I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Would this article count as commercial use?
I didn't take the photo, so no. This was posted to a public forum. And even then, the photo wasn't used to promote a product or make us money as a direct result of taking the photo. Commercial use being, if I went to a public space, took a picture of a person wearing a jacket, then used that photo to sell that jacket, then I'd be violating something.
I immediately took note of the jacket. And the long sleeve shirt.
To be able to wear a long sleeve shirt and a jacket outside in late July in the northern hemisphere ... I wish I could do that right now rather than suffering in the brutal heat and humidity. I suppose I could buy one of those jackets and take it with me into the beer cave at the local gas station and hang out for a few hours.
Any insights into the brand of the jacket? We are talking jackets here, aren't we?
San Francisco is well known as a weather anomaly in California, let alone the northern hemisphere. Weather is showing a low of 57 F with it windy and 65 F this evening. It's apparently like this all year. Man I can't wait for sweater weather (it's 88 F here)
I love our forums because you never know where the conversation might go. An alleged prototype in the wild leading to fashion choices, weather, AI debates, and public privacy.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Would this article count as commercial use?
I didn't take the photo, so no. This was posted to a public forum. And even then, the photo wasn't used to promote a product or make us money as a direct result of taking the photo. Commercial use being, if I went to a public space, took a picture of a person wearing a jacket, then used that photo to sell that jacket, then I'd be violating something.
I immediately took note of the jacket. And the long sleeve shirt.
To be able to wear a long sleeve shirt and a jacket outside in late July in the northern hemisphere ... I wish I could do that right now rather than suffering in the brutal heat and humidity. I suppose I could buy one of those jackets and take it with me into the beer cave at the local gas station and hang out for a few hours.
Any insights into the brand of the jacket? We are talking jackets here, aren't we?
Not every place in the Northern Hemisphere has weather like your place.
I noticed the guy's clothes in the photo too and thought immediately "Well, this wasn't taken in Cupertino or the South Bay." Reading the article, it mentioned Union Square in San Francisco and thought "okay, that makes sense." San Francisco's weather in the summer months is notoriously cold (so much so that a famous quote has been erroneously attributed to Mark Twain) due to the marine layer which any SF Bay Area resident is familiar with.
Anyhow, Apple -- like all cellphone manufacturers -- needs to do some real-world testing of their devices. Note that they have done this for a long time. It's even more important today than it was when an iPhone prototype was accidentally left behind in a Redwood City beer hall in 2010. The cellular reception testing is more stringent, there are other technologies like satellite communications, GPS, etc. It's not just whether or not the device will get a wifi connection or latch onto the nearest cellular tower (Apple has long had some cellular transmitters on campus to test connectivity).
Does noise cancellation work during a call? Well, there's no way you can test that in the center of Apple Park where the closest person might be a sole passerby 20 meters away. Does it expose for fireworks correctly? How's the audio capturing the band's sound at some outdoor music festival?
You need to test these devices where they will be used. Ski slopes, on boat on the Bay, at the ballpark, in a nightclub, a hospital, schools, a mountain bike trail, the grocery store, stuck in 101 traffic, etc.
Because not everyone lives in their mom's basement.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
Not sure if you missed the point or intentionally avoiding it. I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice. This person now has their pictures splattered around the internet. The news value? That there is a new phone and if you put in a giant case no one will see what it looks like? Stop the presses!
Wrong again - there is zero expectation of privacy when out in public. This is ancient case law, and is right. In additional it’s not the public’s job to protect a corporation employee from accidentally revealing a prototype.
There is something just not right with the picture of the guy with the sunglasses. If you zoom in and look at reflection in the sunglasses, you would think the lady with the black hair would be there. In addition, in one side of the sunglasses shows a face at the bottom, it kind of resembles somebody that we’ve seen? Is this a staged pic?
Also look at the hand holding the “iPhone 17.” Those are either some odd-looking fingers, or this is an AI-generated image.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Would this article count as commercial use?
I didn't take the photo, so no. This was posted to a public forum. And even then, the photo wasn't used to promote a product or make us money as a direct result of taking the photo. Commercial use being, if I went to a public space, took a picture of a person wearing a jacket, then used that photo to sell that jacket, then I'd be violating something.
I immediately took note of the jacket. And the long sleeve shirt.
To be able to wear a long sleeve shirt and a jacket outside in late July in the northern hemisphere ... I wish I could do that right now rather than suffering in the brutal heat and humidity. I suppose I could buy one of those jackets and take it with me into the beer cave at the local gas station and hang out for a few hours.
Any insights into the brand of the jacket? We are talking jackets here, aren't we?
Not every place in the Northern Hemisphere has weather like your place.
I noticed the guy's clothes in the photo too and thought immediately "Well, this wasn't taken in Cupertino or the South Bay." Reading the article, it mentioned Union Square in San Francisco and thought "okay, that makes sense." San Francisco's weather in the summer months is notoriously cold (so much so that a famous quote has been erroneously attributed to Mark Twain) due to the marine layer which any SF Bay Area resident is familiar with.
Anyhow, Apple -- like all cellphone manufacturers -- needs to do some real-world testing of their devices. Note that they have done this for a long time. It's even more important today than it was when an iPhone prototype was accidentally left behind in a Redwood City beer hall in 2010. The cellular reception testing is more stringent, there are other technologies like satellite communications, GPS, etc. It's not just whether or not the device will get a wifi connection or latch onto the nearest cellular tower (Apple has long had some cellular transmitters on campus to test connectivity).
Does noise cancellation work during a call? Well, there's no way you can test that in the center of Apple Park where the closest person might be a sole passerby 20 meters away. Does it expose for fireworks correctly? How's the audio capturing the band's sound at some outdoor music festival?
You need to test these devices where they will be used. Ski slopes, on boat on the Bay, at the ballpark, in a nightclub, a hospital, schools, a mountain bike trail, the grocery store, stuck in 101 traffic, etc.
Because not everyone lives in their mom's basement.
