved with the new iPhone would have as much knowledge as any of Gizmodo's readers.

Both parties seem to have done the LEAST possible work to give them an excuse to profit from it. Like everyone who adheres to the "letter of the law" while conspicuously walking around the "spirit of the law". And people get upset when they see this behavior, because it invariably points to someone trying to get away with something. "But Mom! That's not what you actually told me not to do!"
post #134 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Actually, an Apple call centre person has reported that yes he did. The person that answered assumed it was a hoax, gave a call ticket number and hung up.

Just to be clear a person sent an email CLAIMING that they worked at Apple's call center and that the guy next to them took the support call.

They had the guy who lost it's name. If I found someone's Droid phone I wouldn't call Motorola. I'd either leave it at the bar or contact the guy who's Facebook account I had logged onto in the beginning. In my opinion the guy had the opportunity to do the right thing and chose not to. It's pretty obvious he didn't try very hard to do anything except to try and get the best price for it from a tech blog. Nothing can be done about it now. The thing that actually stinks the most about it for me is it was the Apple guy's birthday. Can you imagine the pit in your stomach realizing you didn't have the device?
post #135 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

There are different ways to determine who the owner was. This was one of them. Whichever you thought was nicer to Apple as an applefanboi doesn't matter. Giz did what they needed to do to determine the true owner of the phone and then returned it to them.

No they did what was more profitable to Giz. I assume you are a Gizfanboy?
post #136 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

But who at Apple? If it was to Apple Security Office you have a point. Otherwise.... not so sure
I'm still a bit confused 'ticket number'. Apples customer relations (not customer support) gives a ticket number? And what did they say on the ticket as the issue?

Alot of missing details.

But ultimately, he drove to Gizmo instead of One Infinity Drive. So in the end... FAIL.

Okay, so the finder failed. But Gizmodo in no way failed. They obtained possession, determined the authenticity and ownership by taking it apart, and returned it to its rightful owner.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #137 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

No they did what was more profitable to Giz. I assume you are a Gizfanboy?

Nope. I'm a fan of being an informed consumer.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #138 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

That's actually pretty much what happened. They retrieved the phone from the finder, returned it to apple. Posted a story of how it happened (and what happened in between).

Theres no relationship between the parties and no wrongdoing by Gizmodo. Perhaps Apple can go after Gray Powell for the lost profits due to his negligence, but not Gizmodo.

'retreived' ... nice word.
So when 5000 bucks changed hands... their was 'no relationship'.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #139 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Do you think that Gizmodo paid the money before they could get their hands on the device and figure out that it was real? How is it in any way a criminal act if Giz intended to return the device to Apple?

Usually, paying someone money for something you KNOW does not belong to them is called buying stolen property. "It just fell off a truck, honest!" Last I checked, that is criminal. Gizmodo also bought it to profit off the information it could publish, not to simply return it to Apple. And what they published were trade secrets. So they are culpable for a lot of things.
post #140 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Ok, that is just bad logic. What it implies is that they intent to determine the owner...not at all that they know who it is.

The owner was the person in the bar was it not?
Would Giz be able to get the info of the person in the bar from opening the device?
No they would not. So Giz then assumed it was a prototype, they only reason to open it to see if it was really an Apple device.

So why not call Apple first and discount them from being the 'owner'.
post #141 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Okay, so the finder failed. But Gizmodo in no way failed. They obtained possession, determined the authenticity and ownership by taking it apart, and returned it to its rightful owner.

Dunno. The finder didn't follow the civil code at all, he sold it on.

I expect that turns the situation from "lost and found" doesn't it?

Gizmodo weren't the finders, who had to follow the civil code. They bought a product, knowing it was lost. It's practically handling stolen goods because the finder hadn't made an attempt to contact the owner (the person who lost it in the bar), or hand it to the police. Sure, they behaved when Apple legal got in contact, but they didn't exactly have any choice.
post #142 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

In this case, they dismantled the phone and immediately determined the owner.

Yep that is great, well done for them, now just give it back.

Oh now we accidentally took loads of photos and published them on the internet, how did that happen.

You have yet to justify the actions of Giz after they confirmed the rightful owner.
post #143 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.

Of course people who see pictures on the internet are going to question it - ever hear of Photoshop?

Can you site the law would make it a criminal act?

they paid $5000 thinking it could be a prototype and a really good fake. Either would make a good story for them.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #144 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post

At least he didn't drop it into the toilet......not that I've ever done that mind you.

