OSNews

I agree. It seems kina clunky.

Not to mention Apple was just awarded several industrial design patents on the latest models.

Let's start by the fact that according to the photos Apple is trying to "disguise" a super-secret new iPhone model by printing a bright white Apple logo on its back... yeah, right...

That's like those old spy movies in which secret documents come in an envelope with a big red "TOP SECRET" printed on it...

I have to agree. Apples real genius is getting a lot of people talking about their shit without paying a dime.
Apple is proof that marketing works.

There are more interesting news in the IT world than that.

... and their crime being what exactly?

16 gb internal, 64 gb in the SD slot.

Slab design. Front-facing camera. High-res display. Buttons on the sides. Sounds much like a Nokia N900 to me. Would Apple really copy a *Nokia* phone?!?

Apple, include an SD slot? Lol, I wish!

It's a lot thinner than an N900, and the UI (at least for iPhoneOS 3.0) is substantially more mature. So I'm guessing not

16GB for OS+stock apps, 64 real-world available GB for music? It's the best idea I've got, anyway.

Memory generally comes in multiples of 8 these days. So it could be 5 x 16 chips, 2 x 32 and 1 x 16, or 1 x 16 and 1 x 64. It seems odd, but it depends on what the divide gives them. Maybe some of the RAM is faster? That might make some kind of sense for streaming or gaming.

Edited 2010-04-19 11:45 UTC

Intel sells a 2.5" 80GB SSD

Quote. There are a lot of iPhone clones from unathorized (obviously) chinese factories. I know some people who owns them, actually, and some even have the Apple logo!

Exactly what I was thinking. Would be awesome if the police turn up on Gizmodo's doorstep!

As enticing of an idea a police state seem to be to some of you. What is gizmodo's crime in this case?

Other than they seem to be pulling a lot of nonsense out of their ass?

Edited 2010-04-19 19:39 UTC

Theft?

Right, two Apple iPhones are left in two separate bars in California and no one wonders how such a thing would be possible given Apple's secrecy obsession.

Personally i think this is a PR stunt. Apple wants people talking about the iPhone so they've put out some devices that match generally known features to get the press in a tizzy.

K

Which blows my mind Gizmodo would do this. This is theft. You cannot paint it as anything else. Someone lost a phone and someone took it instead of handing it in. Unless they really are interested in jail time, I do hope they decide to hand it in now they’ve had their fun.

Apple could play this either way; either they take this the whole way and prosecute, or they know that the leak wins them hype and will pay off in the long run.

Regardless; Gizmodo have been stupid, chronically stupid. It’s just a phone, and no matter how hot the scoop, that’s not worth jail time.

Sorry, but - bullshit.

Someone loses his phone. That's not theft. Someone finds it. That's not theft. Someone thinks "hey, this could be worth money". That's not theft. Gizmodo buys it. That's not theft. Theft is wilfully taking someone's property without permission. It's not this.

Had I found the phone, you can bet your sweet bum I'd be taking photographs by the millions, publish them here on OSNews, after which I'd contact the police. That's in no way theft, a crime, or anything else.

The guy who lost the phone is the idiot here - Gizmodo is just doing its job properly. You may say "It's just a phone", and you'd be right - but the Apple Mass Hysteria that we see every time indicates beyond any form of doubt that this thing has news value - whether you like it or not. Gizmodo has done the right thing here (except the taking apart thing, I wouldn't do that).

Why not just hand it over to the barkeep to have it put in their "Lost and Found" bin?

Gizmodo knows/knew who that phone belongs to. Not only did they make no effort to return it, they took it apart.

I dropped a phone at PHX (Phoenix airport) when I got back from a long trip. I realized it on the ride home, got my wife's phone and called my phone. Person answered, asked if she would be willing to send it back to me, COD, she said "Sure! I'll do it tomorrow!" 2 weeks later still no phone. Called the number again and no answer.

In my opinion, at that point it is (at the very least borderline) theft. I tried to make it as easy as possible for her to send it back, I even offered to meet her at the airport again to get it. Instead I had to replace the phone.

She had no idea who lost the phone when she picked it up, but these guys, they knew. They were excited and jumped at the change to pry it open and pick it apart... maybe you are right, maybe it is more like corporate espionage and not theft.

Silly comparison. Your phone is not a prototype from one of the most secretive companies in the world - a phone that will most likely sell by the millions and millions and millions, while also being one of the biggest development targets in the mobile world.

This means it has news value, and when something has news value, there's no shame in shifting the device to the press. I do believe Gizmodo went too far by taking it apart, but for the rest, they've done nothing even remotely related to theft (of course, this is assuming they're going to hand it over to the police).

So you think the law is good if it supports your ideas, but should be dismissed if the object or process the law applies to has some great media value?

It's an apples to apples comparison. It's not like this phone is the next coming of the messiah. That might be something everyone is entitled to know about.

Of course, the most secretive companies you never hear about.

You're missing one important point:

The guys at Gizmodo knew that this is an Apple prototype and that Apple is missing it and wants it back. They'll have to return it to the original owner, no matter what. Anything else is theft. Just because someone loses his phone doesn't mean he abandons his ownership to it. I can check and cite the appropriate lines in law books here, if you want.

Here's a quick link to the German point of view regarding lost&found items:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundrecht_%28Deutschland%29

Adrian

Of course. That, however, does not mean they may not write about it, or should partake in Apple's veil of secrecy.

Of course. That, however, does not mean they may not write about it, or should partake in Apple's veil of secrecy. "
Yes, might be, I don't know what the law books say about that. But in any case they certainly risk being ignored by Apple in future when it comes to sneak previews on Apple campus.

Adrian

Yes actually, it does, or at least it should. I would think otherwise perhaps if it could be proven that Apple did this on purpose - the intent is important.

Exactly what I was trying to get across. But as you can see by Thom's retort, he has some strange belief that the law or even morality should only be followed if the object is not really all that important to anyone but the owner.

I will now be less likely to side on any of Thom's opinions having once thought it was altruism he sided with - only to find it is self-serving, even if it is in the guise of "the world has the right to know."

Don't dramaticise this. There is no law that prohibits Gizmodo from snapping a few pictures of this thing and writing about it before they call the cops. As I stated QUITE CLEARLY, I do believe taking it apart is our-of-order.

Again, this is all dependent on whether or not Gizmodo intends to give it to the police - something I've also said a few times already.

I guess it goes back to that sense of entitlement everyone seems to possess.

Well, Gizmodo does have a legal obligation to return the phone, especially since they know who the owner is (Apple), and Apple is apparently seeking to have the phone returned.

It is theft if they refuse to return it.
In the US at least, if you lose property, you still own it. You just have to be able to prove that that exact item is yours.

The guy who lost the phone is the idiot here

Accidentally dropping something makes you an idiot? Yeah, right!

Gizmodo buys it.

The seller and Gizmodo both know that the phone does not belong to them and the original owner probably misses it a lot. Hell, there could be phone numbers, important messages, personal details and whatnot in there. And then you come along and say it's perfectly fine to disregard all that as long as it generates publicity?

You've clearly dropped the ball, and according to you dropping or losing something makes you an idiot.

If you're an Apple employee handling the next-generation iPhone, then yeah, you're an idiot for losing it.



As long as the device is properly returned to the police, then yeah, I'm fine with Gizmodo snapping a few photos and writing about it. As I've said a billion times already - it all depends on whether or not they return it. And, as I've ALSO said a billion times, taking it apart was taking it too far.

If you're an Apple employee handling the next-generation iPhone, then yeah, you're an idiot for losing it.

Losing something is losing something. There is no difference in it being really important to a big corporation and in it being equally important to a single person. Just because there is a large, money-hungry corporation behind it makes it in no way less important when a single person loses something.

I think his point was, if they ultimately manage to return the phone to Apple in a reasonably timely fashion, there's nothing wrong with them taking five or ten minutes and snapping some furtive photos, or poking the interface a bit. And I'd be inclined to agree. Taking the phone apart... that probably crossed the line.

It's not like the thing was sealed in an adamantite case with an NDA that you had to sign in blood etched into the outside.

Edit: Where I work, I occasionally handle classified material. And.. yeah. If I where to lose classified material, the potential consequences for me (and my employer) would be dire. Because of the nature of the material, I am responsible for taking extra precautions and doing my best to preclude the kinds of incidents that in most other circumstances could be dismissed as reasonable human failings. When you handle sensitive material, the bar is set higher: greater care is expected of you.

If you're in a restaurant with a sensitive prototype... I think it'd be reasonable to take extra precautions to ensure the security of the device.

Edited 2010-04-19 18:26 UTC

I think his point was, if they ultimately manage to return the phone to Apple in a reasonably timely fashion

Considering even Gizmodo themselves state they've been toying around with the phone over a week and it most likely took a few days for them to even acquire it I'd say it's already over the "reasonably timely fashion."

"

Hehe, I wanted to vote your comment up but since I already posted in this thread, I can't.

FULL ACK!

I hope that Gizmodo receives some well-deserved disregard from Apple in future regarding press conferences and sneak previews.

Adrian

Sorry, but - bullshit.

Someone loses his phone. That's not theft. Someone finds it. That's not theft. Someone thinks "hey, this could be worth money". That's not theft. Gizmodo buys it. That's not theft. Theft is wilfully taking someone's property without permission. It's not this. "

Dictionary meaning: The act of stealing

Dictionary meaning of stealing: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

I don't see anywhere in there that says anything about "wilfully".

Maybe time to consult a dictionary Thom?

The gist. Please read what I say carefully instead of knee-jerking, and you'll see that I've said about ten billion trillion times in this thread that it is no problem for Gizmodo to snap a few photos before returning it to the police. I also stated quite clearly that taking it apart is going too far.

Better luck in the next Apple thread.

They’ve had it for a week, and now news is coming out that they paid for it. Paying for stolen goods is a crime. If someone picked it up and then sold it, it’s stolen—period. Gizmodo returning it [late] doesn’t change that.

Gizmodo's parent corporation, Gawker, admits to paying $5,000 for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_apple_iphone

And in the present case, someone has unwillingly taken someone's property without permission.

Right ?

Heh! Funny.

It's funny cause it's true!
I don't care, and neither should you!