Hey guys, it's been a while!


i've finally joined the techy revolution (ok.. a few yrs too late i guess) and got myself an iphone. A customer owed me a few more £££'s than he actually had so i took it as part payment with a plan to sell it on, however, after a few days playing with it, i love it and now wonder how i ever managed with my sony & nokia mobiles, even the more recent smart phones i've owned are pants compared to the iphone!

anyways, the guy tells me it's a 32gb 3g but, looking at some specs i wonder if it's a 3gs (has the built in compass/gps thing and a couple of other bits and pieces but, i can't find which model it is within or on the handset, anyidea where to look or, is there a place that can decode No's for me? model No is A1303 (FCC?)

also, i plan to use it on my vodafone network but, it's currenty still locked to o2, clearly that is a prob so i want to jailbreak it to allow it to work on other networks/sims, i've done a brief search on the net and found all kinds of promises and prices, i'm just confused now!

i'm guessing all data needs backing up before the jailbreak procedure?

i've noticed battery life isn't brilliant, could this be because it's not been charged regularly over the past month or, is short battery life something just lived with? ie, can't have all your cake and eat it!

any advice is welcome, even if it's "don't do it" !

thanks in advance,
Hugh

If it's 32GB, it's definitely a 3GS. It looks like O2 does official unlocks, so thats probably the route you want to go. Instructions and the form are here.

A1303 is an Apple model number. It's a 3GS.

thank you, so that's the latest model? result if it is as i only knocked off £100 for it ($150US?) :-)

Yep.

Get it unlocked from O2. I had no problem getting my contact 3GS unlocked free of charge (took about a week and was done over the air), but if its a pay as you go they'll charge you and you'll lose the unlimited data tariff. Not a problem if you're going to move to vodafone though.

Battery life is woeful. You can extend it a bit by turning the backlight down and turning off 3G and Bluetooth if not required.

Short answer, it depends...

If you are in an area with good 3G signal and you are just a light user (not making much use of web browsing, apps etc) then you can expect it to last a few days without a charge.

If you are using it extremely heavily you'll run out of charge before the end of a working day. Being in an area with poor 3G coverage with 3G turned on can really hammer the battery life.

I use mine quite a bit for browsing, apps etc and I normally go 36 hours or so between charges. But then I have days where I use it a lot and have to charge before the end of the first day.

My record so far was over 4 days, but that was with aircraft mode turned on quite a bit as I knew I wouldn't be able to charge it.

In Iphone-speak, allowing it to work on other networks/sims is "unlocking". "Jailbreaking" is something different: it means allowing non-App-Store applications to run. Usually, though, you do both at the same time, as the unofficial unlocker itself is a non-App-Store application. The official O2 unlock will not also give you jailbreak, though.

You definitely need to backup everything before jailbreaking, not sure about unlocking.

Peter

Jailbreaking is allowing third party software to run. Unlocking would be allowing other network SIMs to be used. Generally you jailbreak first and then unlock since you need to get the unlocking tools onto the iPhone.

The tools are actually free but many unscrupulous companies and people out there repackage the tools or just send you a link and charge you a fortune for it.

To unlock a 3GS without paying O2 it depends on the versions of the software installed. Some versions are easy to do. Some aren't.

If you can, I'd just get it unlocked by O2. You'll probably have to pay a fee but the unlock will be permanent and you won't have to worry about hacking the firmware everytime there is an upgrade.

thank you guys,

i'll check with o2, they just do it over the air?

alternatively, any idea where the jailbreakig details can be got for free? software is 3.1.3(7e18) if that makes any odds?

Yes, it is.

Well, perhaps if one ignores Hugo's latest mishap.

More interesting than a non-bootable future iPhone is what's to develop with regards to Gizmodo possessing (and having purchased) stolen property.

Thats what I thought as well. Apple aren't afraid to send in the lawyers either.

I truly hope Hugo had nothing to do with that foobar.

Not Hugo.

Many many things wrong with that story. Why publicly out the guy that lost the phone and provide photos? He's already going to be in massive amounts of trouble at work for losing the thing. Putting all his details online is just going to cause another headache for him. Another thing is the person that was messing around with the phone, you know its somebody elses property and whilst "trying" to return it, you take it apart...

I don't see "photos" of the guy. Where were you looking?

The Gizmodo story has a big photo of him from Flickr at the top and part of his Facebook page with another photo. The story also has a link to his Flickr stream.

seems odd to out the guy if they know he's probably already in trouble. i'll see how i get on with this phone til my voda contract is up, another 10 months i think, might then invest in a new model, brilliant bit of kit!

It has a big photo of somebody in the bar, but I didn't see a caption or text to say that it was the actual guy.

The article just says they rang him and spoke briefly and tersely on the telephone for a half a minute or so.

His Flikr photos were put up on Flikr (a very public site) by him, not by Gizmodo.

Edit: I suppose they might have gotten that pic from his Flikr site -- dunno about that. I didn't invade the geek's privacy space by going there to look.

Cheers

They're clearly in the possession of stolen property - finding something in California, knowing who it belongs to (which the original "finder" knew) and not returning it, constitutes theft. It's theft on the part of the original owner and also Gizmodo for having knowingly acquired stolen property.

I cannot believe the complete lack of journalistic integrity, professionalism of any kind and the sheer contempt for the affected parties Gizmodo has shown.

All things considered, Apple has sent them a very short and sweet letter asking for the phone back, even though it's clear as day that Gizmodo's back-story is a giant turd of a lie. Even if it were a 100% true account of what went down, it doesn't exculpate them from the involvement in dealing in stolen property.

At any point in time anyone involved could have put that phone in a box and addressed it to 1 Cupertino with postage due on delivery. Anonymously even. They attempted to return it by calling Apple support? While the campus was no more than 20 miles away? Yeah, right.

