Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone

189101214

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 268
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    That being said however, I can't see any way in which Gizmodo would not have reasonably known that this was an iPhone prototype. The idea that they had to crack it open to find out is a joke IMO. The guy who sold it to them told them it was running iPhone OS 4.0 before it was remotely bricked, he even knew the name of the Apple employee who apparently lost it.



    Agreed. Maybe they didn't know 100% it was an iPhone, but, would any reasonable person believe that Gizmodo would pony up 5 grand for something they believed was a knock-off or weren't very sure was legit?
  • Reply 222 of 268
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    It is also possible the finder took the phone from an obviously drunk Apple engineer.
  • Reply 223 of 268
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Yes, but it doesn't matter what Apple's stock does today. It matters what it does when the phone is released. If the releasing of the photos benefited Apple's competitors, that damage will not be apparent today. Apple relies on keeping it's competitors in the dark for as long as possible. Further, maybe Apple' stock will take a hit because the public perceives a better phone to be coming and not buy Apple's products until Apple releases a new phone. In addition, maybe people's expectations will be higher then they should be if Apple's prototype doesn't match the intended features of the new release.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


    You don't really understand the stock market, do you? You want to do a class action lawsuit because Apple's stock has INCREASED by $14 per share today? Really? Explain to everyone again how you were damaged by this? Maybe you should check the stock market first before making such a comment.



    This did not disclose anything different that rumor sites already reported on, including AppleInsider. Maybe you should sue AppleInsider for leaking Apple information too. Apple's competitors have always had higher resolution cameras and built-in flashes on their phones long before Apple decided to incorporate them. Oh, and did you know Apple already spilled the beans on iPhone OS 4.0? Did you know that Apple was already planning on releasing a new phone this summer? Did you know that a higher resolution display and a camera are not secrets? Did you know that in 2007, Apple gave a full preview of the phone six months before its release? None of these events damage Apple's stock.



  • Reply 224 of 268
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Yes, but California's law is clear. If you find lost property you can choose to leave it alone. If you choose to pick it up, you have a responsible to safe guard the property and make reasonable efforts to find the owner. If the property is worth over $100 and you can't locate the owner after a reasonable time, you are required to give the property to the police. If the owner fails to claim it after a period of time, you get to keep it.



    Further, giving the property back to an employee of a corporation is the same as giving the property back to the owner.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Wow, there is a surprising number of self-righteous but misinformed people posting about what constitutes "theft".



    Can you imagine if every found item were turned over to the police? The police department would be spending half of their time running a lost-and-found department. But this is only part of the reasoning for why found property isn't required to be turned over to law enforcement.



    The other issue is that this would prohibit giving the item back to an alleged owner. Is the finder liable for identifying the correct owner? And at what point should they just turn it over to that person rather than the police? Or perhaps the owner of the property on which it was found? Is an employee of the owner sufficient? What if the event is on rented property. Etc... etc... etc...



    The point is that the law is purposefully vague on the issue in most jurisdictions. Most require something along the lines of: a reasonable attempt to notify the owner and to allow the owner to pick it up.



    Or at least that is my understanding of why the law doesn't require every found item to be turned over to a third party, including law enforcement. It would be almost impossible to fairly enforce.



    But yes, i'm not a lawyer, not even close.



    With that said, there are plenty of establishments that I frequent where turning over a found item to the hourly-wage wait staff would almost certainly ensure it not getting back to the owner. Instead, it was better to track down the owner personally. For example, I managed to return an iPod touch found at bar/music-venue. Would it have made it home if turned over to the the bartender or bouncer? Maybe, maybe not.



    Similarly, I lost a phone while biking in a park 20 miles from home. Thankfully, someone found it in the middle of the woods, called "dad" and I was reunited with it by the end of the day. Had it been turned over to the park service, I may have never got it back. Same for if it had been turned over to the police.



  • Reply 225 of 268
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Speaking as an Apple stockholder, I want one of two things:



    1. I want Apple to sue Gizmodo blue, or;



    2. I want other Apple shareholders to join me in a class action suit against Gizmodo. And here's why:



    The MINUTE they opened up the phone and determined that it was in fact a prototype Apple iPhone, they should have clammed up.



    But that's not what they did. Instead, they took pictures of the proprietary mechanisms and published them on the internet. In other words, they knowingly distributed intellectual property belonging to Apple AFTER THEY KNEW WHO THE OWNER WAS.



    As a result, all of Apple's competitors were made privy to where Apple was heading months before they would otherwise have been.



    That damages Apple, consequently damaging Apple's stock, and consequently damaging me.



    At the risk of piling on, I think you're exaggerating your position. There isn't much in the photos that can help the competition that I can tell, it's not like the competition can derive circuit schematics or a heads-up on special features that hasn't been done before. No software code or features were divulged. The compactness of the circuitry isn't something that can be done cheaply by competitors with sales volumes that are going to be an order or two magnitude lower.



    I'm skeptical that the production case will look like that, that would be a regression on the part of no-gaps Steve. We'll have to wait and see if the final case really looks like that but hopefully without the gaps, or something else entirely.



    To add to that, if you go by the stock price, you were "hurt" to the tune of +$18 a share since this fiasco began.



    Should Gawker Media done things differently? Likely yes. But I don't see what's really to be angry about, at least to the degree you've expressed.
  • Reply 226 of 268
    Amorality and religions are two of the most depressing aspects of humanity.
  • Reply 227 of 268
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Yes, but California's law is clear. If you find lost property you can choose to leave it alone. If you choose to pick it up, you have a responsible to safe guard the property and make reasonable efforts to find the owner. If the property is worth over $100 and you can't locate the owner after a reasonable time, you are required to give the property to the police. If the owner fails to claim it after a period of time, you get to keep it.



    Further, giving the property back to an employee of a corporation is the same as giving the property back to the owner.



    How does that apply to a company based in NYC (you DID know that Gawker is a NY based company didn't you?)



    Oh right - no one's mentioned that one yet. Last I checked medical pot was legal in CA too - want to walk around some NYC streets in front of the cops with a lit joint, and test that law out too? How about in front of DEA offices?



    But no - according to EVERYONE HERE - CA law is means it applies to all Americans.



    Um - no.
  • Reply 228 of 268
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post


    Did you know? There are a lot of iPhone fakes out there. Many have Apple logos and the iPhone designation printed on them.



    That's your fact for the day.



    I am sure Giz routinely pays $5K for iPhones that it thinks is probably fake.
  • Reply 229 of 268
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Yes, but California's law is clear. If you find lost property you can choose to leave it alone. If you choose to pick it up, you have a responsible to safe guard the property and make reasonable efforts to find the owner. If the property is worth over $100 and you can't locate the owner after a reasonable time, you are required to give the property to the police. If the owner fails to claim it after a period of time, you get to keep it.



    Further, giving the property back to an employee of a corporation is the same as giving the property back to the owner.





    Yes, and furthermore:



    Section 485 of the California Penal Code:

    "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."



    Gizmodo admitted on their own blog that they confirmed it was Apple due to the technical features and manufacturing. They confirmed it themselves on their own blog. AFTER they made this realization, then they broke the law by knowingly releasing the unreleased trade secret's via the web without the owner's (Apple's) consent. Since it is a prototype and not a mass production model, it IS private property not public. Gizmodo knows what the hell they had. They paid $5000 for it to prove that to us.



    This is from their blog:

    "We took apart the next iPhone. There are a number of interesting facts gained from the dissection, the most important of which is more concrete confirmation (as if we needed any more) that this phone is from Apple. There are three separate places, inside the case, where APPLE is written prominently... And on top of that, black tape. They really didn't want people looking inside. Unfortunately for us, Apple intends to keep this a secret..."



    So just from these statements alone we can ascertain as to the fact that Gizmodo had knowledge of it being Apple's and that it was indeed a prototype of some type, making it the property Apple, not some Joe-Schmo lost item in the bin of ubiquitous objects at the public pool. AGAIN, as they stated on their own blog by their own hand.



