I suppose this could have been an intentional leak on Apple's part, aptly timed to kill interest in the just-released (and well reviewed) Droid Incredible.
Google need not hire industrial espionage agents just use the Apple Rumor sites for their needs. Sad Apple is so betrayed at every turn these days.
You know what? If you don't like the rumor sites, stop reading them. AppleInsider is doing its job reporting rumors, it's a rumor site. They report rumors. They report stories like this.
And there's nothing "sad" about it at all. They're doing a service to the public, and ultimately they're doing a service to Apple as well.
So stop trolling, and go away.
As for this phone, I'm not at all sure I like it. The curved design of the current iPhone is very comfortable to hold, it's been somewhat human engineered. This doesn't look like it will be nearly as nice a phone.
Wow! Those Droid adds have certainly had an effect on a very special sector of the population... I wonder what is wrong with them. What is it with that need to reinforce their "masculinity" at every turn of the road.
The design in the images definitely has a more masculine feel but that is not to say it will appeal more to men, The Droid adds were designed to appeal to "men' - or at least a certain type of man. Something like the iPhone which is beautifully designed and built will appeal across the board regardless whether they are more or less masculine. To think that the Droid phones, and in particular the Droid ads have influenced Apple's design choices is pretty naive.
Doesn't really matter what Apple considers it. If it was truly lost, as in misplaced accidently, then it was, by definition, lost. Once Apple informs the party that currently has it, that it is Apple's property and requests that it be returned, then they can consider it stolen or misappropriated. Of course, that also would confirm it authenticity, so really, it is Apple that has to walk the fine line.
It changed hands though, and Gruber says it's common knowledge that Gizmodo has had it for a week and that they purchased it from the people who found/stole it.
Seems to me it could easily be (officially) "stolen" as opposed to "lost." It depends on who said what to whom and when. Specifically on whether Apple has asked for it back already, on whether they asked for it back form the original "finders" before they sold it to Gizmodo (if that's what they did), etc.
Wow, that an incredible leak. I bet that someone's head was rolled over at Apple for this major fail. Any new job opening listed? That said, the new iPhone looks GREAT. Will be picking one up when its comes out for sure.
You have what looks like an iPhone, that when removed from the case looks like no other iPhone out there. So the first thing you do is video it then TAKE IT APART??????
What kind of morons are working over at Gizmodo anyway?? They've already tried to piss in Apple's Wheaties over Job's medical leave, now this? If it truly was an accidental leave-behind and not a plant, Jason Chen's backside will be sued into next Tuesday for taking apart a device he doesn't own and is reported as missing by Apple (allegedly). Unless it was a def plant and this was all staged to make it look "accidental". That is the only way that Jason Chen is off the hook for being foolish enough to crack the case. While I have seen some rather pathetic stuff ooze out of Gizmodo from time to time, I simply cannot believe Jason is THAT stupid.
So you have a choice I guess. Either a plant for the press to get their grubby little hands on a pre-release model to generate mindshare, and Jason Chen is simply a tool following directions about building awareness/speculation prior to the launch announcement.
OR
It was truly an accidental leave-behind, in which case someone from Apple is getting charred by Jobs for being careless and compromising Apple security around advance device work. Therefore Giz and Jason, are now in receipt of missing (reported stolen?) goods and in a fit of abject idiocy decide to blog it, take the thing apart AND take pictures. Something I would have expected my son to do (for example) when he was like 12 maybe. Not the behaviors of responsible adult journalist types (go with me on this one here). Which, for all my criticism of Giz, just doesn't make sense.
Finally an iPhone that doesn't need a case. I love the look. And it certainly looks better than the cases people feel are neccessay to protect the current one.
It changed hands though, and Gruber says it's common knowledge that Gizmodo has had it for a week and that they purchased it from the people who found/stole it.
Seems to me it could easily be (officially) "stolen" as opposed to "lost." It depends on who said what to whom and when. Specifically on whether Apple has asked for it back already, on whether they asked for it back form the original "finders" before they sold it to Gizmodo (if that's what they did), etc.
Yes, that is true. That's what I meant when I said that once Apple informs the person/party that has it that it is Apple's property, that have a valid charge. But, until then , it is simply lost. Obviously they could assume it was Apple property. At the same time, they were not even convinced themselves whether it was authentic or a fake, so they couldn't reasonably assume it was Apple's.
Now that they have convinced themselves, they should return it. I still don't think they are under a legal obligation to do so until Apple comes forwards, claims it as theirs and requests it back. Just like if you found my phone...you don't know it's mine until I tell you. You could sleuth and find my info on the phone, but that only tells you it might be mine.
Though i've thought that the next iPhone would look like a small iPad - and would have the name iPhone HD - i was shocked reading this! the pics i thought before was fake - but now having doubts about that... if this is the next iPhone = i would run to the apple store and wait 2 weeks before to get in line.... DEFINITELY worth waiting for - flash, front camera, wow just wow....
Comments
I wouldn't have used the word "masculine". I would say it looks more industrial. There, a gender neutral adjective.
IMO, this fake looks like it would inspire MUCH more techno-lust:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ph...1/iphone4g.jpg
What I don't understand is why there are so few internal pics. Show us the NAND and the CPU.
It can't be a planted Apple drop because the chance of it landing in the hands of a moron and disappearing are too high.
It could very easily be a drop.
They'd just make damned sure it got into the hands of exactly who they wanted it to....say, a technology blog...like, um....I dunno....Gizmodo.
Google need not hire industrial espionage agents just use the Apple Rumor sites for their needs. Sad Apple is so betrayed at every turn these days.
You know what? If you don't like the rumor sites, stop reading them. AppleInsider is doing its job reporting rumors, it's a rumor site. They report rumors. They report stories like this.
And there's nothing "sad" about it at all. They're doing a service to the public, and ultimately they're doing a service to Apple as well.
So stop trolling, and go away.
As for this phone, I'm not at all sure I like it. The curved design of the current iPhone is very comfortable to hold, it's been somewhat human engineered. This doesn't look like it will be nearly as nice a phone.
Wow! Those Droid adds have certainly had an effect on a very special sector of the population... I wonder what is wrong with them. What is it with that need to reinforce their "masculinity" at every turn of the road.
The design in the images definitely has a more masculine feel but that is not to say it will appeal more to men, The Droid adds were designed to appeal to "men' - or at least a certain type of man. Something like the iPhone which is beautifully designed and built will appeal across the board regardless whether they are more or less masculine. To think that the Droid phones, and in particular the Droid ads have influenced Apple's design choices is pretty naive.
I still don't buy it.
It's a red-herring intended for competitors.
I agree 100%.
It could very easily be a drop.
They'd just make damned sure it got into the hands of exactly who they wanted it to....say, a technology blog...like, um....I dunno....Gizmodo.
Yeah, but 'found on the floor of a bar'?. Is that a euphemism for 'delivered by courier'. Maybe that's why Jobs had coffee with Schmidt that time...
I wonder if the back could the back have some sort of touch-sensitive capabilities...
Looks phenomenal.
I almost bet you are right !! Soon we will find out in a couple of months !
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aXBqtMirbD4E
Doesn't really matter what Apple considers it. If it was truly lost, as in misplaced accidently, then it was, by definition, lost. Once Apple informs the party that currently has it, that it is Apple's property and requests that it be returned, then they can consider it stolen or misappropriated. Of course, that also would confirm it authenticity, so really, it is Apple that has to walk the fine line.
It changed hands though, and Gruber says it's common knowledge that Gizmodo has had it for a week and that they purchased it from the people who found/stole it.
Seems to me it could easily be (officially) "stolen" as opposed to "lost." It depends on who said what to whom and when. Specifically on whether Apple has asked for it back already, on whether they asked for it back form the original "finders" before they sold it to Gizmodo (if that's what they did), etc.
Hint: Only one side has the [HOME] button, and the controls (volume etc.) are situated on only one side of the device.
One would have to have some serious issue not to know which side was which
Um, like getting so drunk in a bar that you lost a multi-million dollar top secret prototype?
...reminiscent of the ugly candy bar form factor...
'Melting ice-cream sandwich' form-factor, more like.
What kind of morons are working over at Gizmodo anyway?? They've already tried to piss in Apple's Wheaties over Job's medical leave, now this? If it truly was an accidental leave-behind and not a plant, Jason Chen's backside will be sued into next Tuesday for taking apart a device he doesn't own and is reported as missing by Apple (allegedly). Unless it was a def plant and this was all staged to make it look "accidental". That is the only way that Jason Chen is off the hook for being foolish enough to crack the case. While I have seen some rather pathetic stuff ooze out of Gizmodo from time to time, I simply cannot believe Jason is THAT stupid.
So you have a choice I guess. Either a plant for the press to get their grubby little hands on a pre-release model to generate mindshare, and Jason Chen is simply a tool following directions about building awareness/speculation prior to the launch announcement.
OR
It was truly an accidental leave-behind, in which case someone from Apple is getting charred by Jobs for being careless and compromising Apple security around advance device work. Therefore Giz and Jason, are now in receipt of missing (reported stolen?) goods and in a fit of abject idiocy decide to blog it, take the thing apart AND take pictures. Something I would have expected my son to do (for example) when he was like 12 maybe. Not the behaviors of responsible adult journalist types (go with me on this one here). Which, for all my criticism of Giz, just doesn't make sense.
It changed hands though, and Gruber says it's common knowledge that Gizmodo has had it for a week and that they purchased it from the people who found/stole it.
Seems to me it could easily be (officially) "stolen" as opposed to "lost." It depends on who said what to whom and when. Specifically on whether Apple has asked for it back already, on whether they asked for it back form the original "finders" before they sold it to Gizmodo (if that's what they did), etc.
Yes, that is true. That's what I meant when I said that once Apple informs the person/party that has it that it is Apple's property, that have a valid charge. But, until then , it is simply lost. Obviously they could assume it was Apple property. At the same time, they were not even convinced themselves whether it was authentic or a fake, so they couldn't reasonably assume it was Apple's.
Now that they have convinced themselves, they should return it. I still don't think they are under a legal obligation to do so until Apple comes forwards, claims it as theirs and requests it back. Just like if you found my phone...you don't know it's mine until I tell you. You could sleuth and find my info on the phone, but that only tells you it might be mine.