Naysay all you want, but there's little room for doubt regarding from where this 'device' originated, and that's directly from Apple.
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
And a SMALLER screen? In this day and age of bigger and bigger cellphone screens? I doubt that Apple would go in the wrong direction WRT screen size. There have been countless comments on this forum pointing out that higher resolutions on smaller screens are a waste, and that the results are less than stellar, given the viewing angles and distances.
Apple may have to take what's available when it comes to displays for the iPhone, esp if it is 960x460 as pointed out in the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
We all thought the early pics of the iPod nano 3G were fake because it too didn't seem like an "Apple design". I'm skeptical but not sure I'll go so far as to call this a fake...
I'm not sure where the furor comes from on the squareness.
This isn't Apple following Droid or HP, its simply bringing consistency to their entire line.
This looks exactly like the iPad and all of the Macbook line.
They've converted the lost space from the rounded edges into usable space.
Not exactly a big stretch.
Nothing like iPad. The iPad has a definite curvature, as does the MacBook Air.
The tactile aspect of a curved surface is important for something which will spend many hours being held in the hand. In addition, it adds structural strength. I admit, there is some space given up in the current iPhone, but much of that could be reclaimed without resorting completely to cereal-box design.
We all thought the early pics of the iPod nano 3G were fake because it too didn't seem like an "Apple design". I'm skeptical but not sure I'll go so far as to call this a fake...
OK. That iPod Nano is ugly, so if this news is real then it'll be the second time Apple go backward design-wise. Doubt they'd do that with their best-seller device though.
Speaking from designer's perspective, there is no Ive's signature in that design so I call it fake.
I certainly doesn't come across as finished. There may be more refinement going on. But what is Ive's signature? How do you define that? Maybe unfair to Ive if he must be trapped by his own 'signature'. He has done other things than the iMac and MacBooks, remember. A phone has some really technical design requirements. The most important being that it can withstand being dropped from a certain distance on to hard ground landing on one of its corners. That alone eliminates the iMac/macBook glass to metal application.
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
Oh...
You mean like when the 3rd generation iPod Nano met with a less than glowing/favorable reception, and the 4th generation quickly reverted back to the design of the 2nd generation?
Personally, I don't see how this design is the least bit 'backward' given that it looks nothing like any iPhone that came before, and is rather 'forward-thinking' in that it utilizes interior space far more efficiently than the current iPhone by presenting a smaller package with more features and a larger battery.
Early last year, app trackers did detect the iPhone 3GS around SF area. So it is possible that very few people are allowed to test those devices in the wild. However, I just can't believe that someone with such device would be very careless to lose it! I am not really convince of their story. However, it seems that this is the real deal.
Bingo!
I think it is a controlled leak... to create interest in bars in Redwood City
I certainly doesn't come across as finished. There may be more refinement going on. But what is Ive's signature? How do you define that? Maybe unfair to Ive if he must be trapped by his own 'signature'. He has done other things than the iMac and MacBooks, remember. A phone has some really technical design requirements. The most important being that it can withstand being dropped from a certain distance on to hard ground landing on one of its corners. That alone eliminates the iMac/macBook glass to metal application.
It might be prototype. Still the story behind it is not making any sense.
Every great artists have their own signature and Jonathan Ive is one of the best so he definitely has it. You must study it to know it. This thing go beyond technical requirement.
Yes, that is true. That's what I meant when I said that once Apple informs the person/party that has it that it is Apple's property, that have a valid charge. But, until then , it is simply lost. Obviously they could assume it was Apple property. At the same time, they were not even convinced themselves whether it was authentic or a fake, so they couldn't reasonably assume it was Apple's.
Now that they have convinced themselves, they should return it. I still don't think they are under a legal obligation to do so until Apple comes forwards, claims it as theirs and requests it back. Just like if you found my phone...you don't know it's mine until I tell you. You could sleuth and find my info on the phone, but that only tells you it might be mine.
True. I was simply maintaing that we can't be categorical about it either way without knowing what was communicated between all the various parties over the last week. If it's indeed an open secret that Gizmodo has had it for a week I'm sure Apple knows it too. I'm assuming that at some point Apple would have asked for it's return but we don't know if they have, or if they did at what point they did.
If Apple asked for it back from the original finders before it was sold to Gizmodo, that puts Gizmodo in a bad spot, but there's no way of knowing at this point. It's possible that Apple hasn't asked for it back at all yet.
You mean like when the 3rd generation iPod Nano met with a less than glowing/favorable reception, and the 4th generation quickly reverted back to the design of the 2nd generation?
Personally, I don't see how this design is the least bit 'backward' given that it looks nothing like any iPhone that came before, and is rather 'forward-thinking' in that it utilizes interior space far more efficiently than the current iPhone by presenting a smaller package with more features and a larger battery.
Like I said: "speaking from designer's perspective..."
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
Again people, if you read Gizmodo's report you would realize there's no denying this new iPhone's authenticity.
Stuff, even important stuff, does get lost or stolen. Remember this from January 2008?
Quote:
Secretary of state for defence Des Browne has admitted that the laptop lost by the Ministry of Defence containing details of up to 600,000 defence personnel was not encrypted, and also that services personnel have previously lost two more laptops containing similar unencrypted recruitment information.
Comments
Then why was it FIRST reported by Engadget this weekend as an Exclusive?
The art of viral marketing. It starts of as a 'real' event. Then it takes off. Nobody knows but everybody has an opinion.
Define - Fake?
Naysay all you want, but there's little room for doubt regarding from where this 'device' originated, and that's directly from Apple.
