View Poll Results: Love It Or Hate It?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • Love It

    52 55.32%
  • Hate It

    6 6.38%
  • It's Okay

    22 23.40%
  • It's Not So Hot

    7 7.45%
  • Indifferent

    7 7.45%
  1. Ipheuria's Avatar
    Well I guess this may settle the point about Apple not doing anything to get the device back, if it turns out to be true. Now we all must wonder where the employee will be found??? dun dun dun dun

    Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back - Mac Rumors

    The letter reads:

    It has come to our attention that GIZMODO is current in possession of a device that belongs to Apple. This letter constitutes a formal request that you return the device to Apple. Please let us know where to pick up the unit.
    The letter is signed by Apple's Senior Vice President & General Counsel Bruce Sewell.
    04-20-2010 08:41 AM
  2. lordzod01's Avatar
    I beleive that wether or not this is the model to be announced, it will not be far from the truth. Reading through what evidence we've been shown, this decidedly looks like a marketing deploy by Apple using someone like Gizmodo to show what we can expect.
    Apple would not be asking formally for their product back, but be raising a legal suit against the people that have it. These companys spend millions to protect what they have from competators, Apple, as we all know with their copyrights is no different. This is, how you say, a publicity stunt to get people talking. keep the public interested. It will, on the other hand be interesting to see if this is the model released or if this was an earlier testing device leading Apple to WOW us with an even greater surprise.
    04-20-2010 11:56 AM
  3. whmurray's Avatar
    What's not to like?

    My favorite iPhone to hold was the first one. After my great nephew finisehed with it, it was not repairable. However, I still like to take it out and hold it.

    Two and three have been okay. I am sure that I will adjust to four and be very happy with it. I will buy it in a heartbeat.

    My iPad will arrive next Friday. I still have the new phone, 4.0, 4.0 on the iPad, and Christmas to look forward to. Even 4.0 on my 3GS will be welcomed by the legatee.
    04-20-2010 12:03 PM
  4. whmurray's Avatar
    Well I guess this may settle the point about Apple not doing anything to get the device back, if it turns out to be true. Now we all must wonder where the employee will be found??? dun dun dun dun
    Found. Found? All record of her existence may be erased.
    04-20-2010 12:08 PM
  5. Jellotime91's Avatar
    lordzod01
    First of all, Apple would not sue immediately. Gizmodo had no idea how the iPhone was actually obtained be it stolen or what have you, so they did what they could with it. They were well within their legal right because Apple did not contact them with a C&D or non-disclosure agreement.

    Secondly, Apple wiped the iPhone as soon as they learned it fell out of Gray Powell's possession. They obviously had no intention of showing us the real specs and details of this device, and they did NOT want to show us the new OS 4.0 features.

    Thirdly, Gray Powell actually commented on the Gizmodo article, angered by their use of his name in the article. I don't believe he would have said anything if he was involved with a structured Apple leak. *However Giz has since stated they mentioned his name because they wanted to help clear it, more public attention leads companies to make more lenient decisions, they aimed to help him*

    It could very well have still been a structured and intentional leak, but for these reasons I believe it was not.

    Why did Apple not release the C&D order? That implies more interest than a simple "Please give it back" letter. C&D more than likely means it is a very very important product and Apple is willing to let it be known so that people will not talk about it, however the damage had already been done and there was nothing legal Apple could do about it, and a C&D would draw too much attention to it as a legal proceeding implies that this IS infact the new iPhone. My theory is that is IS the new iPhone, but Apple went with a simpler, personal letter, so that it didn't SEEM as important as it really is.
    Last edited by Jellotime91; 04-20-2010 at 01:10 PM.
    04-20-2010 01:07 PM
  6. Ipheuria's Avatar
    Found. Found? All record of her existence may be erased.
    Yes I knew him/her well until they joined Apple then they shaved their head, started speaking in a strange language and were never seen again LOL