I spent a few months at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vellejo in the late 70s attending an underwater fire control maintenance training class. We would go down to San Francisco on some weekends to watch the Giants at Candlestick Park. It could be 90F in Vallejo and low 60s at the ballpark. Definitely long sleeve shirts and jackets required. Despite the SF jacket temperatures I didn’t see any iPhone prototypes in the wild at the time, but I really wasn’t looking.
I’m just being silly, but I don’t see anything here that is any more revealing than what we’ve seen so far in other supposed leaks. We are so close to the actual reveal of the iPhone 17 series that I’m willing to wait for the real deal. I’m very confident that it be rectangular in shape, fairly slim, have a glass front, rounded corners, some camera bumps, and probably a few buttons on the edges. Whether those buttons are mechanical or capacitive is still up in the air. Glass back? Who knows what kind of sorcery Apple will pull off this year.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Would this article count as commercial use?
I didn't take the photo, so no. This was posted to a public forum. And even then, the photo wasn't used to promote a product or make us money as a direct result of taking the photo. Commercial use being, if I went to a public space, took a picture of a person wearing a jacket, then used that photo to sell that jacket, then I'd be violating something.
I immediately took note of the jacket. And the long sleeve shirt.
To be able to wear a long sleeve shirt and a jacket outside in late July in the northern hemisphere ... I wish I could do that right now rather than suffering in the brutal heat and humidity. I suppose I could buy one of those jackets and take it with me into the beer cave at the local gas station and hang out for a few hours.
Any insights into the brand of the jacket? We are talking jackets here, aren't we?
Not every place in the Northern Hemisphere has weather like your place.
I noticed the guy's clothes in the photo too and thought immediately "Well, this wasn't taken in Cupertino or the South Bay." Reading the article, it mentioned Union Square in San Francisco and thought "okay, that makes sense." San Francisco's weather in the summer months is notoriously cold (so much so that a famous quote has been erroneously attributed to Mark Twain) due to the marine layer which any SF Bay Area resident is familiar with.
Anyhow, Apple -- like all cellphone manufacturers -- needs to do some real-world testing of their devices. Note that they have done this for a long time. It's even more important today than it was when an iPhone prototype was accidentally left behind in a Redwood City beer hall in 2010. The cellular reception testing is more stringent, there are other technologies like satellite communications, GPS, etc. It's not just whether or not the device will get a wifi connection or latch onto the nearest cellular tower (Apple has long had some cellular transmitters on campus to test connectivity).
Does noise cancellation work during a call? Well, there's no way you can test that in the center of Apple Park where the closest person might be a sole passerby 20 meters away. Does it expose for fireworks correctly? How's the audio capturing the band's sound at some outdoor music festival?
You need to test these devices where they will be used. Ski slopes, on boat on the Bay, at the ballpark, in a nightclub, a hospital, schools, a mountain bike trail, the grocery store, stuck in 101 traffic, etc.
Because not everyone lives in their mom's basement.
I’m just being silly, but I don’t see anything here that is any more revealing than what we’ve seen so far in other supposed leaks. We are so close to the actual reveal of the iPhone 17 series that I’m willing to wait for the real deal. I’m very confident that it be rectangular in shape, fairly slim, have a glass front, rounded corners, some camera bumps, and probably a few buttons on the edges. Whether those buttons are mechanical or capacitive is still up in the air. Glass back? Who knows what kind of sorcery Apple will pull off this year.
These rumors are usually silly and occasionally fun. AppleInsider doesn't score rumor mongers like the Starmine score for financial analysts but most rumors end up being false. So if you read a rumor, smart money says to think: "well, that's probably not going to happen."
I predict the iPhone 17 will be very similar to the iPhone 16, with maybe better cameras, maybe a better screen, maybe with more Neural Engine performance, maybe slightly bigger. There will be at least one feature in the iPhone 17 family that won't be available to prior models (except maybe the iPhone 16 Pro). If we're lucky the iPhone 17 might get an extra hour of battery endurance. There might be a new color option.
It will probably cost more due to "current market conditions" (which largely covers the wonderful tariffs from our lovely current administration).
2) How am I seeing this article if it's only for paid subscribers?
We don't have paid articles, at least not at the moment. But the user may mean they pay for AppleInsider+ via Apple Podcasts or Patreon. We also sell merch. Whatever the case, they likely support us beyond just reading the site.
Some of you need to stop being such Karens. This is news. Good reporting.
Some of "you" need to stop being such Dicks, calling people Karens for merely sharing an opinion. It is news in a limited context. Good reporting? Maybe. Besides, I like the idea of a surprise even if it's not that much "new" to unveil.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
...I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice.
I agree. Enabling bad behavior doesn't help. But that's another genie that will never be put back in the bottle. Paparazzi selling their pics to tabloids because the public believes in "their right to know" proves that. This and every other tech news/rumor site operates on much the same way. I doubt that many sites pay for this kind of "news" not that it matters much. So I agree in a better world this wouldn't have happened. We have to make peace the best we can and pick our battles.
Let's assume this is an actual pic and not AI. Sunglasses knew he'd be the subject of pics if the rumors of his security team are accurate. The whole situation gives me a "staged" feel. Who is he? An Apple employee doesn't seem probably. Why was he photographing the alleged 17 outdoors in what appears to be a public area? Who provided the phone? Is this an Official Apple Leak?
Then there's a question (of me at least) of whether or not as previously mentioned this is an AI generated rendering and not a photo. The third finger of the left hand looks to be obscured by some artifact. Sunglasses' reflection in the 17 looks to me to be at a wrong angle. Sunglasses' sunglasses reflect almost completely different images. That might be explained by a bend in a bridge. That whole situation gives me "fake" feel.
All speculation on my part. You're all free to move about the cabin.
This isn't AI generated. It's not really all that odd, we've discovered prototype devices and they look like this. It's not staged, the guy just got unlucky that some nerd spotted them and took a photo. They were clearly trying to at least be discrete.
Can't test real world devices without being in the real world. Stuff like this is bound to happen. It only doesn't, because again, most new iPhones look like the old ones. This is the exception.
The artifacts and grain suggest the photo was taken from far away. Anomalies were likely further enhanced by the image processing on iPhone, then the processing performed when we enlarged the photo to be usable on the web.