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
And a SMALLER screen? In this day and age of bigger and bigger cellphone screens? I doubt that Apple would go in the wrong direction WRT screen size. There have been countless comments on this forum pointing out that higher resolutions on smaller screens are a waste, and that the results are less than stellar, given the viewing angles and distances.
Apple may have to take what's available when it comes to displays for the iPhone, esp if it is 960x460 as pointed out in the article.
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
We all thought the early pics of the iPod nano 3G were fake because it too didn't seem like an "Apple design". I'm skeptical but not sure I'll go so far as to call this a fake...
I'm not sure where the furor comes from on the squareness.
This isn't Apple following Droid or HP, its simply bringing consistency to their entire line.
This looks exactly like the iPad and all of the Macbook line.
They've converted the lost space from the rounded edges into usable space.
Not exactly a big stretch.
Nothing like iPad. The iPad has a definite curvature, as does the MacBook Air.
The tactile aspect of a curved surface is important for something which will spend many hours being held in the hand. In addition, it adds structural strength. I admit, there is some space given up in the current iPhone, but much of that could be reclaimed without resorting completely to cereal-box design.
We all thought the early pics of the iPod nano 3G were fake because it too didn't seem like an "Apple design". I'm skeptical but not sure I'll go so far as to call this a fake...
OK. That iPod Nano is ugly, so if this news is real then it'll be the second time Apple go backward design-wise. Doubt they'd do that with their best-seller device though.
Speaking from designer's perspective, there is no Ive's signature in that design so I call it fake.
I certainly doesn't come across as finished. There may be more refinement going on. But what is Ive's signature? How do you define that? Maybe unfair to Ive if he must be trapped by his own 'signature'. He has done other things than the iMac and MacBooks, remember. A phone has some really technical design requirements. The most important being that it can withstand being dropped from a certain distance on to hard ground landing on one of its corners. That alone eliminates the iMac/macBook glass to metal application.
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
Oh...
You mean like when the 3rd generation iPod Nano met with a less than glowing/favorable reception, and the 4th generation quickly reverted back to the design of the 2nd generation?
Personally, I don't see how this design is the least bit 'backward' given that it looks nothing like any iPhone that came before, and is rather 'forward-thinking' in that it utilizes interior space far more efficiently than the current iPhone by presenting a smaller package with more features and a larger battery.
At least the basic design appears to be changing, finally.
Early last year, app trackers did detect the iPhone 3GS around SF area. So it is possible that very few people are allowed to test those devices in the wild. However, I just can't believe that someone with such device would be very careless to lose it! I am not really convince of their story. However, it seems that this is the real deal.
Bingo!
I think it is a controlled leak... to create interest in bars in Redwood City
.
I certainly doesn't come across as finished. There may be more refinement going on. But what is Ive's signature? How do you define that? Maybe unfair to Ive if he must be trapped by his own 'signature'. He has done other things than the iMac and MacBooks, remember. A phone has some really technical design requirements. The most important being that it can withstand being dropped from a certain distance on to hard ground landing on one of its corners. That alone eliminates the iMac/macBook glass to metal application.
It might be prototype. Still the story behind it is not making any sense.
Every great artists have their own signature and Jonathan Ive is one of the best so he definitely has it. You must study it to know it. This thing go beyond technical requirement.
Yes, that is true. That's what I meant when I said that once Apple informs the person/party that has it that it is Apple's property, that have a valid charge. But, until then , it is simply lost. Obviously they could assume it was Apple property. At the same time, they were not even convinced themselves whether it was authentic or a fake, so they couldn't reasonably assume it was Apple's.
Now that they have convinced themselves, they should return it. I still don't think they are under a legal obligation to do so until Apple comes forwards, claims it as theirs and requests it back. Just like if you found my phone...you don't know it's mine until I tell you. You could sleuth and find my info on the phone, but that only tells you it might be mine.
True. I was simply maintaing that we can't be categorical about it either way without knowing what was communicated between all the various parties over the last week. If it's indeed an open secret that Gizmodo has had it for a week I'm sure Apple knows it too. I'm assuming that at some point Apple would have asked for it's return but we don't know if they have, or if they did at what point they did.
If Apple asked for it back from the original finders before it was sold to Gizmodo, that puts Gizmodo in a bad spot, but there's no way of knowing at this point. It's possible that Apple hasn't asked for it back at all yet.
Um, like getting so drunk in a bar that you lost a multi-million dollar top secret prototype?
No.... I'm serious!!! I was _just asking for bus change_ ... HONEST!!!!
Bingo!
I think it is a controlled leak... to create interest in bars in Redwood City
.
I think this is the 4th generation iPhone prototype that was reported stolen last July.
Oh...
You mean like when the 3rd generation iPod Nano met with a less than glowing/favorable reception, and the 4th generation quickly reverted back to the design of the 2nd generation?
Personally, I don't see how this design is the least bit 'backward' given that it looks nothing like any iPhone that came before, and is rather 'forward-thinking' in that it utilizes interior space far more efficiently than the current iPhone by presenting a smaller package with more features and a larger battery.
Like I said: "speaking from designer's perspective..."
Fake = not Apple design. If this is a real iPhone 4G then it's the first time Apple go backward design-wise. I think there's a big doubt this is directly from Apple.
Again people, if you read Gizmodo's report you would realize there's no denying this new iPhone's authenticity.
Secretary of state for defence Des Browne has admitted that the laptop lost by the Ministry of Defence containing details of up to 600,000 defence personnel was not encrypted, and also that services personnel have previously lost two more laptops containing similar unencrypted recruitment information.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security...tops-39292312/
That's what you call "Oops!" with a capital 'O'!
I think this is the 4th generation iPhone prototype that was reported stolen last July.
Then why was it only recently 'remotely disabled'?