    I thought it might be a marketing gimic also but the only thing that threw me was that it seemed so finished and there's still 2 months to the launch that just seemed like such a long time the hype could very well fizzle by then. I think everyone is right, there are probably employees at apple scouring forums, twitter and blogs to see the responses and how people weigh in on the device. The only thing I'm confused about is the removable battery. The reason I say that is because I came from phones that had removable batteries and when I got the 1st gen iPhone it was such a change I hated that the battery was non-removable even though I never really removed batteries that often to begin with. Then it quickly became such a non-issue that now it's like second nature to get a phone and not even look for the battery hatch. Now they change the game again, although it's not a negative it's just funny they would make that change. I also saw alot of people are complaining about the Micro SIM slot and I don't understand why people are so resistant to change and yet always want the newest technology? You want interopperability with your old phone then keep your old SIM card. Think about it, there's a front facing camera, better camera and flash, and bigger battery just to name a few new items. They need the space so would you give up any of those for a SIM card slot?
    04-20-2010 01:33 PM
  7. Ipheuria's Avatar
    lordzod01
    First of all, Apple would not sue immediately. Gizmodo had no idea how the iPhone was actually obtained be it stolen or what have you, so they did what they could with it. They were well within their legal right because Apple did not contact them with a C&D or non-disclosure agreement.

    Secondly, Apple wiped the iPhone as soon as they learned it fell out of Gray Powell's possession. They obviously had no intention of showing us the real specs and details of this device, and they did NOT want to show us the new OS 4.0 features.

    Thirdly, Gray Powell actually commented on the Gizmodo article, angered by their use of his name in the article. I don't believe he would have said anything if he was involved with a structured Apple leak. *However Giz has since stated they mentioned his name because they wanted to help clear it, more public attention leads companies to make more lenient decisions, they aimed to help him*

    It could very well have still been a structured and intentional leak, but for these reasons I believe it was not.

    Why did Apple not release the C&D order? That implies more interest than a simple "Please give it back" letter. C&D more than likely means it is a very very important product and Apple is willing to let it be known so that people will not talk about it, however the damage had already been done and there was nothing legal Apple could do about it, and a C&D would draw too much attention to it as a legal proceeding implies that this IS infact the new iPhone. My theory is that is IS the new iPhone, but Apple went with a simpler, personal letter, so that it didn't SEEM as important as it really is.
    Honestly I just don't beleive that story, we are not in the know so alot of us may take the information at face value. So I'm wondering if the remote wipe was done on the phone how do they know this Gray Powell was the guy? right because the guy who got it at the bar opened the phone and saw the Facebook page open. The same guy who wanted to return it until he figured out it was a newer iPhone. The same guy whose name hasn't been released, seriously that guy seems kinda vague and shady. Then there's the fact that I've found cell phones before and your curiousity just begins to take over but yet he only looked at the Facebook page and nothing else in the phone? righttttt. Then he realized it was not the average iPhone and sold it for 5K come on he could have googled and figured out it was a prototype contact Apple and get a reward plus a free 4th gen for keeping quiet I just think the whole story is a little too shaky for me to beleive it wholeheartedly.
    04-20-2010 01:42 PM
  8. lordzod01's Avatar
    Honestly I just don't beleive that story, we are not in the know so alot of us may take the information at face value. So I'm wondering if the remote wipe was done on the phone how do they know this Gray Powell was the guy? right because the guy who got it at the bar opened the phone and saw the Facebook page open. The same guy who wanted to return it until he figured out it was a newer iPhone. The same guy whose name hasn't been released, seriously that guy seems kinda vague and shady. Then there's the fact that I've found cell phones before and your curiousity just begins to take over but yet he only looked at the Facebook page and nothing else in the phone? righttttt. Then he realized it was not the average iPhone and sold it for 5K come on he could have googled and figured out it was a prototype contact Apple and get a reward plus a free 4th gen for keeping quiet I just think the whole story is a little too shaky for me to beleive it wholeheartedly.

    I agree. @Jellotime91, the three reasons you've stated don't have any basis on the fact. All the facts aren't in, (Probably we'll never know) but, what we can do is look at the present evidence and make a well structured guess at this being a publicity stunt.

    As for the law coment. The law states if you find something and believe the owner can be reasonably found but you keep it for yourself, this is theft.
    This is called Larceny by finding I'm sure if i know this Apples lawyers would have a field day. Just a thought.
    04-20-2010 02:05 PM
  9. Jellotime91's Avatar
    I agree. @Jellotime91, the three reasons you've stated don't have any basis on the fact. All the facts aren't in, (Probably we'll never know) but, what we can do is look at the present evidence and make a well structured guess at this being a publicity stunt.

    As for the law coment. The law states if you find something and believe the owner can be reasonably found but you keep it for yourself, this is theft.
    This is called Larceny by finding I'm sure if i know this Apples lawyers would have a field day. Just a thought.
    Actually, all of my arguments are backed up with fact. Go read the Gizmodo articles. These are things we know.

