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

Yeah, failing to tell the establishment about it is pretty egregious.

Heck, I was carrying around an original iPhone for several months before public availability and I'd not even been there a year. I don't see how age plays into it, and time with company *shouldn't* either. The question is whether you are testing the device in real-world environments and filing bug reports / collecting logs.

When a device becomes publicly available, millions of people are hammering on it very quickly - you want to find issues before that point, when they can be fixed. People carrying prototypes is nothing new, every phone vendor does this because there's no substitute for actually living on the device.

Hugo

Hugo, I should have been more clear. I don't have a problem with them letting someone carry the thing around. I have a small problem with the contrast of that policy with the iPad stuff.

*edit*
Also, I only recently heard that he worked on the radio stuff, so I can see why he'd have it out in the real world, to test how well it was working.

The iPad (lock and key) policy seems like the policy Apple has always had with regards to prototypes. The only thing different was that it was still in effect after the product had been announced and demonstrated.

Your point?

The iPhone is a phone. You can't really bolt the thing down inside a room 24x7 when you need to test it.

The iPad can have most of its testing done inside whilst bolted down. Only the people that are testing the 3G wireless portion need to have the ability to wander.

What was your point? (See my previous message again) I was offering you some factual information about Apple's prototype policies because you seemed to be questioning them.

The iPad's continued prototype security policy after its announcement was likely due to threat of theft, allowing someone to crack it open for a closer look, possibly giving competitors some weeks to months of advantage.

When products are in initial proto stages they don't even have final enclosures - often no enclosures at all. At that point in time many of their projects are "eyes only" within partner companies, often even within a team that otherwise all work with Apple.

When we worked on the Cube and the mini we didn't have final enclosures until after those products had been announced. For larger desktops we'd usually have a proper enclosure a few months before announcement. With notebooks it varied, but early revs always had the mobo and panel assemblies laid up in a plexiglass frame/enclosure. Some of these were crazy/insane secretive such that they had to be locked up in a secondary area within an already locked (pass-coded) room where only a handful of people had access.

No, you were telling me what they do with their prototypes. I didn't say anything about their prototypes. I was comparing a product everyone knew about to one that nobody knew about, and the differing policies of both. I think it's funny. You don't. Bravo.

But the units people had prior to launch were still prototypes. Likely late DVT samples.

While the stories published made the issue sound amusing, I was just letting you know how/why this works the way it does for Apple and partners.

So, who doubted that there was a case to be made against Gizmodo?

Jason Chen's house searched by police this past Friday.

Equipment was seized, and as usual, Gawker COO (and Jason's legal counsel) doesn't seem to know her ass from her elbow when it comes to California law. No charges have been laid yet, as this search and seizure are part of an investigation to determine if/how charges will be filed.

This could be just the beginning of an interesting few weeks... I wonder what Nick Denton has to say now?

Post on Gizmodo about the search:
http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

Comments are off. Otherwise you'd see this one there: "Ha... Hahaha. Hahahaha."

Probably something along the lines of "Thanks for all the clicks and ad views, suckers". Still milking it with the latest news of the search and seizure.

This whole incident finally pushed me off of all Gawker tabloid sites. This was all done for clicks and ad views, and I'm no longer willing to support a blog network that is willing to buy stolen property for profit.

I did find this amusing:

I'm going to have to block Gizmodo using some rules, since I often click to it instinctively. It's muscle memory among a few other sites like Engadget and TUAW I know I'll be better off not reading it, since in addition to the iPhone felony, everything else is usually also complete crap.

I saw the above linked from Daring Fireball a little while ago. Notice also that all of Chen's person details are blurred out of the documents in the story I linked - how nice. Maybe they should have offered the same courtesy to the Apple employee who lost the iPhone.

It pains me that Lifehacker is a Gawker blog. I so love that blog, and read it every day, but I can't stand most of that network. I wish Lifehacker could be brought into the Weblogs family, or anywhere else, really.

Are there different standards for tech press vs press for everything else. I mean other kinds of press infiltrate places, send in spys, use hidden camera, other tactics I can't think of now to get stories.

