It's been pretty low-key, so we totally understand if you haven't heard anything about it yet, but it turns out
there's a next-gen iPhone floating around somewhere outside Apple's sphere of reality-distorting influence. We'll spare you the backstory there, but
Gizmodo saw fit to do a little non-destructive (more on that in a moment) teardown of the device today. There's actually not that much to see or learn from it, but we couldn't help but notice the prominently-placed translucent tab underneath the battery imploring only "authorized service providers" to proceed, which we figure is a pretty strong sign that Apple will continue its nefarious legacy of blocking owners from managing their own juice -- a fact that's corroborated by
Giz's claim that it takes the removal of two screws and a suction cup to get in there anyhow. As for the delicate, decidedly un-iFixit-like nature of the teardown, the site explains that it didn't want to "damage the connections beyond repair," and since the silicon is all buried under a tightly-manufactured metal plate, we don't get to learn whether the phone's rocking an
A4 processor right out of the
iPad parts bin. Of course, worst case, we expect to know that tidbit at the launch event -- or, failing that, mere moments after the suckers go on sale when the first retail units donate their bodies to science. Hang on tight, everyone.
posted April 20th 2010 7:26PM
Engadget, we would still have loved you even if you hadn't felt that you had to comment on Giz's backfiring publicity piece.
Looks huge.
It could be 2000mAh but I still like having a spare...
I wanted to expand my comments
Apple Insider wrote a good piece on the unauthorized releasing of information and secrets from a prototype. The article references a California law.
Gizmodo can be proven negligent because they behaved in a manner, which indicates knowledge that phone was a prototype. Also, paying 5000 dollars for an item, when the buyer knows the seller does not own the item, is indeed theft.
Gizmodo is trying to push the boundary of the letter of the law but it is absolutely violating the spirit of the law. The California law against releasing information on prototypes is the reason that Gizmodo did not completely open the phone revealing everything. Regardless, it did enough to lose a lawsuit.
@awalk
There's a difference between lost and mislaid property. If someone lost this in a bar, unless they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this specific device is theirs, it's essentially finders keepers. Why they very well could do that, it remains to be seen if that would hold up in a court of law.
In other words, it's not as clear cut as you might think. Gizmodo can't be sued into bankruptcy by Apple because they bought a lost iPhone prototype off somebody.
@kenny goo
It is indeed as clear as I think. Gizmodo fully understood the lack of ownership of the seller and the importance of the device. Thus it paid 5000 dollars and limited the dismantling.
Also, with mislaid property the finder has the duty to return the item to the owner or give the item to the establishment where the item was discovered. Without the rightful owner present, the man should have given the phone to the establishment. Failing to do either constitutes theft.
The phone was clearly mislaid property.
Here is an example. If a bank wrongly deposits 50,000 in your account. The money is not yours. It is not "finders keepers" If you spend the money, you could be charged with theft and spend a lot of time in jail.
@awalk
If Apple were to sue, they'd need to prove that the iPhone was left somewhere by mistake (mislaid), and it didn't fall out of his pocket or his bag while he was getting something or walking away (lost). Either way, there probably isn't video evidence to prove it, so the decision would be left up to the court, thus being entirely interpretive. The purchasing of said phone is irrelevant.
Though in that situation, the iPhone is being treated as property, not as information or a trade secret. If Gizmodo did lose the suit, they may only be liable for what the phone would cost if Apple put it on sale today.
They didn't get hired to work at Apple HQ in Cupertino, steal a prototype, and start selling the secrets of how it works a la Willy Wonka. Someone lost the prototype and it was left out to be recovered or acquired. An attempt has to be made to keep the trade secret secret, and since their employee flubbed it, it's quite possible that could be seen as a breach of that secrecy, and any information gained from that lost phone is fair game for the rest of the world.
Your bank analogy is inaccurate. I don't know what your education or qualifications are on this or if you're just reading bits and pieces (potentially incorrectly and out of context) from a news article online, but I've taken a few SUNY classes on law, specifically in the business sense. Classes I paid for and got credit for, so I'm hardly ignorant here. Simply put, the issue is not as cut and dry as you're making it.
Since when was making money on replacements of an entire phone due to a shitty battery an acceptable practice? First and foremost, you need to cut this non-user replaceable bullshit. But on top of that, for anybody who's bought the phone in the first year or two and has the battery crap out on them, the cost of having it replaced by Apple should be a break even situation. Apple shouldn't be profiting off their shitty batteries.
That's deplorable. But then again, that's Apple. Sad to see the 4th Gen iPhone apparently follows suit with that in an even more difficult fashion.
@kenny goo What is it with effing geeks and batteries? For shit's sake let it go already.
@WhatsThatSmell
Yea, what is it with these geeks and getting mad at having to throw away money. The nerve of those people.
Prototype Apple devices have a red PCB.
I can't believe Engadget is propagating this horseshit.
Honestly, I hope this stunt wasn't planned. Apple just needs to quit being a bunch of effing nazis with their electronics.
On a sidenote - this battery looks much, MUCH easier to replace than current iPhone models. In current models not only you need to remove two screws and suction-cup the screen, but also remove 7 other screws and fully remove the motherboard. Reassembling that whole contraption also is a pain in the rear.
i have never swapped or felt the need to swap let alone bought a spare battery for any of the mobile phones ive used throughout the years, granted the iphone battery sucks balls, but i charge it each night, have a lead beside my computer for during the day if it needs it and if i go on long journeys i have a nice battery case jobby it slides into which is probably a lot cheaper to purchase than a spare battery... problem solved
you want higher resolution screens, faster CPUs, wi-fi, 3G, multitasking... and then you're complaining about battery life!
hopefully the implementation of devices that will be able to recharge the battery from other sources than power supply or USB is not so far away (e.g. there will be the possibility to recharge the battery from wi-fi)
@conker Cuz Apple not listening to what these geeks want is driving them up the wall.
Funny how HTC has released probably 6-7 phones (maybe more?) since the iPhone 3Gs. Each one gets more advanced, culminating in the EVO being released in June. They all have swappable batteries.
@biggbrother yes, but it's not the same... as much as Windows is not the same as Mac OS X, an iPhone is not the same as a HTC (Windows mobile, Android, whatever) phone
Why Gizmodo and the “finder” of the iPhone are guilty of crimes.
For the sake of argument, We'll presume that Gizmodo's statements are taken to be true and that this is in no way a publicity stunt. As to the finder. We'll call him "Lucky Duck"
Did Lucky commit theft of the Iphone?
As to finding lost property: "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." Cal. Penal Code §485. Pursuant to California Penal Code § 487(a), Grand theft is theft committed when the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars. In determining the punishment for such offenses, the value of the stolen property is the "reasonable fair market value." Cal. Penal Code §484(a). Grand theft is punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year. Cal. Penal Code §489(b).
Here Lucky was in a bar and happened upon a phone that had been left by its owner. Lucky stayed in the bar "awhile" and after took it home to try another day. Mr. Duck discovered who the phone belonged to via the facebook app on the phone but was unable to find any other contact before the phone was remotely disabled. Lucky called Apple's general care number who (justifiably) don't know anything about prototype phones in the wild. After that, he gave up and cashed in to the highest bidder (Gizmodo).
Lucky will say that his actions were reasonable and just in trying to return the phone. Apple will assert that, given the nature of the property and the close proximity from the place of finding to Apple's headquarters, Lucky didn't come close to meeting this standard. A judge is likely going to agree with Apple.
Now on to Gizmodo. Did it commit receipt of stolen property?
We turn to California Penal Code §496(a): “Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, ...shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.” Any person who has been injured by this crime “may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages sustained including costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Ca. Penal Code §496(c).
Here, Gizmodo, as a tech blog that cover Apple products closely, knew without a doubt that Lucky didn’t have rights to the phone because his name isn’t Steve Jobs. Lucky even told them that he found it, proof that he didn’t have the rights to sell it. Gizmodo then paid $5,000 for the phone and has gone straight to work to paint this as “Apple’s mistake.” Assuming that Lucky’s actions constitute theft, Gizmodo’s actions fit the statute exactly.
Apple will be able to bring an action against Gizmodo or Lucky for three times the damages incurred (I’ll leave that up to you to speculate that amount) plus costs and attorney’s fees.
Gizmodo is banking on public opinion being in their favor but a line crossed is a line crossed. That phone represented millions in R&D and Apple has every right to control how its products are unveiled to the market. While we all enjoyed getting a sneak peak at the new phone, Gizmodo did this to make money and now they want to pretend they were just doing a public service. This ain’t no WikiLeaks video.