Wesley_Hilliard

AppleZulu said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

macgui said:

winstoner71 said:

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.

Stabitha_Christie said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

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.

AppleZulu said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

macgui said:

winstoner71 said:

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.

Stabitha_Christie said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

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.

9secondkox2 said:

8x? Last I checked 25% from 10% is 2.5X. And we don't know the minutiae. So if that sticks, I doubt it's going to be some crazy trouble for apple. The president is pretty good at this stuff. I'll wait for more concrete news to break regarding the details on this before reacting. but from what I have seen so far, including with the UK. Trump is doing great things with these trade deals. We wanted fair balance. And so far, we are getting it and then some. Looking forward to see how India responds. 

It'll be interesting to see what these trade deals are, if they exist, once they can be read on paper. Especially since we're still waiting on all the other countries to announce the deals in return. So far, most of the "deals" have been announced by the US with no word from the countries we allegedly made deals with. Vietnam, for example, still hasn't said anything. There's no documentation on any of this either except maybe the EU and China IIRC.

And no, announcing you sent a letter to a country saying what tariffs the US will pay them on imports isn't the same as making a deal.

Unless you're here to talk about how tariffs might affect Apple's move to importing iPhones from India, go elsewhere. There's no need to discuss the wider politics beyond tariffs, Apple, iPhone, cost to consumers, etc. Sharing conspiracy theories and made up nonsense will only start arguments, which is also against the forum rules.

Xed said:

h4y3s said:

And this is why i am a paid AI subscriber!

1) You can be a paid AI subscriber?

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.