Looking at the very un-Apple-like details of the piece, I'm going with the idea that this thing is a test bed unit, and not indicative of the final design. I mean...the thing looks about as bad as any other Hong Kong knock-off.I think you're right that we'll see something different in the final product. The style on the device reminds of Japanese hi-tech aesthetics with it rectangular shape, round separate volume buttons and the combination of a silver metallic band against a shiny black shell. But man, I love this design way more than the current iPhone design.
But I have never seen Apple release a product that is less sleek and more bulky than the one it replaces.
According to the person who found it, this iPhone was running iPhone OS 4.0 before the iPhone 4.0 announcement. The person was able to play with it and see the iPhone 4.0 features. Then, Apple remotely killed the phone before we got access to it.iPhone OS 4 was announced on April 8th. If this sucker was running OS 4 when this person "found" it, that means they've had it for about a month. Furthermore, Apple remotely disabling the phone has some pretty huge implications. Why would they simply disable the functionality of the phone but not track down its location? Clearly if they were able to send out a kill-switch to an unauthorized OS 4 phone prior to its announcement, they could just as easily figure out where the phone was at. Hell, I can do that with my phone (via MobileMe) and I don't have any multi-billion-dollar company's airtight product announcements to protect.
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.posted by dirigibleman at 12:31 PM on April 19, 2010 [5 favorites]
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.- California penal code 485
var words = {
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Syntax: 'Search word' : 'Replace word',
"4G" : "Double Down",
"iphone" : "sandwich",
"Apple" : "KFC",
"ipad" : "Famous Bowl",
"iPhone" : "sandwich",
"cell phone" : "sandwich",
"phone" : "sandwich",
"phones" : "sandwiches",
"ipod" : "Double Crunch",
"3GS" : "Tender Roast",
"3G" : "Twister",
"Steve Jobs" : "The Colonel",
"Jobs" : "The Colonel",
"sleek" : "crispy",
"futuristic" : "delicious",
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"":""};
He sounded tired and broken. But at least, he's alive. And apparently, he may still be working at Apple. As it should be, because it's just a fucking iPhone. It can happen to everyone, Gray Powell, Phil Schiller, you, me, and even Steve JobsIt doesn't quite make up for the numerous dick moves prior, but it's interesting that a site which prides itself on over-the-top fanaticism and geekery for all things tech would turn the biggest insider tech news in years into "yeah.... so what?". Though, they may just be trying to save face.
He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.I have yet to see anything that convinces me this isn't all a PR stunt.
He thought that eventually the ticket would move up high enough and that he would receive a call back, but his phone never rang. What should he be expected to do then? Walk into an Apple store and give the shiny, new device to a 20-year-old who might just end up selling it on eBay?
I wonder if record page views helped the Bothans sleep well at night. Oh right, nevermind.posted by signalnine at 9:48 PM on April 19, 2010 [3 favorites]
The Court held that Apple was barred from obtaining this information from the blog/websites by application of California's Reporter's Shield Law ("Shield Law"). The Shield Law is found in both California's Constitution and Section 1070 of California's Evidence Code. As set forth in the Constitution, the Shield Law prohibits holding "a publisher, editor [or] reporter" connected with or employed by "a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication" in contempt "for refusing to disclose the source of any information processed … for publication" therein.So the publishing schedule doesn't really seem to matter, eh, zarq?
The Court held that petitioners qualified for the protection of the Shield Law. Based on their own declarations, the Court found that Petitioners qualified as publishers, editors and/or reporters within the meaning of the statute. The Court further found that the requested information - the source(s) of the stories petitioners published in their blog/websites - also qualified for the statute's protections.
First Amendment Bars Disclosure Of Blog's Sources Because Apple Failed To Exhaust Other Potential Sources
Finally, the Court found that these blog/websites constituted "newspapers, magazines or other periodical publication(s)" entitled to the protections of the statute. The websites in question were "news oriented websites." Power Page gathers and reports on news and information about Apple Macintosh computers and compatible software and hardware. Apple Insider reported on technology news. Both published regularly, though not a set intervals, since at least 1998, often over once a week. Articles were published when ready.
The Court held that both blogs fell within the ambit of the statute, even though they neither appeared in print, nor were published at any set intervals.
Apple restricts use of technologies required by products like Adobe® Flash® Player. Until Apple eliminates these restrictions, Adobe cannot provide Flash Player for the iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch.At least they're not bitter or anything.
Hogan told [his roommate] that Gizmodo had offered him $10,000 for the phone, and showed her a camera box containing $5,000 in $100 bills, according to the affidavit.posted by jamaro at 4:38 PM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]
« Older Atomic Test Archive.... | Carl Macek, who created Robote... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I think 'someone screwed up' is much, much more likely.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:37 AM on April 19, 2010 [3 favorites]