    Also, regarding the law comment, if the finder of the property attempts to return said property (which the finder DID attempt to do, to no avail, and Gizmodo knew this) and the original owner of said property chooses to do nothing about it, all is fair until the original owner decides to pay attention and take their property back. Gizmodo has lawyers as well. They know the law and they are abiding by it. They gave it back to Apple as soon as they asked.
    04-20-2010 02:22 PM
  10. lordzod01's Avatar
    Actually, all of my arguments are backed up with fact. Go read the Gizmodo articles. These are things we know.

    Also, regarding the law comment, if the finder of the property attempts to return said property (which the finder DID attempt to do, to no avail, and Gizmodo knew this) and the original owner of said property chooses to do nothing about it, all is fair until the original owner decides to pay attention and take their property back. Gizmodo has lawyers as well. They know the law and they are abiding by it. They gave it back to Apple as soon as they asked.
    What fact, you mean the speculation in an article on their site. LOL yea ok Fact.
    They should have returned the device straight away not waited for Apple to aproach them.
    The law is Larceny by finding, not Larceny by finding but i'll wait to see if someone asks for it back.
    If this story is real the law was broken on day one when the device was recognised as Apple and not immediatly returned that day. Any acts taken after the device was recognised as belonging to Apple were and are plainly illegal. Unless of course this was the plan all along, which looks increasingly likely (IMOP).
    04-20-2010 03:43 PM
  11. Alli's Avatar
    Did you not read the story? The guy who found it tried to return it to Apple. Nobody would even take his phone calls.
    04-20-2010 04:26 PM
  12. Behshad's Avatar
    Did you not read the story? The guy who found it tried to return it to Apple. Nobody would even take his phone calls.
    Good for him, cause Apple wouldnt have paid this guy the $5000 GizzyGuyz did
    04-20-2010 04:29 PM
  13. whmurray's Avatar
    lordzod01
    First of all, Apple would not sue immediately. Gizmodo had no idea how the iPhone was actually obtained be it stolen or what have you, so they did what they could with it. They were well within their legal right because Apple did not contact them with a C&D or non-disclosure agreement.

    Secondly, Apple wiped the iPhone as soon as they learned it fell out of Gray Powell's possession. They obviously had no intention of showing us the real specs and details of this device, and they did NOT want to show us the new OS 4.0 features.

    Thirdly, Gray Powell actually commented on the Gizmodo article, angered by their use of his name in the article. I don't believe he would have said anything if he was involved with a structured Apple leak. *However Giz has since stated they mentioned his name because they wanted to help clear it, more public attention leads companies to make more lenient decisions, they aimed to help him*

    It could very well have still been a structured and intentional leak, but for these reasons I believe it was not.

    Why did Apple not release the C&D order? That implies more interest than a simple "Please give it back" letter. C&D more than likely means it is a very very important product and Apple is willing to let it be known so that people will not talk about it, however the damage had already been done and there was nothing legal Apple could do about it, and a C&D would draw too much attention to it as a legal proceeding implies that this IS infact the new iPhone. My theory is that is IS the new iPhone, but Apple went with a simpler, personal letter, so that it didn't SEEM as important as it really is.
    Clearly not intentional on Apple's part.

    Gizmodo did what good journalists do. It is sort of like the Pentagon Papers; the government had a responsibility to keep its secrets and the NYTimes had a responsibility to publish them. Apple failed to keep its secrets, Gizmodo published.

    I think that the question of "theft by finding" is probably moot. Gizmodo did not have any intention of keeping the phone, of converting it to their own permanent use. Unauthorized use of a chattel, probably a misdemeanor, but far short of grand larceny. To the extent that they might have considered keeping it, they probably purged themselves of petty larceny by returning the phone upon request. (There is usually a monetary threshold in the state where the offense took place that must be crossed to change a theft from petty to grand larceny.)

    They may have reduced the value of Apple's intellectual property by publishing it. As publishers, they probably understood that. The cat is out of the bag and there is no way to make Apple whole. Still, Apple may have a civil cause of action. If they can satisfy a judge or jury that Gizmodo acted with malice, or even recklessly, and that they have suffered material harm, they may even collect damages; perhaps enough to put Gizmodo out of business but perhaps not enough to make Apple whole.