    By releasing the pics, dissection and analysis on there site they knowingly destroyed the value of the product which was, most importantly, not the actual physical components per se, but rather the secrecy and knowledge that was inherent. Now that that is out, it could be incriminating and classified as a malicious intention on Gizmodo's behalf.



    Again since they confirmed its origin, authenticity they became responsible for Apple property. They were required by law to turn it over the the police NOT take it apart and reveal the trade secret first to the entire world/competition. The knowledge must have preceded their post because the post was written only with that knowledge (duh).



    Even though Gawkermodo acted like they did the right thing, they did not.



    A respectable company would not have paid $5000 for a more-than-likely leaked misappropriated Apple test product, unless they did so in order to make sure it got back to Apple at which point they could have/would have been reimbursed, and then some, as stated by the law.



    A respectable company would not have leaked trade secrets before authorized public disclosure was given by the company (release date).



    A respectable company would have rather turned it over to the police AT LEAST. Then could have stated on their blog that had seen it, felt it, touched it, and oggled at it's features... whatever. But, the authority to disseminate any details did not belong to Gawkermodo.



    The Gawkmodians DID have the capacity to know what it was, therefore they became criminals when they released the info.



    The severity of this may be lessened if the phone is not so close to the final production model. Apple may take a lighter hand OR this could be some weird back-handed distraction to bolster attention away from the Android Incredible or at least pump up the hype, BUT I highly doubt it since it is out of character for Apple to reveal ANY info this complete in advance.



    Hopefully it is all a ruse by Applemodo to plant a prototype with incorrect/old features so the competitors will be thrown off target. That would be a pretty radical move by Applemodo, BUT again I highly doubt it.



    Last, but not least, speculation is part of the fun in these products. The surprise or letdown is part of the product. Just like Xmas time, the NOT knowing is what people deserve sometimes. When you shake the box and spend hours guessing is what makes the fun. Imaging could be so heavy and offset in weight... or why the gift is so light... or so small... or so big... You get it.



    So thanks for letting your insatiable gadget hungry tunnel visioned minds ruin the surprise for a lot of people. (If it is the real deal)
  • Reply 230 of 268
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Giz might be in trouble if they bought a stolen device but it was lost. Giz is protected under the freedom of the press to report anything newsworthy to its readers. We all love gossip,rumors and leaks, and they got story of the year. All they did was ruin the surprise. Big deal. Get over it and get a life. Btw speaking of stolen/lost iPhones wasn't it almost a year ago that Apple refused to return a stolen iPhone to its rightful owner. The thief took it in for service and even though the owner produced a police report plus proof of ownership/purchase Apple still refused to return it. You like Apple? How 'bout them Apples.
  • Reply 231 of 268
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    You know, I thought maybe the posters on here were a cut above. And then I read stuff like "What a bunch if wussies the lot of you are. Tell me your panty size and I'll send you some."



    So much for having an intelligent discussion....
  • Reply 232 of 268
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post


    Did you know? There are a lot of iPhone fakes out there. Many have Apple logos and the iPhone designation printed on them.



    That's your fact for the day.



    Take one over to the Gizmodo headquarters. I bet they don't give you $5000 for it. So the question is: did they wait until they took it apart before they paid the "finder"?
  • Reply 233 of 268
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I found a reenactment video of what transpited in Jobs office Monday when he learned that Gizmodo had the G4 iiPhone.
  • Reply 234 of 268
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    RWhat a bunch if wussies the lot of you are. Tell me your panty size and I'll send you some. Giz might be in trouble if they bought a stolen device but it was lost. Giz is protected under the freedom of the press to report anything newsworthy to its readers. We all love gossip,rumors and leaks, and they got story of the year. All they did was ruin the surprise. Big deal. Get over it and get a life. Btw speaking of stolen/lost iPhones wasn't it almost a year ago that Apple refused to return a stolen iPhone to its rightful owner. The thief took it in for service and even though the owner produced a police report plus proof of ownership/purchase Apple still refused to return it. You like Apple? How 'bout them Apples.