Some people speculate this was a plant orchestrated between Apple and Gizmodo. I don't think Apple would involve themselves in something like this willingly.

I also find it very (very) odd that a DVT prototype (as marked on the device, meaning a "development prototype") would be allowed off the Apple campus. Normally DVT prototypes are not allowed in the wild. They're always to be kept in secure environments, whether it be in an Apple building or that of a partner, such as AMD/ATI. I suppose the situation with the iPhone may be different by necessity of testing its radio.

The filename is the guys name so I'd say that it was him and it appeared in the status bar when my mouse was over the image. It does say Flickr as well however so they had gotten it from there.

Either way, is it essential to the story that they needed to reveal his name? I guess I'd be more pissed off if this had happened to me than you would have been if it had happened to you.

Considering that the last person this happened to ended up dead, it would seem wise to be really quite substantially pissed-off.

Peter

On top of everything, Gizmodo has had the phone for weeks. It was originally stolen in mid March. This week Gizmodo, also had enough time to showcase the phone on various TV shows, knowing all the while the item was genuine, yet not having the time to drop it by Apple's HQ.

The mainstream TV media are treating this all fairly innocently, but I think it's far from. Someone's job should be lost over this, and it isn't that of the Apple employee featured in the photos at Giz.

Are you surprised that Gizmodo is acting this way? This is pretty much the impression I had of them already. They've had writers kicked out of CES for using TV-be-gones. They hardly strike me as a mature media outlet.

By the way, something about this smells fishy to me. I know we're talking about an actual Apple employee, but also take this in consideration: when developers wanted to work on the iPad, they had to build a friggin' room to house it, bolt it to a table, and send Apple proof before they could receive it. And this was AFTER the product was announced, so we all knew about it already.

But here I'm supposed to believe that a 27 year old software engineer who's worked for Apple for three years is allowed to carry this new phone around anywhere? Is this for testing purposes or something? And this kid would just leave this thing in a bar?

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but all I can think is that either this is a) a boneheaded move on the employee and Apple's part, b) a carefully constructed leek.

That doesn't seem to be clear, and may possibly be flat-out wrong.

California Code states that a finder must contact the owner, if known, in a reasonable amount of time.


If the owner is unknown or doesn't respond, and the item has a value over $100, it is to be turned over to the police or sheriff, and if they don't hear anything within 90 days, the ownership of the item goes to the finder.


(I elided irrelevant details.)

Also, the duties for a "depositary for hire" state that the depositary has no obligation to return an item without demand from the owner:


I cannot immediately find any criminal liability for a "depositary for hire" who fails to return an item, or for failing to hand over an expensive item to the police, which seems to be the only possible wrongdoing that happened here.

Umm, but the owner was known on day one. They knew both the name of the engineer who had it as well as that it belonged to Apple - Apple's prototypes are always clearly marked, and Gizmodo confirmed themselves the DVT labels - it would also include a "property of Apple" and possibly a phone number.

The item is worth over $400 retail and considering it's a prototype, Apple could argue it's worth well over a few thousand. That's grand theft.

Having SOLD it themselves, the original "finder" was clearly not trying to contact anyone to return it. Gizmodo knew exactly what this was when they paid $5000 for it and themselves did not contact Apple to let them know they had it. Instead they shopped the story around to other outlets.

I really hope the identity of the original "finder" (aka thief) comes to light. At the very least they knew fully well this item belonged to the dude who was just moments before sitting at that bar stool and should have turned the item over to the bar's management - if the whole story even played out remotely similar to what was written. I don't for a second believe this Apple engineer would put the phone down on a bar stool and then walk away.

CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485


By the way, that's a passage of the penal code. The "finder" did not only commit a civil offense, he committed a criminal one. One Gizmodo is party to.

If the account was accurate, and I'm not saying it definitely is, he tried to contact the owner. I don't see anything that states he's required to start a manhunt.

I was not aware that Gizmodo paid money for it, though. That's hinky at best, likely criminal.


Why is that? Had the bar owner been deputized? Again, according to the account, he waited around for the guy to show back up.

When I find myself in a situation where I find something of value that has been lost, I tend to keep it and leave my contact information with the local establishment.

If you're arguing that it's more likely that the phone was actively stolen, I can't argue. But if you're arguing that the account, as written, amounts to crime, I disagree.

Even if you believe every word of the account written at Gizmodo, the original "finder" does not escape the penal code I cited. The description given, of the person contacting Apple's support phone number is in no way a "reasonable" effort to return the property, especially when they knew the name of the person who "lost" it and the relatively close address of Apple's HQ. They could have rather easily called the Apple building rather than customer support. Even failing any and all attempts, their next step would be to turn the device over to the police. Which they didn't do. Instead, they sold it. Selling property you don't own is a crime.

Sorry, this just doesn't fly.

But, besides all arguments, I'm not putting an ounce of faith in anything Gizmodo is saying. There is much more, or rather, much less to this story than they represent. Likely it's a lot more simple, yet potentially more nefarious. Gizmodo has gone to a lot of trouble to publicize this while diverting attention away from the real questions that should be asked. They've gone so far as to try and paint Apple like idiots for not having been able to recover the phone themselves earlier and for not having had the phone password protected. Yeah, blaming the victim is going to earn you lots of points.

It's doubtful Apple would risk negative press by suing, but I'd love to see the authorities get in on the action without Apple's insistence nonetheless. We may never know the truth behind what actually happened.

Here's more information, including a choice bit from the bar owner:


From this piece: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/why-apple-could-sue-gawker-over-lost-iphone-story/19447570/

The thief could even have sent an email to Steve Jobs, who's been pretty good about answering too. sjobs at apple.com