Next generation iPhone found and dismantled!
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Microsoft's 'Fix it' software
Next: No Macs at work
From: Richard Tobin on 19 Apr 2010 17:55 In article <1jh7vk9.snkzmz1gjpgo6N%danny(a)itshouldbe.harrietbarber.obvious.com>, Danny Thompson <danny(a)itshouldbe.harrietbarber.obvious.com> wrote: >There's an interesting rumours 'n' ethics summary from Andy Ihnatko >here: Given the lack of any news of the usual legal threats from Apple - which would presumably be fairly uncontestable if it's their property - my guess is that Apple "lost" it deliberately. -- Richard
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 19 Apr 2010 18:35 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:53:39 +0100, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >On 19/04/2010 22:25, Danny Thompson wrote: >> JohnB<jcbrennand(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> So say gizmodo >>> >>> http://gizmodo.com/5520164/ >> >> There's an interesting rumours 'n' ethics summary from Andy Ihnatko >> here: >> >> http://ihnatko.com/2010/04/19/the-increasingly-plausible-miraculous-enga >> dget-and-gizmodo-iphone-4g/ > > >That is actually the most reasonable thing I have read about that device. >When I read the original article i was reading it thinking: > >You find something in a coffee shop (or whatever) which clearly belongs >to someone else, you know who it belongs to, do you A) give it back to >them or b) splash it all over your website and do a complete take apart >of it? > >But then I also thought: > >You have an apple prototype, very highly prized and in very short supply >and possibly related to your continued employment. You forget it in a >coffee shop. Hmm.. Maybe your job is to leave something in a coffee shop >to make people think something else, knowing that people are basically a >bit scummy and will go for b) above. > >I must admit, I didn't know the full story so I hadn't considered theft >from apple. http://www.edibleapple.com/gizmodo-paid-10000-for-lost-iphone-4g/ There's a bit of a clue in the URL... Cheers - Jaimie -- "I didn't do much of that sleep thing last night, so I only hope the above makes some sense." (A generically applicable wish, but this one by W Hyde in rasfw)
From: Woody on 19 Apr 2010 19:22 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:53:39 +0100, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> > wrote: > >I must admit, I didn't know the full story so I hadn't considered theft > >from apple. > > http://www.edibleapple.com/gizmodo-paid-10000-for-lost-iphone-4g/ > > There's a bit of a clue in the URL... ok, now if i was apple (which I clearly am not), and that was a real, lost iphone, I would certainly make sure that Gizmodo was not going to get any info from me again, and would be the last in line for any info. And I would also make it known that anyone else who had dealings with them would also be in the same position. Then I would press charges for handling stolen goods on both them and the person that found it, and also a civil suit for actual commercial damages (being california, several millions for gizmodo, and several tens of thousans for the person that found it) But I guess that would only happen if apple was a vindictive company that acted on grudges and wasn't concerned about appearing harsh or totalitarian, so I guess that won't happen! -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Bruce Horrocks on 19 Apr 2010 19:45 On 19/04/2010 22:55, Richard Tobin wrote: > In article<1jh7vk9.snkzmz1gjpgo6N%danny(a)itshouldbe.harrietbarber.obvious.com>, > Danny Thompson<danny(a)itshouldbe.harrietbarber.obvious.com> wrote: >> There's an interesting rumours 'n' ethics summary from Andy Ihnatko >> here: > > Given the lack of any news of the usual legal threats from Apple - > which would presumably be fairly uncontestable if it's their property - > my guess is that Apple "lost" it deliberately. Ah, but if Apple makes a legal threat then that confirms the phone as their property which they may not want to do. I don't think Apple lost it deliberately: you only have to look at the iPad hype to realise that they don't need 'accidental' leaks to promote their products. It could still be a knock-off but what is the knock-off producer gaining from this? I don't think Gizmodo invented it themselves: they would be found out sooner or later and their reputation would be dust. Stolen or lost accidentally seems the most likely. But taking it apart hardly seems the right thing to do, even if you feel justified in publishing its existence. Truth is often stranger than fiction and I suspect this is going to be one of those cases. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 19 Apr 2010 19:58
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:45:27 +0100, Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: >I don't think Apple lost it deliberately: you only have to look at the >iPad hype to realise that they don't need 'accidental' leaks to promote >their products. There do seem to be a lot of commenters suggesting that is the case this time, but has Apple *ever* appeared to "lose" a pre-release product intentionally? I've never heard of such, but haven't been paying attention more than five years. Cheers - Jaimie -- "People can be educated beyond their intelligence" -- Marilyn vos Savant |