5 ms·
Gizmodo paid $10,000 for "lost" iPhone 4G
- ryandvm 17y agoMan, they're gonna be pissed when Apple drops the price 30% in two months...
- toSeeBees 17y agoThis is pretty reprehensible of the buyer and seller. What if you found a big bag of money? Would you keep it? If so, fuck you. Edit: This isn't a matter of what's legal or not, or that it's Apple or not – it's a general issue with peoples' opportunistically predatory nature.
- jackowayed 17y agoThere's a big difference. It's not actually worth $11k to Apple. They don't actually want all the details out there yet (probably. I could see some of their leaks being intentional ways to get people to hold out for summer and not buy Android phones now), but they didn't directly lose $11k by losing the iPhone.
- jonknee 17y agoTechnically, prototypes are usually worth much more than $11k (hand built consumer electronics as complicated as mobile phones are expensive), but it wasn't the money that was important to Apple. It's the secrecy, Apple is obsessed with it. This is the company that announced everything about the iPad months ahead of time but wouldn't even let Apple Store staff use it once until the day of launch. It's useful to a point, but they have taken it way over the edge.
- jonknee 17y agoBut it wasn't a bag of money, it was information (that we mostly already knew). In the scheme of things this is a meaningless leak, it's just huge news because Apple/Jobs is obsessively secretive. I actually enjoy seeing them beat at their own game.
- gamble 17y agoSpeculation is one thing, but knowing exactly what your competitor will be selling two months before it hits the market is worth a lot more than $10k to the right people.
- jmtulloss 17y agoI don't think that's true. The mobile industry is a pretty incestuous place, everybody kind of knows what everybody else is doing. All the companies buy parts from the same suppliers, trade employees, and see the same market trends. Two months isn't enough time for anybody to do anything significant, except perhaps for the chinese knockoffs to make it to market faster.
- CamperBob 17y agoTwo months isn't enough time for anybody to do anything significant, except perhaps for the chinese knockoffs to make it to market faster. Two months is more than enough time, though, to plot a "leak" that buries your competitor's marketing in the noise floor. I wonder if any other major phone manufacturers were planning to announce anything this week?
- ZachPruckowski 17y agoWhile I don't disagree with you in general, I'd be hard pressed to imagine an announcement that drowns out Apple's product launch PR short of "hey, we found aliens, and we're selling their communicators".
- InclinedPlane 17y agoIt was not information. It was a physical object that belonged to somebody else. Beyond that it was intellectual property that belonged to somebody else. Gizmodo is morally indefensible here, I think.
- SamAtt 17y agoIt's unquestionably dishonest but I suspect it will make for an interesting court case as Gizmodo tries to claim the person who sold it is a "source" and hence they should have a right to anonymity. I don't think it holds up but it's up for debate. There's no question that people like Mark Felt (aka Deep Throat) stole documents from the White House which is a much bigger crime than this.
- anigbrowl 17y agoRegardless of whether they protected that person, they would appear (IANAL) be liable for damages under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act - given their understanding of how significant the device was and where it was from - and if it's true they paid big $ for it, they'd be liable to have those damages doubled for improper methods of acquiring the thing. http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpress.com/trade-secrets-law/california-civil-code-%C2%A7%C2%A7-3426-et-seq-the-uniform-trade-secrets-act/ http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpress.com/trade-secrets-law/c...
- stevenbedrick 17y agoIIRC, journalists as a rule don't typically pay sources for information.
- tptacek 17y agoThere is no actual right to anonymity for sources, is there? That's just a convention among journalists. They go to prison when they refuse to cough up sources.
- jrockway 17y agoNot true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_State...
- ck2 17y agoI have to laugh at how Apple was able to remotely disable that one specific phone at their will. If that's not alarming to anyone who owns an apple product, they simply deserve to lose control of whatever they buy.
- jonknee 17y ago... This is an advertised feature of the phone (and many others). Not alarming.