I think Apple would have preferred the prototype being lost down the drain as opposed to ending up on Gizmodo with millions of views.
post #145 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, because calls had already been made. And the had every reason to believe it was a fake, as many, many people did. Even a fake would have been a good story for them.

They wanted a story. If money was their only interest, they would stop pissing off Apple to get their lucrative ad revenue back. Which they lost by doing a story on Jobs health. Ads are how they make money. Pissing off a huge customer doesn't seem like a great way to get their business.

How do they know calls had already been made?

There are two of you in here supporting Giz, one of you says that Giz could not take the finders word and therefore had to pull the device apart to find out who owned it, and here you are saying they should believe him when he claimed to have called Apple.
post #146 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, but the same conditions to the trade secret laws apply. By removing it from the Apple facilities, the are no longer taking necessary steps top protect it.

Umm. They went to great lengths to disguise it as an older iPhone. They needed to field test the unit to work out any bugs. How is what they did not taking "necessary steps". Should they have handcuffed the phone to the engineer and ensure he gets strange looks every time he uses it?

Gizmodo appropriated trade secrets and published them for their own profit. Whether they escape being prosecuted or not, they still acted like yellow journalist and don't get my respect.
post #147 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Okay, so the finder failed. But Gizmodo in no way failed. They obtained possession, determined the authenticity and ownership by taking it apart, and returned it to its rightful owner.

BUT did not need to publish the photos.
post #148 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Okay, so the finder failed. But Gizmodo in no way failed. They obtained possession, determined the authenticity and ownership by taking it apart, and returned it to its rightful owner.

Maybe, they probably did enough CYA... but wow, talk about un-ethical. Come on, all they had to do was drive over to apple.

They could have had video of them turning it in to Apple security.

Now that would have been much better story AND had their pictures.

The way this played out was ugly.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #149 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

The owner was the person in the bar was it not?
Would Giz be able to get the info of the person in the bar from opening the device?
No they would not. So Giz then assumed it was a prototype, they only reason to open it to see if it was really an Apple device.

So why not call Apple first and discount them from being the 'owner'.

No, as it turns out, the owner is Apple, not the Apple employee.

And no, Giz did not necessarily assume it was a prototype. They 'assumed' it was not a current iPhone. This could mean prototype. It could mean chinese knockoff. It could mean some industrious hobbyist assembled a custom case for his iPhone and modified the UI through a jailbreak. It could mean it was a prototype.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #150 of 267
No way Apple is going to get any (legal) traction on this "stolen property" line...they didn't formally report the phone as stolen to the local PD...a pre-requisite to making that claim stick in court. Plus, I bet you all Apple Call Center calls are transcribed...which means the finder's calls (assuming they happened) to see if the phone belonged to Apple are a matter of record and produceable during the discovery phase if this goes to trial. Again, if validated yet not acted upon by Apple, it weakens any Apple case significantly.

There'll likely be a lot of Apple saber rattling legally over this but I don't think it'll go anywhere.

Bottom line is that the device wasn't reasonably secured by an Apple employee; thus, corporate Apple will be viewed at primary fault. Contributors, of course, are the "finder" for not doing more to ensure the phone was returned to its rightful owner (clearly anyone with honorable intentions would either turn it in to a representative of the bar or the PD), the "finder" for selling something which obviously wasn't his to sell, and the "buyer" who had a publicity motive and knew, or reasonably should have known, what the merchandise was prior to commencing the transaction.

Plenty of blame all around but this little dust up will never see the inside of a courtroom.
post #151 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

Yep that is great, well done for them, now just give it back.

Oh now we accidentally took loads of photos and published them on the internet, how did that happen.

You have yet to justify the actions of Giz after they confirmed the rightful owner.

Yes they took pictures. Criminal? hardly.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #152 of 267
I've lost 3 iPhones over the years, and I had to buy a new one to replace it...NO IPHONE INSURANCE WITH APPLE/AT&T!!! Apple/AT&T knows exactly where those "lost" phones are...in the hands of unscrupulous people. Does Apple/AT&T have any morals and deactivate or warn the current user (thief) that the phone is lost? No. They have a new "customer" paying AT&T monthly fees, plus an old customer who now needs to buy a new phone.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost.

Apple lost their precious 4G iPhone. Now they cry foul. I say, suck it Apple. You and AT&T made alot of money off of people losing their iPhones.

Now it's your turn Apple. Karma's a bi*tch.
post #153 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

How do they know calls had already been made?

There are two of you in here supporting Giz, one of you says that Giz could not take the finders word and therefore had to pull the device apart to find out who owned it, and here you are saying they should believe him when he claimed to have called Apple.

????
What, we are supposed to think with a unibrain because we don't agree with you? Imagine that, people with different opinions.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #154 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

Umm. They went to great lengths to disguise it as an older iPhone. They needed to field test the unit to work out any bugs. How is what they did not taking "necessary steps". Should they have handcuffed the phone to the engineer and ensure he gets strange looks every time he uses it?

Gizmodo appropriated trade secrets and published them for their own profit. Whether they escape being prosecuted or not, they still acted like yellow journalist and don't get my respect.

they don't need your respect.

but yes, as soon as they allow it to leave the controlled environment of their facilities, they lose trade secret protection (from what I have read).

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #155 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

BUT did not need to publish the photos.

Didn't need to, but they did. Criminal for doing so?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #156 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, as it turns out, the owner is Apple, not the Apple employee.

And no, Giz did not necessarily assume it was a prototype. They 'assumed' it was not a current iPhone. This could mean prototype. It could mean chinese knockoff. It could mean some industrious hobbyist assembled a custom case for his iPhone and modified the UI through a jailbreak. It could mean it was a prototype.

It is easy now to say that it belongs to Apple, but Giz did not know that when they bought it (or did they?). As far as they had been told it was left in a bar by an individual, not a major corporation.

So when they bought it who did they think was the owner?
post #157 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Yes they took pictures. Criminal? hardly.

Did I say it was criminal?

It just does not ring true with the claim they only bought so they could return it to the owner crap.
post #158 of 267
freddych really is twisting themself into a pretzel to make the finder and Giz's actions seem OK. The finder should have turned it into the bar. What they do with it after that is not his call. If he was concerned he could have contacted the police. But if he would have left it with the bar and the owner called the bar, problem solved if the bar was honest. Either way the finder's conscience would be OK. How anyone can justify Giz's actions just shows their lack of moral clarity and not knowing how to just do the right thing. Giz knew what they were doing. They may not have known it was a prototype iPhone, but my guess is that they had a hunch and were willing to pay for it. Returning it to Apple after tearing it apart doesn't nullify that. If Apple wants to crucify them, they will probably win. And they have enough $ to make their lives miserable. Not so sure, had they had it to do all over, that Giz would have gotten into this, which I think they are going to find out.
post #159 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeletrooper View Post

I've lost 3 iPhones over the years, and I had to buy a new one to replace it...NO IPHONE INSURANCE WITH APPLE/AT&T!!! Apple/AT&T knows exactly where those "lost" phones are...in the hands of unscrupulous people. Does Apple/AT&T have any morals and deactivate or warn the current user (thief) that the phone is lost? No. They have a new "customer" paying AT&T monthly fees, plus an old customer who now needs to buy a new phone.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost.

Apple lost their precious 4G iPhone. Now they cry foul. I say, suck it Apple. You and AT&T made alot of money off of people losing their iPhones.

Now it's your turn Apple. Karma's a bi*tch.

Try being more careful with your property!

I see it is the usual case of my inability to look after things is someone else's fault.

Did you try to get insurance from another source?
Do you know the phones you 'lost' are still in use?
It is hardly their fault that you can't look after your property.

What do you want them to do exactly, just give you a new phone every time you are careless?

Take ownership for your own mistakes.
post #160 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodlesNoodlemann View Post

freddych really is twisting themself into a pretzel to make the finder and Giz's actions seem OK. The finder should have turned it into the bar. What they do with it after that is not his call. If he was concerned he could have contacted the police. But if he would have left it with the bar and the owner called the bar, problem solved if the bar was honest. Either way the finder's conscience would be OK. How anyone can justify Giz's actions just shows their lack of moral clarity and not knowing how to just do the right thing. Giz knew what they were doing. They may not have known it was a prototype iPhone, but my guess is that they had a hunch and were willing to pay for it. Returning it to Apple after tearing it apart doesn't nullify that. If Apple wants to crucify them, they will probably win. And they have enough $ to make their lives miserable. Not so sure, had they had it to do all over, that Giz would have gotten into this, which I think they are going to find out.

Well said!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone