First off, CNET doesn't break cutting-edge, street-level technology news, not ever. Secondly, police departments don't take directions from Apple's elite security forces. Really? Apple Agents closed in on the scene of the crime? Whatever. And third, what are the chances of iPhone prototype lightning striking in a bar again? I'm not throughly convinced the first time was legit ether. Apple Marketing FAIL. Don't get me wrong, I like my Apple gear. But Apple Marketing FAIL.
It's really difficult to judge whether the "lost iPhone 5" story is legit. The police say they don't know anything about it according to a report I had read.
But the timing of a new job advertisement from Apple does lend a little credence to the story. Seems they're looking for a couple of new security people. Their job? "The candidate will be responsible for overseeing the protection of, and managing risks to, Apple?s unreleased products and related intellectual property."
First off, CNET doesn't break cutting-edge, street-level technology news, not ever. Secondly, police departments don't take directions from Apple's elite security forces. Really? Apple Agents closed in on the scene of the crime? Whatever. And third, what are the chances of iPhone prototype lightning striking in a bar again? I'm not throughly convinced the first time was legit ether. Apple Marketing FAIL. Don't get me wrong, I like my Apple gear. But Apple Marketing FAIL.
There is every possibility the story was fake, but what would possible make you think it was faked by Apple? Publicity? Do you think Apple really needs that type of low-brow, crass, juvenile publicity? What's next? An iPhone wet t-shirt publicity tour? Maybe a Hooters tie-in? The weeks of lineup at every launch, the international media coverage, the raving reviews (even from CR), their achievement of becoming the largest and most successful tech company in their...which of these leads you to think Apple needs cheap, obvious marketing stunts?
Apple has spend years and countless dollars crafting the most successful image and marketing campaigns in the last few decades. Their brand carefully controlled and is meant to be the technological showcase of taste and elegance. If it was a publicity stunt by Apple, they must have replaced their entire marketing department and hired a couple retarded frat boys.
And if the first was a fake, then you ought to let the San Fran DA know. They are tying up scarce resources trying to prosecute a couple guys that would probably like someone to know it was all a hoax.
Again, if this all holds up as true, then either SFPD acted inappropriately on behalf of Apple in a private investigation or Apple employees misrepresented themselves as SFPD.
Again, if this all holds up as true, then either SFPD acted inappropriately on behalf of Apple in a private investigation or Apple employees misrepresented themselves as SFPD.
A blog post and a rumor site? That's it? Both of these have a much, much lower credibility requirement than front page news and widespread press coverage.
A blog post and a rumor site? That's it? Both of these have a much, much lower credibility requirement than front page news and widespread press coverage.
You mean like AI? Like it or not, this is getting national attention.
What country are you in? A quick search shows that CNBC, CNN, every tech blog in the world is covering this (although CNN hasn't updated with the latest twist).
What I don't understand is why Apple does not have the testing units set so that location tracking is on even if you do set the switch to "Off". T.
Who says they don't. After all, none of us have ever seen a test unit.
That said, TUAW updated their story with info that SF Weekly has been doing more digging and found several things that don't add up and it is now believed that the whole thing was made up and the bar is behind it. Certainly explains why the original source kept dropping info about what's on the bar's menu
Who says they don't. After all, none of us have ever seen a test unit.
That said, TUAW updated their story with info that SF Weekly has been doing more digging and found several things that don't add up and it is now believed that the whole thing was made up and the bar is behind it. Certainly explains why the original source kept dropping info about what's on the bar's menu
Link? I just visited the site and didn't see the same claims as you apparently did.
AllThingsD does have a police statement of the incident.
"September 2, 2011
11-96
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE ASSIST APPLE SECURITY WITH THIER LOST PROPERTY INVESTIGATION
After speaking with Apple representatives, we were given information which helped us determine what occurred. It was discovered that Apple employees called Mission Police station directly, wanting assistance in tracking down a lost item. Apple had tracked the lost item to a house located in the 500 block of Anderson Street. Because the address was in the Ingleside Police district Apple employees were referred to Officers in the Ingleside district. Four SFPD Officers accompanied Apple employees to the Anderson street home. The two Apple employees met with the resident and then went into the house to look for the lost item. The Apple employees did not find the lost item and left the house.
The Apple employees did not want to make an official report of the lost item."
Who says they don't. After all, none of us have ever seen a test unit.
That said, TUAW updated their story with info that SF Weekly has been doing more digging and found several things that don't add up and it is now believed that the whole thing was made up and the bar is behind it. Certainly explains why the original source kept dropping info about what's on the bar's menu
Gotta keep up. That conspiracy theory was blown out the 2nd day after the story broke.
This will be my only post on the subject until further facts are released.
My concerns and questions are:
1> Was this an official police investigation? The quote from the SFPD would imply it was not.
2> If not, then why were the police involved at all?
3> Since the police were involved, why were they all plainclothes? Were they on duty?
4> If they were not on duty, is it legal for them to go the the subjects door, wearing badges, and identify themselves as police officers?
5> Who requested the subjects permission to search?
6> If police were simply accompanying Apple Security to the location, why the show of force, with 4 officers in tow?
7> If this was a formal request to the SFPD for officers to go along, why did none of them enter the residence?
8> If it was not formal, then why did police accompany them at all?
9> And finally, why is there nothing in writing with what the attending officers witnessed or did, several weeks after the incident? That would go a long way in putting some of the doubts to rest, assuming everything was on the up and up?
This will be my only post on the subject until further facts are released.
My concerns and questions are:
1> Was this an official police investigation? The quote from the SFPD would imply it was not.
Probably not, since no lost or stolen property report was filed. Probably doesn't matter as police are allowed to assist private citizens without a formal report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
2> If not, then why were the police involved at all?
No reason for them not to, really. There may be prohibitions on how they may assist, but there doesn't seem to be a problem with being present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
3> Since the police were involved, why were they all plainclothes? Were they on duty?
Seems odd that they would all be plain clothed, as that implies detectives, but doesn't seem to imply anything malicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
4> If they were not on duty, is it legal for them to go the the subjects door, wearing badges, and identify themselves as police officers?
probably it was ok, but we don't know they were off duty. That would be speculation. They could as easily simply be plain clothed officers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
5> Who requested the subjects permission to search?
Good question. Also, how was the permission obtained. The cops and Apple were perfectly allowed to request the search, but how they made the request could cause problems. Police can't gain permission through fraud or undue duress, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
6> If police were simply accompanying Apple Security to the location, why the show of force, with 4 officers in tow?
It is strange that many cops would attend. Is it a dodgy neighbourhood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
7> If this was a formal request to the SFPD for officers to go along, why did none of them enter the residence?
Another good question. Seems like it would have been a good idea to have a third party present if anything was found or if the situation became dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
8> If it was not formal, then why did police accompany them at all?
If Apple asked, it's fine for the police to attend. They don't seem to have done much assisting, unless their presence was used to help gain permission for the search. But in that case, as you asked, why didn't they participate in the search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
9> And finally, why is there nothing in writing with what the attending officers witnessed or did, several weeks after the incident? That would go a long way in putting some of the doubts to rest, assuming everything was on the up and up?
It does seem odd for there to be no formal records. With four police officers present, given a month, one of them them should have been expected to file something formal.
Comments
But the timing of a new job advertisement from Apple does lend a little credence to the story. Seems they're looking for a couple of new security people. Their job? "The candidate will be responsible for overseeing the protection of, and managing risks to, Apple?s unreleased products and related intellectual property."
Hmmm. . .
Courtesy of 9to5mac
I'm not throughly convinced the first time was legit ether.
The many, MANY lawsuits say otherwise.
First off, CNET doesn't break cutting-edge, street-level technology news, not ever. Secondly, police departments don't take directions from Apple's elite security forces. Really? Apple Agents closed in on the scene of the crime? Whatever. And third, what are the chances of iPhone prototype lightning striking in a bar again? I'm not throughly convinced the first time was legit ether. Apple Marketing FAIL. Don't get me wrong, I like my Apple gear. But Apple Marketing FAIL.
There is every possibility the story was fake, but what would possible make you think it was faked by Apple? Publicity? Do you think Apple really needs that type of low-brow, crass, juvenile publicity? What's next? An iPhone wet t-shirt publicity tour? Maybe a Hooters tie-in? The weeks of lineup at every launch, the international media coverage, the raving reviews (even from CR), their achievement of becoming the largest and most successful tech company in their...which of these leads you to think Apple needs cheap, obvious marketing stunts?
Apple has spend years and countless dollars crafting the most successful image and marketing campaigns in the last few decades. Their brand carefully controlled and is meant to be the technological showcase of taste and elegance. If it was a publicity stunt by Apple, they must have replaced their entire marketing department and hired a couple retarded frat boys.
And if the first was a fake, then you ought to let the San Fran DA know. They are tying up scarce resources trying to prosecute a couple guys that would probably like someone to know it was all a hoax.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ne_5_apple.php
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/02/...totype-search/
Again, if this all holds up as true, then either SFPD acted inappropriately on behalf of Apple in a private investigation or Apple employees misrepresented themselves as SFPD.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ne_5_apple.php
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/02/...totype-search/
A blog post and a rumor site? That's it? Both of these have a much, much lower credibility requirement than front page news and widespread press coverage.
A blog post and a rumor site? That's it? Both of these have a much, much lower credibility requirement than front page news and widespread press coverage.
You mean like AI? Like it or not, this is getting national attention.
You mean like AI? Like it or not, this is getting national attention.
Where?
Where?
East Timor.
Where?
What country are you in? A quick search shows that CNBC, CNN, every tech blog in the world is covering this (although CNN hasn't updated with the latest twist).
What I don't understand
Who says they don't. After all, none of us have ever seen a test unit.
That said, TUAW updated their story with info that SF Weekly has been doing more digging and found several things that don't add up and it is now believed that the whole thing was made up and the bar is behind it. Certainly explains why the original source kept dropping info about what's on the bar's menu
Who says they don't. After all, none of us have ever seen a test unit.
That said, TUAW updated their story with info that SF Weekly has been doing more digging and found several things that don't add up and it is now believed that the whole thing was made up and the bar is behind it. Certainly explains why the original source kept dropping info about what's on the bar's menu
Link? I just visited the site and didn't see the same claims as you apparently did.
AllThingsD does have a police statement of the incident.
"September 2, 2011
11-96
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE ASSIST APPLE SECURITY WITH THIER LOST PROPERTY INVESTIGATION
After speaking with Apple representatives, we were given information which helped us determine what occurred. It was discovered that Apple employees called Mission Police station directly, wanting assistance in tracking down a lost item. Apple had tracked the lost item to a house located in the 500 block of Anderson Street. Because the address was in the Ingleside Police district Apple employees were referred to Officers in the Ingleside district. Four SFPD Officers accompanied Apple employees to the Anderson street home. The two Apple employees met with the resident and then went into the house to look for the lost item. The Apple employees did not find the lost item and left the house.
The Apple employees did not want to make an official report of the lost item."
Who says they don't. After all, none of us have ever seen a test unit.
That said, TUAW updated their story with info that SF Weekly has been doing more digging and found several things that don't add up and it is now believed that the whole thing was made up and the bar is behind it. Certainly explains why the original source kept dropping info about what's on the bar's menu
Gotta keep up. That conspiracy theory was blown out the 2nd day after the story broke.
My concerns and questions are:
1> Was this an official police investigation? The quote from the SFPD would imply it was not.
2> If not, then why were the police involved at all?
3> Since the police were involved, why were they all plainclothes? Were they on duty?
4> If they were not on duty, is it legal for them to go the the subjects door, wearing badges, and identify themselves as police officers?
5> Who requested the subjects permission to search?
6> If police were simply accompanying Apple Security to the location, why the show of force, with 4 officers in tow?
7> If this was a formal request to the SFPD for officers to go along, why did none of them enter the residence?
8> If it was not formal, then why did police accompany them at all?
9> And finally, why is there nothing in writing with what the attending officers witnessed or did, several weeks after the incident? That would go a long way in putting some of the doubts to rest, assuming everything was on the up and up?
This will be my only post on the subject until further facts are released.
My concerns and questions are:
1> Was this an official police investigation? The quote from the SFPD would imply it was not.
Probably not, since no lost or stolen property report was filed. Probably doesn't matter as police are allowed to assist private citizens without a formal report.
2> If not, then why were the police involved at all?
No reason for them not to, really. There may be prohibitions on how they may assist, but there doesn't seem to be a problem with being present.
3> Since the police were involved, why were they all plainclothes? Were they on duty?
Seems odd that they would all be plain clothed, as that implies detectives, but doesn't seem to imply anything malicious.
4> If they were not on duty, is it legal for them to go the the subjects door, wearing badges, and identify themselves as police officers?
probably it was ok, but we don't know they were off duty. That would be speculation. They could as easily simply be plain clothed officers.
5> Who requested the subjects permission to search?
Good question. Also, how was the permission obtained. The cops and Apple were perfectly allowed to request the search, but how they made the request could cause problems. Police can't gain permission through fraud or undue duress, for example.
6> If police were simply accompanying Apple Security to the location, why the show of force, with 4 officers in tow?
It is strange that many cops would attend. Is it a dodgy neighbourhood?
7> If this was a formal request to the SFPD for officers to go along, why did none of them enter the residence?
Another good question. Seems like it would have been a good idea to have a third party present if anything was found or if the situation became dangerous.
8> If it was not formal, then why did police accompany them at all?
If Apple asked, it's fine for the police to attend. They don't seem to have done much assisting, unless their presence was used to help gain permission for the search. But in that case, as you asked, why didn't they participate in the search.
9> And finally, why is there nothing in writing with what the attending officers witnessed or did, several weeks after the incident? That would go a long way in putting some of the doubts to rest, assuming everything was on the up and up?
It does seem odd for there to be no formal records. With four police officers present, given a month, one of them them should have been expected to file something formal.