- e1ven 17y agoUmm.. I should point out two things- 1) It's a prototype. Building protections into your prototypes is common-sense, and doesn't mean that there is an evil overlord out to attack you. 2) Both Blackberry and iPhones have had this capability for years. It's part of MobileMe, and built into every BES. It's a must for enterprise use, practically anywhere. This is a publicized feature, and a very useful one.
- vlad 17y ago...how Apple was able to remotely disable that one specific phone at their will. This does not prove that Apple has the ability to remote-wipe any user's phone. First, if Apple remote-wiped the iPhone, this would be explained by the fact that the company administrator of mobile devices can disable employee and contractor phones, and Apple does give out iPhones to its employees. It's logical that the owner of this prototype phone is an iPhone employee. Secondly, it's likely that the rightful owner decided to remote-wipe the phone themselves to protect their own personal data (as he or she would do to any other lost or stolen phone) while continuing the search. Not only is there no evidence that Apple can remote-wipe any user's phone, but it's very possible they specifically passed on having this ability in order to minimize liability.
- robgough 17y agoIsn't that the entire point of mobile phones having an IMEI number? Hardly new to the iPhone. In fact, it looks as if all they've actually done is the remote-wipe feature of mobile me ... and no one outside apple can get it working again, as you need the right "image" to restore on to it. Which obviously isn't available yet. edit: I presume IMEI isn't something that's unique to the UK?
- jbyers 17y agoForget the buyer and seller. The person that lost their iPhone prototype in a bar is the one who's going to get crushed by Apple.
- tuacker 17y agoThere was an IAMA at reddit a while ago from someone who dropped a prototype (of a macbook) in public. You can read it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a8an1/i_was_part_of_the_product_design_team_for_apple/c0gb7dk http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/a8an1/i_was_part_of_th...
- eogas 17y agoThat exchange sounds as if it was made up by a teenager who has seen Pirates of Silicon Valley one too many times.
- jonknee 17y agoApparently more of the story is coming out soon. They're going to milk it all they can of course, but it should be interesting. http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12472344531 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12472344531
- brown9-2 17y agoI think this is going to end badly for all parties involved, named and unnamed: http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12479140215 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12479140215
- InclinedPlane 17y agoGizmodo is in a bad place here. If Apple chooses they could nail Gizmodo to the wall. Firstly, Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen merchandise, that is a criminal offense and the owner (the Apple employee or Apple themselves, depending on the legalities) could press charges. Secondly, this could be considered corporate espionage and Apple could make a case in court that they have been financially damaged by it, to the tune of millions.
- brown9-2 17y agoIANAL but there is probably a legal divide between stolen merchandise and lost merchandise.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoNot much of one. You'd need to prove that the merchandise was abandoned, not just lost. And you'd have to prove the finder did due diligence in locating the proper owner before taking ownership. Good luck with that in this case. If Apple had the inclination they could have Gizmodo's balls in a vice.
- Frazzydee 17y agoWhat if Gizmodo does its due diligence after the fact? ie. First take all the photos they need, then contact Apple
- pier0 17y agoI wonder how much Apple paid to the guy that "misplaced" the phone.
- jeiting 17y agoThere is nothing in this article that lends any credence to the claim that Gizmodo paid for the phone. Why should I believe this? Sources are important people. Not that a site as well known as edibleapple.com would post hearsay to get views...
- booticon 17y agoNick Denton is more or less confirming it: http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12467349291 http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12467349291
- mikedouglas 17y agoCalifornia Penal Code, Section 485. 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. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html
- hugh3 17y agoHmm. So you can't buy or sell lost property, but there's nothing to say you can't carefully examine and photograph something you found before you return it to its rightful owner. So if the finder had taken it to Gizmodo and offered to let them take a look at it for $10,000 then he'd be in the clear, but if he actually sold it to Gizmodo then he's in serious trouble.
- maxharris 17y agoGizmodo is in pretty serious trouble, too. They knew what they were paying for (they have expertise in these things - they can't just claim they bought the thing off of Craigslist), and I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Gizmodo ends up in jail over this. Apple has the same right to their property that you have to your own private property because Apple is just a voluntary association of employees and shareholders. Their individual rights give rise to Apple's rights. If someone stole something you made, like your private journal and plastered it all over the Internet, you'd be livid, and the perpetrator should go to jail (how long is for the courts to decide). For that same reason, whoever was involved with this at Gizmodo belongs in jail (again, how long is a judicial matter).
- tel 17y agoBefore anyone goes to jail, Apple needs to publicly admit that this is their device. Current analysis seems to suggest strongly that it is, but it'll be interesting to see if they admit it.
- niekmaas 17y agoAnd the author of this article doesn't take in to account the possibility that Apple gave Gizmodo the phone to build up the hype for the new iPhone? It's the oldest trick in the book. Costs just one prototype and the whole internet is talking about it. I don't believe anything of the "stolen", "lost" or perhaps even "mugged" stories. The "mugged" I came up with myself. Makes as much sense as stolen etc.
- czhiddy 17y agoThis post says it better than I could: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bt3cp/this_is_apples_next_iphone/c0ofitw http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/bt3cp/this_is_ap...
- jsz0 17y agoI dunno. With all the fake photos out there I feel like maybe Apple had to step up their slow-leak campaign to include actual hardware this time around. There's some pretty strong competition out and iPhone 3G owners on a 2 year contract are now looking at a small early termination fee if they wanted to jump ship. Now is a pretty good time to build hype post-iPad -- let consumers know Apple hasn't forgotten about the iPhone. Between this, the iPad launch, iPhone OS 4 and new MacBooks Apple has pretty much dominated the tech media for the last 4 weeks.
- pier0 17y agoGizmodo Lost and Found: who owns the phone in the pictures?
- confuzatron 17y agoGizmodo should have given it back to Apple. Apple probably had to go ahead and buy themselves a new iPhone so they could make and receive calls. They're out of pocket here!
- CoachRufus87 17y agohead(s) are certainly rolling in Cupertino; can't wait to get my hands on one though
- rdl 17y agoIt seems vastly more likely to me that someone "arranged" to "lose" a phone ahead of time, to get it to Gizmodo with some kind of plausible deniability. Presumably also there are uniquely identifying IDs in the phone (IMEI, but for a dev phone maybe that is in flash), or just a limited number of these phones, so Apple can do inventory and find out who lost the device. At that point, extensive interviewing to make sure the loss was actually a loss.
- saikat 17y agoJust saw this on Sachin's blog - http://sachinlet.posterous.com/the-leaked-next-generation-iphone-looks-amazi http://sachinlet.posterous.com/the-leaked-next-generation-ip... .
- bwag 17y agoI keep waiting for this headline: "Gizmodo Digs Deeper: Reveals iPhone Prototype to Actually be a Nexus Two Prototype"
- towndrunk 17y agoSo what processor is in this thing? Does it have the A4 like the iPad?
- tptacek 17y agoSomeone track down 'grellas; I really want to know what he thinks about this debacle.
- paul9290 17y agoTo me i don't believe everything I see and hear. This could be Apple doing this to create buzz, as well it could be Gizmodo and Engadget making this up for buzz/traffic.
- angstrom 17y agoI'm skeptical in part because my first reaction would be to email Steve and ask him if they lost anything the size and shape of an iPhone lately. If he did and he can tell you what it looks like they can have it back. If they didn't I hock it to the highest bidder and discard the email from Steve.
- ZachPruckowski 17y agoApple once went nuclear with lawsuits and cancelled a product when info on it leaked to AppleInsider and ThinkSecret. This isn't their style at all.
- ig1 17y agoThere is of course the possibility that it's a fake. The Gizmodo article says how much work it would be to put together a fake, obviously they haven't been paying attention to all the fake iphones coming out of China, often with extra features such as USB and mini-sims. Edit: In fact the flat plastic back makes it seem similar to the fake covered in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_TZfpEvzrQ&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_TZfpEvzrQ&feature=playe...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]