    It's not manly to be purposefully ignorant. Read the post right above yours. You are one woefully misinformed individual. And please: don't go sending people panties. It's undignified. Especially when yours are so clearly in a wad.
  • Reply 235 of 268
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    Yes, but it doesn't matter what Apple's stock does today. It matters what it does when the phone is released. If the releasing of the photos benefited Apple's competitors, that damage will not be apparent today. Apple relies on keeping it's competitors in the dark for as long as possible. Further, maybe Apple' stock will take a hit because the public perceives a better phone to be coming and not buy Apple's products until Apple releases a new phone. In addition, maybe people's expectations will be higher then they should be if Apple's prototype doesn't match the intended features of the new release.



    Well put.



    Look, it doesn't matter how much damage to me personally might have been done. What matters is that Gizmodo could give a rip.



    Frankly, I'm getting more than a little tired of people who think it's all right to screw someone just because they can get away with it.



    Maybe it is a lost cause. But if it isn't, I say rip 'em a new one.
  • Reply 236 of 268
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    That is hilarious. A good and needed laugh after a long hard day.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I found a reenactment video of went on in Jobs office Monday when he learned that Gizmodo had the G4 iiPhone.



  • Reply 237 of 268
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.



    You have a better chance at suing Apple for negligence in losing the phone. Good luck.
  • Reply 238 of 268
    rhowarthrhowarth Posts: 144member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Wow, there is a surprising number of self-righteous but misinformed people posting about what constitutes "theft".



    Can you imagine if every found item were turned over to the police? The police department would be spending half of their time running a lost-and-found department. But this is only part of the reasoning for why found property isn't required to be turned over to law enforcement.



    ... Most require something along the lines of: a reasonable attempt to notify the owner and to allow the owner to pick it up.



    I think you're supposed to look after it, make a reasonable attempt to notify the owner, and then notify the police if you don't have any luck contacting the owner.



    I'm not sure where selling it for $5000, or dismantling it and taking loads of photos, fits into that.
  • Reply 239 of 268
    drudru Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post


    Why wouldn't the 'ALLEGED APPLE ENGINEER" call his own phone number and ask the finder to return it for a $1000 reward if he was that desperate?? or should I say if the phone was the real thing!!!



    He was drunk. It's unclear when he realized it was missing. Likely it was the next day. Gizmodo claims the "finder" (the thief) played with the phone and when he got up the next day it had been deactivated.
  • Reply 240 of 268
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Wow, there is a surprising number of self-righteous but misinformed people posting about what constitutes "theft".



    Can you imagine if every found item were turned over to the police? The police department would be spending half of their time running a lost-and-found department. But this is only part of the reasoning for why found property isn't required to be turned over to law enforcement.



    The other issue is that this would prohibit giving the item back to an alleged owner. Is the finder liable for identifying the correct owner? And at what point should they just turn it over to that person rather than the police? Or perhaps the owner of the property on which it was found? Is an employee of the owner sufficient? What if the event is on rented property. Etc... etc... etc...



    The point is that the law is purposefully vague on the issue in most jurisdictions. Most require something along the lines of: a reasonable attempt to notify the owner and to allow the owner to pick it up.



    Or at least that is my understanding of why the law doesn't require every found item to be turned over to a third party, including law enforcement. It would be almost impossible to fairly enforce.



    But yes, i'm not a lawyer, not even close.



    With that said, there are plenty of establishments that I frequent where turning over a found item to the hourly-wage wait staff would almost certainly ensure it not getting back to the owner. Instead, it was better to track down the owner personally. For example, I managed to return an iPod touch found at bar/music-venue. Would it have made it home if turned over to the the bartender or bouncer? Maybe, maybe not.



    Similarly, I lost a phone while biking in a park 20 miles from home. Thankfully, someone found it in the middle of the woods, called "dad" and I was reunited with it by the end of the day. Had it been turned over to the park service, I may have never got it back. Same for if it had been turned over to the police.



    Didn't Apple have a case where they wouldn't return an iPhone to a user that reported the phone stolen? Karma is a bitch.
Sign In or Register to comment.