Sneak Peek at the new iPhone

[~Brian~]

Apparently some Apple software engineer left this on a bar stool... sucks for them..

http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

[c0nfl1kt]

Gizmondo bought it. Looks like they're finally releasing what they should have released in 2007 lol.

[The Captain]

I'm gonna go ahead and put in my speculation that this is NOT going to be the 4G iPhone. Doesnt come off as 'finished' enough and i feel like it could b a big advertising scheme to gain attention and then even more attention when it is finally released.

[djb5118]

Originally Posted by The Captain

I'm gonna go ahead and put in my speculation that this is NOT going to be the 4G iPhone. Doesnt come off as 'finished' enough and i feel like it could b a big advertising scheme to gain attention and then even more attention when it is finally released.

I disagree. This thing looks very polished and I hope it is the next version so I can get in line now!

[DPancoast]

cant upgrade until september (unless I buy my old phone back from my buddy)... glad that Im waiting

[morla]

Originally Posted by The Captain

I'm gonna go ahead and put in my speculation that this is NOT going to be the 4G iPhone. Doesnt come off as 'finished' enough and i feel like it could b a big advertising scheme to gain attention and then even more attention when it is finally released.

no its real. Apple has been trying to buy it back of gizmodo since it happened but to no avail. Gizmodo is not giving it up but Apple has been trying to get it back and convince them to delete the whole story

[The Captain]

i'm saying that gizmodo and apple are in it together to cause a nice big press stir. Seems to be working so far.

[sully42]

I hope it is the new iphone, I am long overdue for a new phone and am waiting for this phone. If apple does no release something along these lines i guess i'm waiting for nothing.

[itsSTock69]

Does anyone know if the new Iphone still going to be restricted to AT&T or are they going to let other carriers sell it now. I thought I read something about it possibly coming to Verizon a while ago, but I'm not sure.

Something seems up too. Maybe it is coincidence, but as one of the commenters on the linked site stated, there is a shot with the Android key-chain, the "new iphone," and a microsoft pen laid out. I can't help but think placing them together wasn't an accident.

[sully42]

Originally Posted by itsSTock69

Does anyone know if the new Iphone still going to be restricted to AT&T or are they going to let other carriers sell it now. I thought I read something about it possibly coming to Verizon a while ago, but I'm not sure.

Something seems up too. Maybe it is coincidence, but as one of the commenters on the linked site stated, there is a shot with the Android key-chain, the "new iphone," and a microsoft pen laid out. I can't help but think placing them together wasn't an accident.

I herd from a reliable source that it will not be available for VZW, at leat not this year. But who knows.

I thought it was funny with the microsoft pen, and android key-chain all in the same pic

[djb5118]

Originally Posted by sully42

I herd from a reliable source that it will not be available for VZW, at leat not this year. But who knows.

I thought it was funny with the microsoft pen, and android key-chain all in the same pic

i've heard that the 3gs will be available for verizon, but the new hardware will still be exclusive to AT&T (hence the MicroSIM slot)

[fitftw]

I'm eligible to upgrade in May, so if there's no release date by then, I'll just get a 3GS or a Blackberry. I currently use a Samsung flip-phone that was free last upgrade in 2008

[c0nfl1kt]

loooooooooool

[BlackBulletTSi]

im sorry people just dont leave prototypes in bars. They are in it together. Looks good we'll have to see

[c0nfl1kt]

People leave all kinds of **** at bars.

[itsSTock69]

Originally Posted by djb5118

i've heard that the 3gs will be available for verizon, but the new hardware will still be exclusive to AT&T (hence the MicroSIM slot)

Hmm decisions, decisions. I get a good discount through Verizon so I've been looking to dump my Nextel and get a new phone/plan with them. I wanted the Nexus One, but with no release date in sight I'm fed up and have been leaning towards either the Moto Droid or the new HTC Incredible. I do like my friend's 3gs though...

[djb5118]

Originally Posted by BlackBulletTSi

im sorry people just dont leave prototypes in bars. They are in it together. Looks good we'll have to see

i dont know man, apple is famous for being very tight lipped about all of their new products. why would they change that now? their whole release strategy is focused on the secrecy.

i think the guy just legit messed up. the phone was camo'd and everything, why go to that effort if you are just going to leave it somewhere anyways for intentional publicity?

[c0nfl1kt]

The nail in the coffin that proves this is a real iphone is that they asked for it back. If it was a knockoff or something they wouldn't have asked for it.

[itsSTock69]

This was on the AOL homepage. Hopefully Gizmodo made some money off this because it looks like they could be in for some trouble.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/wh...y%252F19447570

Why Apple Should Sue Gawker Over 'Lost' iPhone Story
By JEFF BERCOVICI Posted 6:00 PM 04/20/10 Apple
Comments: 67 Print
E-mail More
Text Size A A A
Gawker Media reunited an Apple engineer with his next-generation iPhone, but did it break the law in the process?
How hard must the finder of lost property try to return it to its owner before deciding it's his to keep or sell? The answer to that question could determine whether Monday's iPhone scoop results in millions of dollars in legal damages, or even criminal charges, for its purveyors.

Gawker Media has admitted -- boasted, really -- that it paid $5,000 to get its hands on a prototype of a fourth-generation iPhone for its gadget blog, Gizmodo. The seller of the device told the editors of Gizmodo and other technology blogs that he found it unattended in a bar called Gourmet Haus Staudt in Redwood City, California.