    As to damages. Apple has clearly lost some freedom of action. However, it is not clear that they will ultimately lose sales or profit. One kind of hype has been replaced by another. Establishing the amount of damages may be difficult.
    Last edited by whmurray; 04-20-2010 at 04:39 PM.
    04-20-2010 04:33 PM
  14. Ipheuria's Avatar
    Honestly none of us know the real truth behind the facts. Can you honestly look at what Gizmodo has on their site and say you beleive it to the letter? No I know I don't. If they hired some guy to follow an Apple employee and steal the phone as soon as he put it down somewhere you think they are going to write that? I'm just saying unless you work at Gizmodo or Apple none of us know the truth. We need to stop trying to prove if it's theft or Gizmodo was wrong that's for Apple to do since it's their property. All I'm saying is the story sounds a little fishy to me and I don't really beleive it. This is personal however and I'm not saying this is the case just my opinion of what facts I've read.
    04-20-2010 04:41 PM
  15. Jellotime91's Avatar
    And here you go, a huge article proving that Apple 99.99% certainly did not leak the iPhone on purpose.

    Apple Didn't Leak the iPhone—and Why That Matters - lost iPhone - Gizmodo
    04-20-2010 04:43 PM
  16. BriDroid's Avatar
    Clearly the Apple employee is in violation of the Prime Directive by leaving the hyper-advanced G4 iPhone among the primitives. The apes are going .... well, ape.... dancing around the monolith.
    04-20-2010 04:45 PM
  17. lordzod01's Avatar
    @jellotime91

    why keep qouting from the same site. Makes me laugh. The law is the law. Google it.

    The only facts here are. Someone has leaked photos, the rest is just heresay on the Internet. All we the GP know is someone found a Iphone, didn't hand it in and put pictures on the net. You can qoute and reqoute, it won't change the facts. I'm not saying I'm right your wrong, I'm only saying you can't take what someone else throws on the Internet as gosple. I.E. Like any of us ever beleived this prototype actualy got left in a bar. Just heresay, nothing more untill an actuall press release.
    04-20-2010 05:10 PM
  18. Jellotime91's Avatar
    I don't have a reason not to believe... Innocent until proven guilty.
    04-20-2010 06:48 PM
  19. rgar3388's Avatar
    It kind of looks like a samsung eternity. I like the new design though. I'm gonna have to get a new dock for my iHome now. O well, worth it!
    04-20-2010 09:15 PM
  20. Jellotime91's Avatar
    It kind of looks like a samsung eternity. I like the new design though. I'm gonna have to get a new dock for my iHome now. O well, worth it!
    Errrr.. I can see what you mean because it has a silver trim around a black phone, but a lot of phones have done that. It's more like a waaay more attractive and much more nicely built version haha.. :P

    I hate how people are saying Apple is borrowing from HTC though, first of all I don't know any HTC phones that look like this, second the design language is much more similar to the new iMac than any cellphone currently on the market.
    04-20-2010 09:50 PM
  21. lungho's Avatar
    Come on guys. This is clearly a PR stunt. Apple is simply trying to take away any attention that the HTC incredible might get. You actually think Apple lets prototypes leave their campus? Apple has NSA type security to keep stupid things like this happening.
    04-20-2010 10:11 PM
  22. Jellotime91's Avatar
    Come on guys. This is clearly a PR stunt. Apple is simply trying to take away any attention that the HTC incredible might get. You actually think Apple lets prototypes leave their campus? Apple has NSA type security to keep stupid things like this happening.
    Are you off your rocker?

    I don't think Steve Jobs even knows the HTC Incredible exists! The Nexus One is the only viable threat because Google is officially backing it... Apple doesn't give two ****s about the HTC Incredible.

    And btw, the guy lost the phone on MARCH 18th... That was a while ago.

    And, it's not a publicity stunt anyway! Apple does not work like that.
    04-20-2010 10:22 PM
  23. Mustang5Oh's Avatar
    I think it looks AWESOME and cant wait to get one!
    04-20-2010 10:28 PM
  24. Jellotime91's Avatar
    I think it looks AWESOME and cant wait to get one!
    Agreed! It's so cohesive with the Apple computer line.. I've always wanted the iPhone to match the other products more.
    04-20-2010 10:29 PM
  25. BLiNK's Avatar
    stunt or not, actual 4G or not, this thread will be fun to read through in about a month or two
    04-20-2010 10:31 PM
127 12345 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD