Believe me, the axe has fallen on the offending employees neck already. I imagine that Steve himself has tried to get that phone back if it's real. This could be the biggest blunder or scoop if it's a prototype. I have to admit that I would have asked if there was a reward for it's return before posting pictures online...
It might be prototype. Still the story behind it is not making any sense.
Every great artists have their own signature and Jonathan Ive is one of the best so he definitely has it. You must study it to know it. This thing go beyond technical requirement.
The story behind it - by which I take it you mean how the phone came to our attention - is odd, I agree. But I wonder why you believe this phone does not have Ive's signature? Like you say, you must study it to know it and yet by looking at a couple of pretty low quality images you know it? Given that this may not be a final product I think it is too early to say. Why I mentioned technical requirements was that you you unfairly limit what in your eyes constitute Ive design. Technical limitations inform design so must be a factor in evaluating the design. Be that as it may, I still wonder how you define Ive's signature design traits.
Sharp Edges are reason for this not being an Apple design... Really?
Apparently you've never owned an iPod Nano 3rd generation, or any modern MacBook Pro on which the entire keyboard section is surrounded by a rather 'sharp edge', including right where one's palm rest in the front.
we will have to wait to see if it passes colbert's salsa test.
Believe me, the axe has fallen on the offending employees neck already. I imagine that Steve himself has tried to get that phone back if it's real. This could be the biggest blunder of scoop if it's a prototype. I have to admit that I would have asked if there was a reward for it's return before posting pictures online...
Yeah, the whole intentional leak plot on this one is way too complicated. If it was an intentional leak and the details of the devious game get exposed it will make Apple look like a bunch of paranoid incompetent weirdos. Too many risk factors for Apple to do something like that.
or, maybe they're just having fun watching all the hub-bub and speculation that this caused. It certainly makes for a more interesting Monday.
I don't think it is for competitors. I think it is part of a FUD campaign to freeze out people from going to competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD
I doubt a company like Apple would make this kind of security leak! Dropping a prototype in bar by accident?!
The design in not something refined... it has too sharp edges and would not feel right in the hand. SJ is picky about this kind of think. The sharp edges, tacky design makes it look like red herring dropped on purpose.
Why would Apple allow the unit to go into a bar even for testing? Testing while drunk?
Apple sends stuff out all the times. As was noted, this is clearly disguised. It feels very much like an intentional drop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider
It's also hard to imagine anyone with this device accidentally leaving it laying around somewhere. And harder yet to believe that this was "found" by someone who knew what it was, who didn't pawn it or turn it into the police. So I call it a drop as well.
BUT if it is a leak, holy crap!! Since Apple apparently did a remote brick on it, they must know who's supposed to have it.
I would not want to be in that person's shoes this morning...
It isn't a leak. Apple knows that HTC Droid Incredible with Android 2.1 and Sense is dropping in a couple days. The specs and review on it are going to be insanely good. This is trying to kill that buzz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
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.
There ya go. Hasn't anyone here wandered out of the Apple-verse and noted the HTC Droid Incredible? It is going to be awesome. It makes the Nexus One look so bad in comparison that it is embarassing. The preview pages are already out for it on Verizon and the specs on it are so good stock folks should be downgrading Motorola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
How about this chain of events?
Gizmodo is approached by a 'third party' (well, Apple, actually)
with the opportunity to get a pre-release look at one of the final set of design prototypes.
They are told what cover story to use 'found in a bar'.
They are told what pictures they can take, both assembled and disassembled.
And they have to sign a NDA the length of all US Case law....
BUT they get to generate a huge number of page hits.
During the SAME WEEK that the next generation Droid and the Microsoft KIN hit the news cycles.
Cases for: Quality of pix, device itself, limited exposure (no OS, no pic of CPU), timing.
Cases against: ?
Cases against are no reveal on the frequencies operating on or the CPU and I'll even say the "remote kill." Clearly it is possible to run an iPhone without iTunes for long periods of time. They could have simply charged it off a wall charger, gotten lots more info, etc before plugging it into iTunes. This thing absolutely feels like a planned and coordinated drop to freeze a million folks running over to Verizon and grabbing Incredibles with $350 ETF's. If Apple is dropping this in July as with past phones, that is just after Mom and Dad's day so seeing it, Mom and Dad might want to wait. I bet Verizon has a couple million folks coming off contract with those two holidays passing. There will be all sorts of Env2, Dare owners and even frustrated Storm 1 owners look for something new. Apple needs to freeze them for a couple months off contract and keep them from buying the HTC Droid Incredible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The one fact that would argue against this is that Giz has not claimed to have received a request from Apple. As soon as they do, you know that would trumpet that as the final proof of authenticity.
If they original finder was told by Apple to return it, then either they didn't tell Giz this (otherwise Giz would benefit by saying so) and Giz is not responsible, or the told Giz and Giz ignored this so they could get their hands on it for examination. Even then, I would expect Giz would have included this in their analysis as to why they feel it is real.
Apple isn't dumb. They know that as soon as they discuss this, it becomes real. As long as they do not formally request its return, then there is still doubt, at least as far as it being a final design.
Again to me this is a straight up FUD campaign. Apple knows it has to generate large numbers for initial sales to claim continued momentum. Even sales of 100k for the first week of Droid Incredible means there are 100k fewer people to buy an iPhone and thus have lower initial sales be used to pedal a narrative of declining Apple influence and lead.
What more do you need given that the Gizmodo passage you quoted clearly states that, "According to the person who found it, this iPhone was running iPhone OS 4.0 before the iPhone 4.0 announcement"
The 'device' has pretty much been proven to be of Apple design, so I'm prepared to accept that the 'finder' is being honest.
If you're not... Oh Well
I said:
Quote:
We really don't know if it was "recently" remotely disabled. In fact Gizmodo didn't see it working (just connect to iTunes message).
There is no contrary to my statement. In fact it reinforced my statement that no one saw the device fully working. Only he said.
Do you really believe that this phone was found in a bar?! Do you really believe that someone who found a secret iPhone prototype with unannounced OS would play with it without taking tons of pictures and videos? This guy story is fishy.
Here is a picture from February posted in a tweet. The person who post it said he got it from a chinese tweet. Furthermore, John Gruber states that Apple considers the unit stolen.
Geez. OK let me step through this for you. Over at Gruber's blog he reports that
So I guess we can call up Cupertino's PD and ask if Apple has filed a theft report. In which case then Gizmodo has been a receiver of stolen goods (and is out whatever money they paid to get their hands on it). If they do not then turn over the name of the person who sold it to them they can be charged with obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation as well. Since they knowingly paid the source to get the device, they have no legal leg to stand on and are considered by law to be complicit in the theft of the device. To your rather lame point above, Gizmodo doesn't have to call anyone, the person (for example) who finds something missing files a theft report with the police, at which point the device is now considered stolen goods, and anyone handling stolen goods is by law regarded as being complicit if they cannot demonstrate that they didn't know it was stolen. Gizmodo was contacted and informed of the situation by their source, so they knew ahead of time that this device was not released by Apple, but "found" and not returned or turned over to the bar owner to hold for the device owner. Since it was removed from the bar, it is by law theft, period. Check your local law library for precedent if you want. So the source is chargeable with theft, Gizmodo for receiving and compensating the source for stolen goods, and just to top it all off, cracking the case, taking pictures and thus providing able evidence of both their stupidity and their offense.
That is if -IF- this is not just a viral hit by Apple to keep the next gen iPhone in the mindshare circus. So the series of proofs will be this: IF Apple hasn't/doesn't file a theft report, if they simply take back the device from Gizmodo and nothing else is said about the situation, we know it is a PR gig. If a theft report is filed and charges brought we know otherwise. Got it? Thanks for playing.
Seems like you understand at least part of your own post.
So, umm, you have the theft report that you yourself state would tell us otherwise?
Let's rewind the clock a couple weeks to Steve & Eric's little curb-side cafe chat. It's not clear which said it, but what was overheard was, "They're going to see it eventually so who cares how they get it." Perhaps they were talking about their respective phones, and Steve's intentions for a controlled product leak? As people here have said in previous posts, it is highly unlikely a new iPhone would be carried around in the wild outside Apple's notoriously tight security restrictions. Something such as an iPhone prototype simply wouldn't escape them unless they wanted it to, and on their terms. Considering all the leaked images in years past coming from the Chinese manufacturers, why wouldn't Apple seek to cut them off at the pass this time around? Especially when they know all the tech blogs report on leaked images at the near speed of light. Sounds like devious and ingenious marketing to me.
How does tht make sense? Between MBPs, iPhone OS v4.0 and the iPad Apple has plenty of products in play.
Since when does Apple need to leak a full product in this why? Why not just a photo? What is the point in all that secrecy just to take all the thunder out of Jobs iPhone event months ahead of time?
How does it benefit them to give their competion 2 extra months to play follow the leader. It doesn't make sense.
Just because it's a leak (planned or unplanned) and just because it is a real Apple device (as everyone assumes it is)... doesn't mean that this is the next iPhone!.
I suspect that Apple has several alternative designs of new products, showing different esthetics and features. At some point, in the development process they have to actually make a few "real" models to see how they look and feel.
This could be the real thing, an also ran, or a red herring!
There is no contrary to my statement. In fact it reinforced my statement that no one saw the device fully working. Only he said.
Do you really believe that this phone was found in a bar?! Do you really believe that someone who found a secret iPhone prototype with unannounced OS would play with it without taking tons of pictures and videos? This guy story is fishy.
Here is a picture from February posted in a tweet. The person who post it said he got it from a chinese tweet. Furthermore, John Gruber states that Apple considers the unit stolen.
It's all possible when one takes into consideration that there are legions of people out there that simply don't care about these matters, or even know what a phone OS even is, and actually find that fact that a mere phone would be so shrouded in all this nonsensical secrecy.
Possible Scenario: The individual might not have even realized what he/she had in their possession until a more 'tech savvy' friend/associate/acquaintance informed them, and then they decided to sell it to the highest bidder.
Apple sends stuff out all the times. As was noted, this is clearly disguised. It feels very much like an intentional drop.
The thing that makes me suspicious is the fact that the back has Apple written all over it. If this was a prototype being tested by some select individual and Apple did NOT want anyone to know, why advertise its existence on its back. So either it was an intentional drop or someone's having a riot, right now (read: fake). The other thing that makes me suspicious is that apparently the person who found it claimed it was running OS4 before Apple remotely wiped it. It would seem unlikely that whoever had it did not have a password lock on it.
Comments
It might be prototype. Still the story behind it is not making any sense.
Every great artists have their own signature and Jonathan Ive is one of the best so he definitely has it. You must study it to know it. This thing go beyond technical requirement.
The story behind it - by which I take it you mean how the phone came to our attention - is odd, I agree. But I wonder why you believe this phone does not have Ive's signature? Like you say, you must study it to know it and yet by looking at a couple of pretty low quality images you know it? Given that this may not be a final product I think it is too early to say. Why I mentioned technical requirements was that you you unfairly limit what in your eyes constitute Ive design. Technical limitations inform design so must be a factor in evaluating the design. Be that as it may, I still wonder how you define Ive's signature design traits.
Sharp Edges are reason for this not being an Apple design... Really?
Apparently you've never owned an iPod Nano 3rd generation, or any modern MacBook Pro on which the entire keyboard section is surrounded by a rather 'sharp edge', including right where one's palm rest in the front.
we will have to wait to see if it passes colbert's salsa test.
Believe me, the axe has fallen on the offending employees neck already. I imagine that Steve himself has tried to get that phone back if it's real. This could be the biggest blunder of scoop if it's a prototype. I have to admit that I would have asked if there was a reward for it's return before posting pictures online...
Exactly!
we will have to wait to see if it passes colbert's salsa test.
Mmm? Salsa...
Yeah, the whole intentional leak plot on this one is way too complicated. If it was an intentional leak and the details of the devious game get exposed it will make Apple look like a bunch of paranoid incompetent weirdos. Too many risk factors for Apple to do something like that.
or, maybe they're just having fun watching all the hub-bub and speculation that this caused. It certainly makes for a more interesting Monday.
I still don't buy it.
It's a red-herring intended for competitors.
I don't think it is for competitors. I think it is part of a FUD campaign to freeze out people from going to competitors.
I doubt a company like Apple would make this kind of security leak! Dropping a prototype in bar by accident?!
The design in not something refined... it has too sharp edges and would not feel right in the hand. SJ is picky about this kind of think. The sharp edges, tacky design makes it look like red herring dropped on purpose.
Why would Apple allow the unit to go into a bar even for testing? Testing while drunk?
Apple sends stuff out all the times. As was noted, this is clearly disguised. It feels very much like an intentional drop.
It's also hard to imagine anyone with this device accidentally leaving it laying around somewhere. And harder yet to believe that this was "found" by someone who knew what it was, who didn't pawn it or turn it into the police. So I call it a drop as well.
BUT if it is a leak, holy crap!! Since Apple apparently did a remote brick on it, they must know who's supposed to have it.
I would not want to be in that person's shoes this morning...
It isn't a leak. Apple knows that HTC Droid Incredible with Android 2.1 and Sense is dropping in a couple days. The specs and review on it are going to be insanely good. This is trying to kill that buzz.
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.
There ya go. Hasn't anyone here wandered out of the Apple-verse and noted the HTC Droid Incredible? It is going to be awesome. It makes the Nexus One look so bad in comparison that it is embarassing. The preview pages are already out for it on Verizon and the specs on it are so good stock folks should be downgrading Motorola.
How about this chain of events?
Gizmodo is approached by a 'third party' (well, Apple, actually)
with the opportunity to get a pre-release look at one of the final set of design prototypes.
They are told what cover story to use 'found in a bar'.
They are told what pictures they can take, both assembled and disassembled.
And they have to sign a NDA the length of all US Case law....
BUT they get to generate a huge number of page hits.
During the SAME WEEK that the next generation Droid and the Microsoft KIN hit the news cycles.
Cases for: Quality of pix, device itself, limited exposure (no OS, no pic of CPU), timing.
Cases against: ?
Cases against are no reveal on the frequencies operating on or the CPU and I'll even say the "remote kill." Clearly it is possible to run an iPhone without iTunes for long periods of time. They could have simply charged it off a wall charger, gotten lots more info, etc before plugging it into iTunes. This thing absolutely feels like a planned and coordinated drop to freeze a million folks running over to Verizon and grabbing Incredibles with $350 ETF's. If Apple is dropping this in July as with past phones, that is just after Mom and Dad's day so seeing it, Mom and Dad might want to wait. I bet Verizon has a couple million folks coming off contract with those two holidays passing. There will be all sorts of Env2, Dare owners and even frustrated Storm 1 owners look for something new. Apple needs to freeze them for a couple months off contract and keep them from buying the HTC Droid Incredible.
The one fact that would argue against this is that Giz has not claimed to have received a request from Apple. As soon as they do, you know that would trumpet that as the final proof of authenticity.
If they original finder was told by Apple to return it, then either they didn't tell Giz this (otherwise Giz would benefit by saying so) and Giz is not responsible, or the told Giz and Giz ignored this so they could get their hands on it for examination. Even then, I would expect Giz would have included this in their analysis as to why they feel it is real.
Apple isn't dumb. They know that as soon as they discuss this, it becomes real. As long as they do not formally request its return, then there is still doubt, at least as far as it being a final design.
Again to me this is a straight up FUD campaign. Apple knows it has to generate large numbers for initial sales to claim continued momentum. Even sales of 100k for the first week of Droid Incredible means there are 100k fewer people to buy an iPhone and thus have lower initial sales be used to pedal a narrative of declining Apple influence and lead.
What more do you need given that the Gizmodo passage you quoted clearly states that, "According to the person who found it, this iPhone was running iPhone OS 4.0 before the iPhone 4.0 announcement"
The 'device' has pretty much been proven to be of Apple design, so I'm prepared to accept that the 'finder' is being honest.
If you're not... Oh Well
I said:
We really don't know if it was "recently" remotely disabled. In fact Gizmodo didn't see it working (just connect to iTunes message).
There is no contrary to my statement. In fact it reinforced my statement that no one saw the device fully working. Only he said.
Do you really believe that this phone was found in a bar?! Do you really believe that someone who found a secret iPhone prototype with unannounced OS would play with it without taking tons of pictures and videos? This guy story is fishy.
Here is a picture from February posted in a tweet. The person who post it said he got it from a chinese tweet. Furthermore, John Gruber states that Apple considers the unit stolen.
Geez. OK let me step through this for you. Over at Gruber's blog he reports that
So I guess we can call up Cupertino's PD and ask if Apple has filed a theft report. In which case then Gizmodo has been a receiver of stolen goods (and is out whatever money they paid to get their hands on it). If they do not then turn over the name of the person who sold it to them they can be charged with obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation as well. Since they knowingly paid the source to get the device, they have no legal leg to stand on and are considered by law to be complicit in the theft of the device. To your rather lame point above, Gizmodo doesn't have to call anyone, the person (for example) who finds something missing files a theft report with the police, at which point the device is now considered stolen goods, and anyone handling stolen goods is by law regarded as being complicit if they cannot demonstrate that they didn't know it was stolen. Gizmodo was contacted and informed of the situation by their source, so they knew ahead of time that this device was not released by Apple, but "found" and not returned or turned over to the bar owner to hold for the device owner. Since it was removed from the bar, it is by law theft, period. Check your local law library for precedent if you want. So the source is chargeable with theft, Gizmodo for receiving and compensating the source for stolen goods, and just to top it all off, cracking the case, taking pictures and thus providing able evidence of both their stupidity and their offense.
That is if -IF- this is not just a viral hit by Apple to keep the next gen iPhone in the mindshare circus. So the series of proofs will be this: IF Apple hasn't/doesn't file a theft report, if they simply take back the device from Gizmodo and nothing else is said about the situation, we know it is a PR gig. If a theft report is filed and charges brought we know otherwise. Got it? Thanks for playing.
Seems like you understand at least part of your own post.
So, umm, you have the theft report that you yourself state would tell us otherwise?
No? I suppse you don't.
Thanks for trying.
No Verizon this year.
Keep hope alive. They only lost the GSM version. Maybe the CDMA version is still in experimental use. Let's hope someone misplaces that one.
Let's rewind the clock a couple weeks to Steve & Eric's little curb-side cafe chat. It's not clear which said it, but what was overheard was, "They're going to see it eventually so who cares how they get it." Perhaps they were talking about their respective phones, and Steve's intentions for a controlled product leak? As people here have said in previous posts, it is highly unlikely a new iPhone would be carried around in the wild outside Apple's notoriously tight security restrictions. Something such as an iPhone prototype simply wouldn't escape them unless they wanted it to, and on their terms. Considering all the leaked images in years past coming from the Chinese manufacturers, why wouldn't Apple seek to cut them off at the pass this time around? Especially when they know all the tech blogs report on leaked images at the near speed of light. Sounds like devious and ingenious marketing to me.
Google it
How does tht make sense? Between MBPs, iPhone OS v4.0 and the iPad Apple has plenty of products in play.
Since when does Apple need to leak a full product in this why? Why not just a photo? What is the point in all that secrecy just to take all the thunder out of Jobs iPhone event months ahead of time?
How does it benefit them to give their competion 2 extra months to play follow the leader. It doesn't make sense.
Just because it's a leak (planned or unplanned) and just because it is a real Apple device (as everyone assumes it is)... doesn't mean that this is the next iPhone!.
I suspect that Apple has several alternative designs of new products, showing different esthetics and features. At some point, in the development process they have to actually make a few "real" models to see how they look and feel.
This could be the real thing, an also ran, or a red herring!
.
I said:
There is no contrary to my statement. In fact it reinforced my statement that no one saw the device fully working. Only he said.
Do you really believe that this phone was found in a bar?! Do you really believe that someone who found a secret iPhone prototype with unannounced OS would play with it without taking tons of pictures and videos? This guy story is fishy.
Here is a picture from February posted in a tweet. The person who post it said he got it from a chinese tweet. Furthermore, John Gruber states that Apple considers the unit stolen.
It's all possible when one takes into consideration that there are legions of people out there that simply don't care about these matters, or even know what a phone OS even is, and actually find that fact that a mere phone would be so shrouded in all this nonsensical secrecy.
Possible Scenario: The individual might not have even realized what he/she had in their possession until a more 'tech savvy' friend/associate/acquaintance informed them, and then they decided to sell it to the highest bidder.
Apple sends stuff out all the times. As was noted, this is clearly disguised. It feels very much like an intentional drop.
The thing that makes me suspicious is the fact that the back has Apple written all over it. If this was a prototype being tested by some select individual and Apple did NOT want anyone to know, why advertise its existence on its back. So either it was an intentional drop or someone's having a riot, right now (read: fake). The other thing that makes me suspicious is that apparently the person who found it claimed it was running OS4 before Apple remotely wiped it. It would seem unlikely that whoever had it did not have a password lock on it.
Seems like you understand at least part of your own post.
So, umm, you have the theft report that you yourself state would tell us otherwise?
No? I suppse you don't.
Thanks for trying.
So yer kinda funny. Dense but funny. Almost a pity to have to ignore you now. Oh well.