But shortly after Gizmodo published its blockbuster story about the phone, critics began accusing the site of breaking the law by, in effect, purchasing stolen goods.

Lost or Stolen?

Gawker Media owner Nick Denton told me Monday that his company researched the relevant case law to determine that it was in the clear before proceeding with the transaction. But after looking into the story futher, I'm far from convinced.

I think a district attorney could make a solid criminal case that Gawker Media purchased what it knew or suspected were technically stolen goods. And I think Apple's lawyers could make an even tighter civil case that, in so doing, Gawker misappropriated trade secrets, inflicting damages that could run to millions of dollars.

At heart is the question of whether the person who found the phone made "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him," as required by the California penal code. In its account of what happened, Gizmodo says the finder "asked around" the bar where he found it. And after realizing it was an Apple prototype, he called several numbers at the company.

Finders Keepers?

What he never did, however, was notify anyone who worked at the bar, according to its owner, Volcker Staudt. That would have been the simplest way to get the phone back to the Apple employee who lost it, who "called constantly trying to retrieve it" in the days afterward, recalls Volcker. "The guy was pretty hectic about it."

Nor did the finder report it to the Redwood City Police Department, says Sgt. Dan Mulholland. To be fair, no one from Apple told the police the phone was lost, either. I contacted a company spokeswoman to ask why not but never heard back.

Assuming the jury in a hypothetical criminal or civil suit consisted of locals like Volcker, the claim that the seller's actions constituted a "reasonable effort" to contact the owner wouldn't hold much water. "The most reasonable effort would have been to bring it back to us, because he knows that person would be going back to us first," says Volcker. "Why not just make it simple and bring it back?"

Buyer's Burden

And make no mistake: In this case, it was up to Gawker to establish that the seller legally possessed the property. Paul J. Wallin, a founding partner at the California law firm Wallin & Klaritch, offers an analogy. "If you purchase a Rolex watch at a swap meet for $200, a reasonable person would be put on notice that it might be stolen goods," he says. The buyer would thus be required to take extra measures to determine that it wasn't.

When I asked Denton what steps his company took to ensure that the seller had, in fact, made a good-faith effort to return the phone to Apple before shopping it around, he redirected the question. "We weren't convinced the phone was even a genuine prototype until the weekend [ie. after Gizmodo bought and dismantled it]," he said. "And we didn't discover the name of the Apple engineer who lost it until Monday. We called him and -- after Apple officials got back to us -- we returned the device to them."

Denton insists returning it to Apple was the plan all along if the phone turned out to be authentic. But Wallin doesn't believe that argument would be of much use in court. "How many times do people say after they're caught that their intention was to return something?" he says. "Can someone raise that defense? Of course. That doesn't mean it's going to be believed."


Update, 9:28 p.m.: Now that I've had a few hours to digest all this, I am somewhat scandalized, even outraged. Put simply, Gawker Media brazenly, publicly flouted the law. It subsidized a crime: the selling of stolen merchandise. Then it published a misleading, whitewashed account of the seller's actions meant to make it look as though he was not acting with criminal intent. It published this account in order to disguise its own culpability in the matter.

From my own reporting, it's clear the finder of the phone made only the most perfunctory efforts to return the phone to its owner. The gestures he made after learning the true value of the device -- calling the switchboard at a giant corporation and leaving a message, essentially -- reek of insincere behind-covering. One gets the strong impression he did the absolute bare minimum necessary in order to be able to claim later that he tried to return the device. He might as well have sent a postcard addressed to "Steve Jobs, Apple Inc., USA."

But Gizmodo presents his story as though his actions were in good faith. "What should he be expected to do...[w]alk into an Apple store and give the shiny, new device to a 20-year-old who might just end up selling it on eBay?" asks the site, as though that was the only alternative left to him -- when, in fact, as I reported above, the seller never bothered to so much as tell the owner of the bar or the police.

I learned this by making a total of three phone calls. Either Gizmodo's editors didn't bother to do even that much due diligence because they were afraid of what they would find out, or they knew the seller had made no meaningful effort to return the phone but decided to buy it anyway. Either way, they are guilty.

I understand the moral calculus they used. We all feel intuitively that picking up something that someone else left behind is not as bad as seizing it by force, stealth or deception. But in the eyes of the law, it's still stealing. And buying stolen goods is a crime. In those rare cases where a journalist commits a crime and receives the benefit of prosecutorial discretion, it's usually because he can demonstrate there was a compelling public interest at stake. There is no such interest here. The only parties who benefited from Gizmodo's story are Gawker Media and Apple's competitors.

I'm not normally one to root for manufacturers over journalists, or for Goliath over David. But what Gawker Media did here was egregious. I doubt Steve Jobs will sue, but if he does, he will have justice on his side.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/afh5os

[morla]

Originally Posted by fitftw

I'm eligible to upgrade in May, so if there's no release date by then, I'll just get a 3GS or a Blackberry. I currently use a Samsung flip-phone that was free last upgrade in 2008

wait it out, it's going to come out with the new iphone os4 which will probably be june/july like the past 2 years. It always happens, iPhone 3G came out when they released iPhone OS 2.0, then the 3GS came out when they released iPhone OS 3.0. So naturally the iPhone 4/4G/HD whatever it ends up being called will be released with iPhone OS 4.0