Let's not get into conspiracy territory. It's not that big a deal anyway. It's just a photo of an Apple employee testing an iPhone a few weeks before it is announced. It isn't that hard to believe.
And news sites don't pay for news. News is what happens, whether you like it or not. Paying for information can lead to charges of corporate espionage, and it's also highly unethical and against every form of journalistic integrity.
I really do think that the images are AI-generated. There are two images. As I noted above, the hand holding the "iPhone 17" is pretty weird, with a bizarrely long thumb. As someone else mentioned, the reflections in his sunglasses don't match. They should be virtually the same reflection, perhaps slightly offset. There also should probably be some reflection of the brunette standing right in front of him. Dude's right ear is also odd. I thought maybe that's the stem of a single AirPod Pro, but there's no such device in the other image, taken from over his right shoulder. Even more odd is the ear of the guy behind him in the first image, over his left shoulder. Human ears come with all kinds of weird folds and squiggles, but this one definitely looks like AI error, not human funky-ear. In the second image, the main dude has a strap over his left shoulder, making a notable indent in his puffy coat. There is no evidence of the strap or indentation in the first picture. Each thing taken by itself could probably be explained away as some normal aberration or distortion in the photo, but considered together, it becomes more likely this is an AI-generated image.
The best thing about it is you're free to believe it is AI generated if that makes you feel better. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of AI generated images, but it is filled with odd artifacts created by the incredible noise and crunch caused by taking what was likely a max crop of a photo from far away. As for the strap, the second photo was clearly taken after the first where the person maneuvered across Union Square to get a different angle. The man could have easily picked up a bag in that time span. Also, the woman in the foreground may not actually be anywhere near the man with the iPhones. When zooming, things closer to the camera can appear closer to the background than they are. The glasses may not be perfectly flat either, which would explain why the images reflected are subtly different. Polarization of the glasses also distorts the image.
The best thing about conspiracy theories is they fall down with a little bit of simple logic. What purpose would it serve for this to be AI generated? Who benefits? And even if it were AI generated (it isn't) what does that change? Believe it's AI generated if you must, but I don't understand the need to try and convince others.
I get that we live in a world where we need to be more critical of information than ever. Fooling people with AI is only going to get more prevalent. But this isn't AI. And whatever the case, iPhone 17 Pro Max will have a camera bar and will launch in September.
I am not a novice photographer, and the condescension is not necessary. The artifacts I noted are not consistent with noise or pixelation from cropping a tiny portion of an image taken from far away. In fact, in the first photo, look at the sharpness of the top edge of dude's puffy jacket on his left shoulder. That is not consistent with a "max crop of a photo from far away." You actually have to zoom into this image to see the pixelation of that edge. If this were "max cropped" from a much larger photo, the pixels in that original photo would render that smooth edge blocky. In fact, while I'm looking at the pixel level of this image, there's a lot of inconsistency between what's more sharply rendered, and what seems to be blurry and lacking in detail. AI does that, too.
Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more traguses (tragii?) going all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears.
I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.
Some of you need to stop being such Karens. This is news. Good reporting.
Some of "you" need to stop being such Dicks, calling people Karens for merely sharing an opinion. It is news in a limited context. Good reporting? Maybe. Besides, I like the idea of a surprise even if it's not that much "new" to unveil.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
...I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice.
I agree. Enabling bad behavior doesn't help. But that's another genie that will never be put back in the bottle. Paparazzi selling their pics to tabloids because the public believes in "their right to know" proves that. This and every other tech news/rumor site operates on much the same way. I doubt that many sites pay for this kind of "news" not that it matters much. So I agree in a better world this wouldn't have happened. We have to make peace the best we can and pick our battles.
Let's assume this is an actual pic and not AI. Sunglasses knew he'd be the subject of pics if the rumors of his security team are accurate. The whole situation gives me a "staged" feel. Who is he? An Apple employee doesn't seem probably. Why was he photographing the alleged 17 outdoors in what appears to be a public area? Who provided the phone? Is this an Official Apple Leak?
Then there's a question (of me at least) of whether or not as previously mentioned this is an AI generated rendering and not a photo. The third finger of the left hand looks to be obscured by some artifact. Sunglasses' reflection in the 17 looks to me to be at a wrong angle. Sunglasses' sunglasses reflect almost completely different images. That might be explained by a bend in a bridge. That whole situation gives me "fake" feel.
All speculation on my part. You're all free to move about the cabin.
This isn't AI generated. It's not really all that odd, we've discovered prototype devices and they look like this. It's not staged, the guy just got unlucky that some nerd spotted them and took a photo. They were clearly trying to at least be discrete.
Can't test real world devices without being in the real world. Stuff like this is bound to happen. It only doesn't, because again, most new iPhones look like the old ones. This is the exception.
The artifacts and grain suggest the photo was taken from far away. Anomalies were likely further enhanced by the image processing on iPhone, then the processing performed when we enlarged the photo to be usable on the web.
Let's not get into conspiracy territory. It's not that big a deal anyway. It's just a photo of an Apple employee testing an iPhone a few weeks before it is announced. It isn't that hard to believe.
And news sites don't pay for news. News is what happens, whether you like it or not. Paying for information can lead to charges of corporate espionage, and it's also highly unethical and against every form of journalistic integrity.
I really do think that the images are AI-generated. There are two images. As I noted above, the hand holding the "iPhone 17" is pretty weird, with a bizarrely long thumb. As someone else mentioned, the reflections in his sunglasses don't match. They should be virtually the same reflection, perhaps slightly offset. There also should probably be some reflection of the brunette standing right in front of him. Dude's right ear is also odd. I thought maybe that's the stem of a single AirPod Pro, but there's no such device in the other image, taken from over his right shoulder. Even more odd is the ear of the guy behind him in the first image, over his left shoulder. Human ears come with all kinds of weird folds and squiggles, but this one definitely looks like AI error, not human funky-ear. In the second image, the main dude has a strap over his left shoulder, making a notable indent in his puffy coat. There is no evidence of the strap or indentation in the first picture. Each thing taken by itself could probably be explained away as some normal aberration or distortion in the photo, but considered together, it becomes more likely this is an AI-generated image.
