iphone

Apparently gizmodo paid the finder $10,000? Was the leak intentional though or did some developer just leave it at a bar?

story sounds fishy  ;D

It's a true story…whether or not it's the next iphone remains to be seen, but it's definately apples device.

thirsty wrote:
Apparently gizmodo paid the finder $10,000?

How is that legal? I can't find something at a bar and decide to sell it. And the person buying it, especially if they know I found it at a bar and therefore have no ownership of it, is committing a crime too.

its pretty obvious the leak was intentional at this point

Julian, wrote:How is that legal?

It's absolutely not legal in California to sell found property without reasonable attempts to find the owner and turning it over to the police for a period of time (usually around 6 months, but 3 months in some jurisdictions).  The seller is liable for damages, and considering it's Apple, a suit will follow shortly for violation of trade secrets among many other things, I'm sure.

Where I disagree is with those that think it's intentional.  Apple doesn't need free marketing and Jobs runs one of the tightest shops around.  They also remotely deactivated it within minutes of it's appearance.  Somebody in Cupertino was in big trouble yesterday.

Other than that, I think Apple needs to buy HTC for their next phone in order to catch up.

i didnt think it was intentional up until i saw it on the today show. where's the c&d?

Or Gizmodo….

hmm still not sold on it being a "lost" phone, but i'm back to 50/50

what's fishy to me is that this isn't a forceful C&D, but a polite "hey, can we have that back please?  thanks".

seems way to calm.  knowing apple, i'd expect a lot more offense.

sweetcell wrote:
what's fishy to me is that this isn't a forceful C&D, but a polite "hey, can we have that back please?  thanks".

seems way to calm.  knowing apple, i'd expect a lot more offense.

Doing so would alert the world that this is in fact the next iPhone.  Simply asking for the return of something that belongs to Apple leaves it up for speculation.

if they wanted to go down that road, just deny its the new iphone

godsshoeshine wrote:
if they wanted to go down that road, just deny its the new iphone

But it is the new iPhone.  Speculation is everything and keeps you in the news cycle - kind of the only way to save face for a company that has been as stringent as Apple in the past.  Remember, they sued a 17 year old kid who ran a Mac Rumors web site that was correct a lot of the time.  Greg Powell may have a job today, but he will be quietly released at some point in the next few months.

Anyhow, enough about the games Apple is playing.  Let's talk about how the new phone is really not as cool as the HTC HD2 or the HTC EVO 4G…

all i know is i saw matt lauer talk about it this morning and i tried to put on my smackie-apple-is-hitler hat. "its a plant" is where i ended up

i wonder if this means that they'll be ramping down 3G production sooner.  if i was in the market for an iphone, the new 4G model would make me hold out until it was released (what's the forecast on that, btw?).  this might have kept the iphone in the news cycle but i suspect it will depress demand for the current model.  inventory clearout, anyone?

sweetcell wrote:
the new 4G model would make me hold out until it was released (what's the forecast on that, btw?). 

Apple's official word is "summer" for upgrading existing 3GS iPhones (which in the past has coincided with a new phone), and everything else seems to point to a June release for the iPhone 4G/HD or whatever they eventually call the new phone.  I vote for the "Greg Powell Memorial Phone."

godsshoeshine wrote:
all i know is i saw matt lauer talk about it this morning and i tried to put on my smackie-apple-is-hitler hat. "its a plant" is where i ended up

I don't like that anaology (the Hitler thing is way too overused), but I'm sturggling to come up with a good comparison.  I'm thinking US Steel in the Andrew Carnegie/JP Morgan/Charles Schwab days.  I'll keep thinking about it.

the yinzer in me loves the robber baron analogy. microsoft can be frick

When questioned [by a customer] about Apple?s role as moral police in the App Store, Jobs responds that ?we do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.? Better, is what he said next: ?Folks who want porn can buy and [sic] Android phone.?

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/#ixzz0lgQJ0Npi

Thanks, Steve, I already did.  But in all seriousness, the guy asked a legit question about censoring and that was the response he got.

vansmack wrote:

Julian, wrote:How is that legal?

It's absolutely not legal in California to sell found property without reasonable attempts to find the owner and turning it over to the police for a period of time (usually around 6 months, but 3 months in some jurisdictions).  The seller is liable for damages, and considering it's Apple, a suit will follow shortly for violation of trade secrets among many other things, I'm sure.

The question was rhetorical; no one needs a law degree to know you can't sell something that doesn't belong to you/buy something you know to be possessed in bad faith.

There was an interesting paragraph in an article earlier saying Freedom of the Press could stop gizmodo from getting into an real trouble tho, because the press is generally allowed to possess stolen "documents" without repercussion. It would be a cool test case though.