The best thing about it is you're free to believe it is AI generated if that makes you feel better. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of AI generated images, but it is filled with odd artifacts created by the incredible noise and crunch caused by taking what was likely a max crop of a photo from far away. As for the strap, the second photo was clearly taken after the first where the person maneuvered across Union Square to get a different angle. The man could have easily picked up a bag in that time span. Also, the woman in the foreground may not actually be anywhere near the man with the iPhones. When zooming, things closer to the camera can appear closer to the background than they are. The glasses may not be perfectly flat either, which would explain why the images reflected are subtly different. Polarization of the glasses also distorts the image.
The best thing about conspiracy theories is they fall down with a little bit of simple logic. What purpose would it serve for this to be AI generated? Who benefits? And even if it were AI generated (it isn't) what does that change? Believe it's AI generated if you must, but I don't understand the need to try and convince others.
I get that we live in a world where we need to be more critical of information than ever. Fooling people with AI is only going to get more prevalent. But this isn't AI. And whatever the case, iPhone 17 Pro Max will have a camera bar and will launch in September.
I am not a novice photographer, and the condescension is not necessary. The artifacts I noted are not consistent with noise or pixelation from cropping a tiny portion of an image taken from far away. In fact, in the first photo, look at the sharpness of the top edge of dude's puffy jacket on his left shoulder. That is not consistent with a "max crop of a photo from far away." You actually have to zoom into this image to see the pixelation of that edge. If this were "max cropped" from a much larger photo, the pixels in that original photo would render that smooth edge blocky. In fact, while I'm looking at the pixel level of this image, there's a lot of inconsistency between what's more sharply rendered, and what seems to be blurry and lacking in detail. AI does that, too.
Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more of those goin all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears.
I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.
No condescension, just stating how it works for those that don't know. You do, so great. The shaded areas filled with black smudges and the bright area looking smooths looks consistent with compression and noise seen in digital photos to my eye, especially in extensively processed photos on modern smartphones. Not to mention that this image was captured then uploaded to social media. The one on our website was cropped further then ML increased the resolution for posting on the page. The issue with his ear is more than likely just light playing tricks since it's overexposed and making it look as if there's a lump when it's just a contour.
Looking at the original, non cropped image, that's on X, it has a trash can. The glasses right side, his left, shows the reflection of the trash can. Really, go look at the original photo, it's not all that odd. And really, there's nothing about this that looks AI generated. I'd love to see someone attempt to recreate this with AI, especially from two completely different angles of the same person without any error. It just doesn't seem feasible without extensive work or just full on manipulation that could take hours. Again, faking it seems too unlikely for a prank to get attention.
People put too much stock into what AI can accomplish. I'd love to see similar examples of AI generated photos that look like this, because then I could at least agree that AI makes images like this. From what I've seen, it doesn't.
But don't worry, we're quite careful. And don't you think that someone would have pointed out it was fake and provided evidence if it were? This photo was prominently posted all over several popular Apple websites and examined by a lot of people. If there were evidence of it being AI, it would have been revealed by now.
That's all I'm saying. It's like faking the moon landing -- that would be a lot of people know something and never share it. The story here is simple, someone that knows what to look for spotted it, shot a photo, and posted it to social media.
If evidence appears beyond an individual in a forum speculating, I'll happily reexamine it. That would be something we'd certainly cover!
Some of you need to stop being such Karens. This is news. Good reporting.
Some of "you" need to stop being such Dicks, calling people Karens for merely sharing an opinion. It is news in a limited context. Good reporting? Maybe. Besides, I like the idea of a surprise even if it's not that much "new" to unveil.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
...I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice.
I agree. Enabling bad behavior doesn't help. But that's another genie that will never be put back in the bottle. Paparazzi selling their pics to tabloids because the public believes in "their right to know" proves that. This and every other tech news/rumor site operates on much the same way. I doubt that many sites pay for this kind of "news" not that it matters much. So I agree in a better world this wouldn't have happened. We have to make peace the best we can and pick our battles.
Let's assume this is an actual pic and not AI. Sunglasses knew he'd be the subject of pics if the rumors of his security team are accurate. The whole situation gives me a "staged" feel. Who is he? An Apple employee doesn't seem probably. Why was he photographing the alleged 17 outdoors in what appears to be a public area? Who provided the phone? Is this an Official Apple Leak?
Then there's a question (of me at least) of whether or not as previously mentioned this is an AI generated rendering and not a photo. The third finger of the left hand looks to be obscured by some artifact. Sunglasses' reflection in the 17 looks to me to be at a wrong angle. Sunglasses' sunglasses reflect almost completely different images. That might be explained by a bend in a bridge. That whole situation gives me "fake" feel.
All speculation on my part. You're all free to move about the cabin.
This isn't AI generated. It's not really all that odd, we've discovered prototype devices and they look like this. It's not staged, the guy just got unlucky that some nerd spotted them and took a photo. They were clearly trying to at least be discrete.
Can't test real world devices without being in the real world. Stuff like this is bound to happen. It only doesn't, because again, most new iPhones look like the old ones. This is the exception.
The artifacts and grain suggest the photo was taken from far away. Anomalies were likely further enhanced by the image processing on iPhone, then the processing performed when we enlarged the photo to be usable on the web.
Let's not get into conspiracy territory. It's not that big a deal anyway. It's just a photo of an Apple employee testing an iPhone a few weeks before it is announced. It isn't that hard to believe.
And news sites don't pay for news. News is what happens, whether you like it or not. Paying for information can lead to charges of corporate espionage, and it's also highly unethical and against every form of journalistic integrity.
I really do think that the images are AI-generated. There are two images. As I noted above, the hand holding the "iPhone 17" is pretty weird, with a bizarrely long thumb. As someone else mentioned, the reflections in his sunglasses don't match. They should be virtually the same reflection, perhaps slightly offset. There also should probably be some reflection of the brunette standing right in front of him. Dude's right ear is also odd. I thought maybe that's the stem of a single AirPod Pro, but there's no such device in the other image, taken from over his right shoulder. Even more odd is the ear of the guy behind him in the first image, over his left shoulder. Human ears come with all kinds of weird folds and squiggles, but this one definitely looks like AI error, not human funky-ear. In the second image, the main dude has a strap over his left shoulder, making a notable indent in his puffy coat. There is no evidence of the strap or indentation in the first picture. Each thing taken by itself could probably be explained away as some normal aberration or distortion in the photo, but considered together, it becomes more likely this is an AI-generated image.
The best thing about it is you're free to believe it is AI generated if that makes you feel better. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of AI generated images, but it is filled with odd artifacts created by the incredible noise and crunch caused by taking what was likely a max crop of a photo from far away. As for the strap, the second photo was clearly taken after the first where the person maneuvered across Union Square to get a different angle. The man could have easily picked up a bag in that time span. Also, the woman in the foreground may not actually be anywhere near the man with the iPhones. When zooming, things closer to the camera can appear closer to the background than they are. The glasses may not be perfectly flat either, which would explain why the images reflected are subtly different. Polarization of the glasses also distorts the image.
The best thing about conspiracy theories is they fall down with a little bit of simple logic. What purpose would it serve for this to be AI generated? Who benefits? And even if it were AI generated (it isn't) what does that change? Believe it's AI generated if you must, but I don't understand the need to try and convince others.
I get that we live in a world where we need to be more critical of information than ever. Fooling people with AI is only going to get more prevalent. But this isn't AI. And whatever the case, iPhone 17 Pro Max will have a camera bar and will launch in September.
I am not a novice photographer, and the condescension is not necessary. The artifacts I noted are not consistent with noise or pixelation from cropping a tiny portion of an image taken from far away. In fact, in the first photo, look at the sharpness of the top edge of dude's puffy jacket on his left shoulder. That is not consistent with a "max crop of a photo from far away." You actually have to zoom into this image to see the pixelation of that edge. If this were "max cropped" from a much larger photo, the pixels in that original photo would render that smooth edge blocky. In fact, while I'm looking at the pixel level of this image, there's a lot of inconsistency between what's more sharply rendered, and what seems to be blurry and lacking in detail. AI does that, too.
Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more of those goin all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears.
I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.
No condescension, just stating how it works for those that don't know. You do, so great. The shaded areas filled with black smudges and the bright area looking smooths looks consistent with compression and noise seen in digital photos to my eye, especially in extensively processed photos on modern smartphones. Not to mention that this image was captured then uploaded to social media. The one on our website was cropped further then ML increased the resolution for posting on the page. The issue with his ear is more than likely just light playing tricks since it's overexposed and making it look as if there's a lump when it's just a contour.
Looking at the original, non cropped image, that's on X, it has a trash can. The glasses right side, his left, shows the reflection of the trash can. Really, go look at the original photo, it's not all that odd. And really, there's nothing about this that looks AI generated. I'd love to see someone attempt to recreate this with AI, especially from two completely different angles of the same person without any error. It just doesn't seem feasible without extensive work or just full on manipulation that could take hours. Again, faking it seems too unlikely for a prank to get attention.
People put too much stock into what AI can accomplish. I'd love to see similar examples of AI generated photos that look like this, because then I could at least agree that AI makes images like this. From what I've seen, it doesn't.
But don't worry, we're quite careful. And don't you think that someone would have pointed out it was fake and provided evidence if it were? This photo was prominently posted all over several popular Apple websites and examined by a lot of people. If there were evidence of it being AI, it would have been revealed by now.
That's all I'm saying. It's like faking the moon landing -- that would be a lot of people know something and never share it. The story here is simple, someone that knows what to look for spotted it, shot a photo, and posted it to social media.
If evidence appears beyond an individual in a forum speculating, I'll happily reexamine it. That would be something we'd certainly cover!
Just because you’re willing to ignore them or explain them away doesn’t mean there are no errors. I’ve pointed out several. You’ve tried to explain away the “strap/no strap” error and ignored the funky-ass ears. Also, even before AI, the internet was replete with faked images. Back in the olden days, it was called “photoshopped.” Some are quick and sloppy, others are carefully done, and effort put in doesn’t always correlate with “good reasons” for doing it. Hacker culture is based on manipulating code, breaking through security and yes, faking pictures for no other reason than because it’s there, and not necessarily for financial motives. The motive for faking a picture like this can be as simple as seeing how many times it gets shared and reported on by people excited there’s an iPhone 17 “in the wild.”
Some of you need to stop being such Karens. This is news. Good reporting.
Some of "you" need to stop being such Dicks, calling people Karens for merely sharing an opinion. It is news in a limited context. Good reporting? Maybe. Besides, I like the idea of a surprise even if it's not that much "new" to unveil.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
...I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice.
I agree. Enabling bad behavior doesn't help. But that's another genie that will never be put back in the bottle. Paparazzi selling their pics to tabloids because the public believes in "their right to know" proves that. This and every other tech news/rumor site operates on much the same way. I doubt that many sites pay for this kind of "news" not that it matters much. So I agree in a better world this wouldn't have happened. We have to make peace the best we can and pick our battles.
Let's assume this is an actual pic and not AI. Sunglasses knew he'd be the subject of pics if the rumors of his security team are accurate. The whole situation gives me a "staged" feel. Who is he? An Apple employee doesn't seem probably. Why was he photographing the alleged 17 outdoors in what appears to be a public area? Who provided the phone? Is this an Official Apple Leak?
Then there's a question (of me at least) of whether or not as previously mentioned this is an AI generated rendering and not a photo. The third finger of the left hand looks to be obscured by some artifact. Sunglasses' reflection in the 17 looks to me to be at a wrong angle. Sunglasses' sunglasses reflect almost completely different images. That might be explained by a bend in a bridge. That whole situation gives me "fake" feel.
All speculation on my part. You're all free to move about the cabin.
This isn't AI generated. It's not really all that odd, we've discovered prototype devices and they look like this. It's not staged, the guy just got unlucky that some nerd spotted them and took a photo. They were clearly trying to at least be discrete.
Can't test real world devices without being in the real world. Stuff like this is bound to happen. It only doesn't, because again, most new iPhones look like the old ones. This is the exception.
The artifacts and grain suggest the photo was taken from far away. Anomalies were likely further enhanced by the image processing on iPhone, then the processing performed when we enlarged the photo to be usable on the web.
Let's not get into conspiracy territory. It's not that big a deal anyway. It's just a photo of an Apple employee testing an iPhone a few weeks before it is announced. It isn't that hard to believe.
And news sites don't pay for news. News is what happens, whether you like it or not. Paying for information can lead to charges of corporate espionage, and it's also highly unethical and against every form of journalistic integrity.
I really do think that the images are AI-generated. There are two images. As I noted above, the hand holding the "iPhone 17" is pretty weird, with a bizarrely long thumb. As someone else mentioned, the reflections in his sunglasses don't match. They should be virtually the same reflection, perhaps slightly offset. There also should probably be some reflection of the brunette standing right in front of him. Dude's right ear is also odd. I thought maybe that's the stem of a single AirPod Pro, but there's no such device in the other image, taken from over his right shoulder. Even more odd is the ear of the guy behind him in the first image, over his left shoulder. Human ears come with all kinds of weird folds and squiggles, but this one definitely looks like AI error, not human funky-ear. In the second image, the main dude has a strap over his left shoulder, making a notable indent in his puffy coat. There is no evidence of the strap or indentation in the first picture. Each thing taken by itself could probably be explained away as some normal aberration or distortion in the photo, but considered together, it becomes more likely this is an AI-generated image.
The best thing about it is you're free to believe it is AI generated if that makes you feel better. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of AI generated images, but it is filled with odd artifacts created by the incredible noise and crunch caused by taking what was likely a max crop of a photo from far away. As for the strap, the second photo was clearly taken after the first where the person maneuvered across Union Square to get a different angle. The man could have easily picked up a bag in that time span. Also, the woman in the foreground may not actually be anywhere near the man with the iPhones. When zooming, things closer to the camera can appear closer to the background than they are. The glasses may not be perfectly flat either, which would explain why the images reflected are subtly different. Polarization of the glasses also distorts the image.
The best thing about conspiracy theories is they fall down with a little bit of simple logic. What purpose would it serve for this to be AI generated? Who benefits? And even if it were AI generated (it isn't) what does that change? Believe it's AI generated if you must, but I don't understand the need to try and convince others.
I get that we live in a world where we need to be more critical of information than ever. Fooling people with AI is only going to get more prevalent. But this isn't AI. And whatever the case, iPhone 17 Pro Max will have a camera bar and will launch in September.
I am not a novice photographer, and the condescension is not necessary. The artifacts I noted are not consistent with noise or pixelation from cropping a tiny portion of an image taken from far away. In fact, in the first photo, look at the sharpness of the top edge of dude's puffy jacket on his left shoulder. That is not consistent with a "max crop of a photo from far away." You actually have to zoom into this image to see the pixelation of that edge. If this were "max cropped" from a much larger photo, the pixels in that original photo would render that smooth edge blocky. In fact, while I'm looking at the pixel level of this image, there's a lot of inconsistency between what's more sharply rendered, and what seems to be blurry and lacking in detail. AI does that, too.
Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more of those goin all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears.
I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.
No condescension, just stating how it works for those that don't know. You do, so great. The shaded areas filled with black smudges and the bright area looking smooths looks consistent with compression and noise seen in digital photos to my eye, especially in extensively processed photos on modern smartphones. Not to mention that this image was captured then uploaded to social media. The one on our website was cropped further then ML increased the resolution for posting on the page. The issue with his ear is more than likely just light playing tricks since it's overexposed and making it look as if there's a lump when it's just a contour.
Looking at the original, non cropped image, that's on X, it has a trash can. The glasses right side, his left, shows the reflection of the trash can. Really, go look at the original photo, it's not all that odd. And really, there's nothing about this that looks AI generated. I'd love to see someone attempt to recreate this with AI, especially from two completely different angles of the same person without any error. It just doesn't seem feasible without extensive work or just full on manipulation that could take hours. Again, faking it seems too unlikely for a prank to get attention.
People put too much stock into what AI can accomplish. I'd love to see similar examples of AI generated photos that look like this, because then I could at least agree that AI makes images like this. From what I've seen, it doesn't.
But don't worry, we're quite careful. And don't you think that someone would have pointed out it was fake and provided evidence if it were? This photo was prominently posted all over several popular Apple websites and examined by a lot of people. If there were evidence of it being AI, it would have been revealed by now.
That's all I'm saying. It's like faking the moon landing -- that would be a lot of people know something and never share it. The story here is simple, someone that knows what to look for spotted it, shot a photo, and posted it to social media.
If evidence appears beyond an individual in a forum speculating, I'll happily reexamine it. That would be something we'd certainly cover!
Just because you’re willing to ignore them or explain them away doesn’t mean there are no errors. I’ve pointed out several. You’ve tried to explain away the “strap/no strap” error and ignored the funky-ass ears. Also, even before AI, the internet was replete with faked images. Back in the olden days, it was called “photoshopped.” Some are quick and sloppy, others are carefully done, and effort put in doesn’t always correlate with “good reasons” for doing it. Hacker culture is based on manipulating code, breaking through security and yes, faking pictures for no other reason than because it’s there, and not necessarily for financial motives. The motive for faking a picture like this can be as simple as seeing how many times it gets shared and reported on by people excited there’s an iPhone 17 “in the wild.”
I explained the ear. Look at the original photo. It's quite real. And I've been around long enough to know what photoshop is lol. Take a breath, it's not that big a deal. You can believe whatever you like.
Gurman says the photo looks legit. Everything I've done to verify the photo's authenticity checks out. But if you want to believe it is AI, go for it.
Some of you need to stop being such Karens. This is news. Good reporting.
Some of "you" need to stop being such Dicks, calling people Karens for merely sharing an opinion. It is news in a limited context. Good reporting? Maybe. Besides, I like the idea of a surprise even if it's not that much "new" to unveil.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
...I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice.
I agree. Enabling bad behavior doesn't help. But that's another genie that will never be put back in the bottle. Paparazzi selling their pics to tabloids because the public believes in "their right to know" proves that. This and every other tech news/rumor site operates on much the same way. I doubt that many sites pay for this kind of "news" not that it matters much. So I agree in a better world this wouldn't have happened. We have to make peace the best we can and pick our battles.
Let's assume this is an actual pic and not AI. Sunglasses knew he'd be the subject of pics if the rumors of his security team are accurate. The whole situation gives me a "staged" feel. Who is he? An Apple employee doesn't seem probably. Why was he photographing the alleged 17 outdoors in what appears to be a public area? Who provided the phone? Is this an Official Apple Leak?
Then there's a question (of me at least) of whether or not as previously mentioned this is an AI generated rendering and not a photo. The third finger of the left hand looks to be obscured by some artifact. Sunglasses' reflection in the 17 looks to me to be at a wrong angle. Sunglasses' sunglasses reflect almost completely different images. That might be explained by a bend in a bridge. That whole situation gives me "fake" feel.
All speculation on my part. You're all free to move about the cabin.
This isn't AI generated. It's not really all that odd, we've discovered prototype devices and they look like this. It's not staged, the guy just got unlucky that some nerd spotted them and took a photo. They were clearly trying to at least be discrete.
Can't test real world devices without being in the real world. Stuff like this is bound to happen. It only doesn't, because again, most new iPhones look like the old ones. This is the exception.
The artifacts and grain suggest the photo was taken from far away. Anomalies were likely further enhanced by the image processing on iPhone, then the processing performed when we enlarged the photo to be usable on the web.
Let's not get into conspiracy territory. It's not that big a deal anyway. It's just a photo of an Apple employee testing an iPhone a few weeks before it is announced. It isn't that hard to believe.
And news sites don't pay for news. News is what happens, whether you like it or not. Paying for information can lead to charges of corporate espionage, and it's also highly unethical and against every form of journalistic integrity.
I really do think that the images are AI-generated. There are two images. As I noted above, the hand holding the "iPhone 17" is pretty weird, with a bizarrely long thumb. As someone else mentioned, the reflections in his sunglasses don't match. They should be virtually the same reflection, perhaps slightly offset. There also should probably be some reflection of the brunette standing right in front of him. Dude's right ear is also odd. I thought maybe that's the stem of a single AirPod Pro, but there's no such device in the other image, taken from over his right shoulder. Even more odd is the ear of the guy behind him in the first image, over his left shoulder. Human ears come with all kinds of weird folds and squiggles, but this one definitely looks like AI error, not human funky-ear. In the second image, the main dude has a strap over his left shoulder, making a notable indent in his puffy coat. There is no evidence of the strap or indentation in the first picture. Each thing taken by itself could probably be explained away as some normal aberration or distortion in the photo, but considered together, it becomes more likely this is an AI-generated image.
The best thing about it is you're free to believe it is AI generated if that makes you feel better. It doesn't have any of the hallmarks of AI generated images, but it is filled with odd artifacts created by the incredible noise and crunch caused by taking what was likely a max crop of a photo from far away. As for the strap, the second photo was clearly taken after the first where the person maneuvered across Union Square to get a different angle. The man could have easily picked up a bag in that time span. Also, the woman in the foreground may not actually be anywhere near the man with the iPhones. When zooming, things closer to the camera can appear closer to the background than they are. The glasses may not be perfectly flat either, which would explain why the images reflected are subtly different. Polarization of the glasses also distorts the image.
The best thing about conspiracy theories is they fall down with a little bit of simple logic. What purpose would it serve for this to be AI generated? Who benefits? And even if it were AI generated (it isn't) what does that change? Believe it's AI generated if you must, but I don't understand the need to try and convince others.
I get that we live in a world where we need to be more critical of information than ever. Fooling people with AI is only going to get more prevalent. But this isn't AI. And whatever the case, iPhone 17 Pro Max will have a camera bar and will launch in September.
I am not a novice photographer, and the condescension is not necessary. The artifacts I noted are not consistent with noise or pixelation from cropping a tiny portion of an image taken from far away. In fact, in the first photo, look at the sharpness of the top edge of dude's puffy jacket on his left shoulder. That is not consistent with a "max crop of a photo from far away." You actually have to zoom into this image to see the pixelation of that edge. If this were "max cropped" from a much larger photo, the pixels in that original photo would render that smooth edge blocky. In fact, while I'm looking at the pixel level of this image, there's a lot of inconsistency between what's more sharply rendered, and what seems to be blurry and lacking in detail. AI does that, too.
Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more of those goin all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears.
I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.
No condescension, just stating how it works for those that don't know. You do, so great. The shaded areas filled with black smudges and the bright area looking smooths looks consistent with compression and noise seen in digital photos to my eye, especially in extensively processed photos on modern smartphones. Not to mention that this image was captured then uploaded to social media. The one on our website was cropped further then ML increased the resolution for posting on the page. The issue with his ear is more than likely just light playing tricks since it's overexposed and making it look as if there's a lump when it's just a contour.
Looking at the original, non cropped image, that's on X, it has a trash can. The glasses right side, his left, shows the reflection of the trash can. Really, go look at the original photo, it's not all that odd. And really, there's nothing about this that looks AI generated. I'd love to see someone attempt to recreate this with AI, especially from two completely different angles of the same person without any error. It just doesn't seem feasible without extensive work or just full on manipulation that could take hours. Again, faking it seems too unlikely for a prank to get attention.
People put too much stock into what AI can accomplish. I'd love to see similar examples of AI generated photos that look like this, because then I could at least agree that AI makes images like this. From what I've seen, it doesn't.
But don't worry, we're quite careful. And don't you think that someone would have pointed out it was fake and provided evidence if it were? This photo was prominently posted all over several popular Apple websites and examined by a lot of people. If there were evidence of it being AI, it would have been revealed by now.
That's all I'm saying. It's like faking the moon landing -- that would be a lot of people know something and never share it. The story here is simple, someone that knows what to look for spotted it, shot a photo, and posted it to social media.
If evidence appears beyond an individual in a forum speculating, I'll happily reexamine it. That would be something we'd certainly cover!
Just because you’re willing to ignore them or explain them away doesn’t mean there are no errors. I’ve pointed out several. You’ve tried to explain away the “strap/no strap” error and ignored the funky-ass ears. Also, even before AI, the internet was replete with faked images. Back in the olden days, it was called “photoshopped.” Some are quick and sloppy, others are carefully done, and effort put in doesn’t always correlate with “good reasons” for doing it. Hacker culture is based on manipulating code, breaking through security and yes, faking pictures for no other reason than because it’s there, and not necessarily for financial motives. The motive for faking a picture like this can be as simple as seeing how many times it gets shared and reported on by people excited there’s an iPhone 17 “in the wild.”
I explained the ear. Look at the original photo. It's quite real. And I've been around long enough to know what photoshop is lol. Take a breath, it's not that big a deal. You can believe whatever you like.
Gurman says the photo looks legit. Everything I've done to verify the photo's authenticity checks out. But if you want to believe it is AI, go for it.
Gang, we are done here. The noise to signal ratio has gotten too high, including from some AppleInsider staff.
We are 90% sure that image is legit. Perhaps more certain.
We know who the Apple employee is. The case matches the normal design-obscuring cases that Apple has historically used in the wild. It is the time of year that Apple tests phones in the wild. The guy was outside, wearing weather-appropriate clothing for San Francisco.
If you want to talk about the iPhone 17, great. If you want to complain about AppleInsider not blurring a guy's face who was in the public, complain that it's an AI generated photo, or the like, make a new thread.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Would this article count as commercial use?
Probably not. Commercial use implies selling the photo. The photo is not being sold, it is part of a legitimate piece of journalism.
I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing.
Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.
Would this article count as commercial use?
Probably not. Commercial use implies selling the photo. The photo is not being sold, it is part of a legitimate piece of journalism.
It definitely a fake as there is no camera bump. Apple insider is now officially “believe or not Apple”.
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. If not, note that he first sentence states, "in a thick black case to try to hide the design," and Apple has used cases to help obfuscate new iPhone designs when testing in public.
Comments
I noticed the guy's clothes in the photo too and thought immediately "Well, this wasn't taken in Cupertino or the South Bay." Reading the article, it mentioned Union Square in San Francisco and thought "okay, that makes sense." San Francisco's weather in the summer months is notoriously cold (so much so that a famous quote has been erroneously attributed to Mark Twain) due to the marine layer which any SF Bay Area resident is familiar with.
Anyhow, Apple -- like all cellphone manufacturers -- needs to do some real-world testing of their devices. Note that they have done this for a long time. It's even more important today than it was when an iPhone prototype was accidentally left behind in a Redwood City beer hall in 2010. The cellular reception testing is more stringent, there are other technologies like satellite communications, GPS, etc. It's not just whether or not the device will get a wifi connection or latch onto the nearest cellular tower (Apple has long had some cellular transmitters on campus to test connectivity).
Does noise cancellation work during a call? Well, there's no way you can test that in the center of Apple Park where the closest person might be a sole passerby 20 meters away. Does it expose for fireworks correctly? How's the audio capturing the band's sound at some outdoor music festival?
You need to test these devices where they will be used. Ski slopes, on boat on the Bay, at the ballpark, in a nightclub, a hospital, schools, a mountain bike trail, the grocery store, stuck in 101 traffic, etc.
Because not everyone lives in their mom's basement.
His fingers look perfectly normal to me.
2) How am I seeing this article if it's only for paid subscribers?
I predict the iPhone 17 will be very similar to the iPhone 16, with maybe better cameras, maybe a better screen, maybe with more Neural Engine performance, maybe slightly bigger. There will be at least one feature in the iPhone 17 family that won't be available to prior models (except maybe the iPhone 16 Pro). If we're lucky the iPhone 17 might get an extra hour of battery endurance. There might be a new color option.
It will probably cost more due to "current market conditions" (which largely covers the wonderful tariffs from our lovely current administration).
Now, while you're there at the dude's shoulder, look at the freaky-ass ear of the dude behind the dude. That is not pixellation or noise. The little bump of cartilage that sits right in front of a person's ear canal is called a tragus. It looks like AI has rendered more traguses (tragii?) going all the way around the ear. That is exactly the sort of thing that AI does when it fails to properly render the odd folds and curves of human ears.
I'm not offering a conspiracy theory here. I have no idea why someone would fake an image of an iPhone 17 "in the wild," other than as a prank to get attention. I am not among those here who would be offended if you had an actual picture of that, because I agree that out in public, it's fair game, both morally and under the law. I also don't think someone wearing a puffy jacket on a summer day in San Francisco is the least bit odd. My "need to convince others" that this is probably an AI generated photo is only about the need in general to call out fakery when I see it. If we're not critical and careful about that when it doesn't matter much, then we just open the doors for more of it when it does.
Looking at the original, non cropped image, that's on X, it has a trash can. The glasses right side, his left, shows the reflection of the trash can. Really, go look at the original photo, it's not all that odd. And really, there's nothing about this that looks AI generated. I'd love to see someone attempt to recreate this with AI, especially from two completely different angles of the same person without any error. It just doesn't seem feasible without extensive work or just full on manipulation that could take hours. Again, faking it seems too unlikely for a prank to get attention.
People put too much stock into what AI can accomplish. I'd love to see similar examples of AI generated photos that look like this, because then I could at least agree that AI makes images like this. From what I've seen, it doesn't.
But don't worry, we're quite careful. And don't you think that someone would have pointed out it was fake and provided evidence if it were? This photo was prominently posted all over several popular Apple websites and examined by a lot of people. If there were evidence of it being AI, it would have been revealed by now.
That's all I'm saying. It's like faking the moon landing -- that would be a lot of people know something and never share it. The story here is simple, someone that knows what to look for spotted it, shot a photo, and posted it to social media.
You guys do realize that there are some other companies who make smartphones, yes?
Gurman says the photo looks legit. Everything I've done to verify the photo's authenticity checks out. But if you want to believe it is AI, go for it.