What's with it being stolen anyway. If I leave my laptop in the airport and someone takes it is that stolen ? Nobody robbed anyone the guy forgot the thing in a bar. Yeah they were jerks they could have been nice and tried to find an owner but I wouldn't say they stole it.

What? The press, regardless of format of publication, is not exempt from law, including criminal law. I don't think the NYT would have been stupid enough to pull the crap Gizmodo did with this prototype.

Right now there's the possibility they'll get nailed for stolen property, but it's not unreasonable that they would also be open to charges for having violated trade secret laws as well. Even the Apple employee could probably file a civil suit for invasion of privacy, defamation of character, and more.

When you "find" something and don't make any attempt to return it, especially if you know who it belongs to, that's considered theft in California (among other places). When you buy something that you know is stolen, you're also breaking the law (this one pretty much everywhere).

An iPhone isn't worth $5000. A stolen prototype is worth a lot more, but Gizmodo got it for a song apparently. They knew what they were buying before having handed over the money.

I'm calling it stolen mostly because the finder tried to sell it to Engadget, and then successfully sold it to Gizmodo. He found a lost prototype, and instead of leaving it at the bar with the management, contacting the owner, or dropping it in a package to send back, he tried to make money off of it. He clearly not only knew it belonged to Apple, but he knew the specific person after browsing through the phone and looking into the Facebook app on it.

As for other press, it all depends. Basically bribing people to break NDAs (with the $10,000 offer Gawker did with the iPad) or paying $5,000 for lost gadgets doesn't provide me with any important news. They are just gadgets. If someone bends the law a bit to put in a hidden camera to expose my food possibly having salmonella, that I'm OK with. The job of a journalist is to serve the public and provide them with needed information. The job of a tabloid writer is do whatever it takes to sell more papers (or online ad views). Gawker is clearly in that second category, catering only to their ad buyers, and not their readers.

I've generally given up on most US based news sources for the same reason. They make up very sensationalized stories about killer escalators or something to get you to tune in and pay attention to their ads, instead of focusing on really important stories and having their journalists do their real job.

Interesting.... From an interview Brian J. Hogan, the "finder" of the iPhone gave to Wired:



Gizmodo's recount of how there were multiple attempts to return the phone to Apple through a couple of points of contact were..... False. I Know, big surprise.

And here's a perfect example of why a company wants to keep product releases, specs and details secret...

Nokia N8 clone hits market before the real thing

And a fascia knock-off of the next-gen iPhone is here as well.

Is that a phone or a brick?

More information from the recently unsealed documents regarding the warrant...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/roommate-iphone/

Priceless:


Hogan should get, at a minimum, a probation period with community service and a stiff fine. Gizmodo and Gawker should be bled dry. But I still doubt we'll see a civil suit. Otherwise $200-500 million would probably be fair.

Did he seriously GeoCache the police? Too funny.

At the end of the day, they're getting more page views because of this. Any PR is good PR if you're in their business and a fine unless it is absolutely huge isn't going to discourage them from doing this again.

They're getting PR, true. But they're also getting people holding off on purchase of current generation iPhones. They're also getting copycats already releasing knock-offs.

It wouldn't be inconceivable that this has actually cost Apple hundreds of millions in revenue at this point.

Very few people that are going to buy a phone because it externally looks like an iPhone was going to buy a real iPhone anyway. Also, very few who bought an iPhone now were going to buy another one in a year when the new generation comes out.

Apple's secrecy is obviously not helping them and it can be seen in their financials over the past 10 years. It's a shame they haven't been able to keep up with industry benchmarks established by their contemporaries like Microsoft, HP, Dell, etc.

The true cost of the leak is immeasurable, but $200M is a paltry sum and well within what can be considered a reasonable range. I'm sure Apple would estimate (conservatively) an even higher amount.

Gizmodo have also done harm to Apple's goodwill as many people will perceive this fiasco as a David/Goliath situation.

I think the bottom line to have come out of all the information presented so far is that the phone was stolen from the start. Intentions were dishonest and criminal from the start. Gizmodo was fully aware this was a stolen item. They were fully aware it belonged to Apple and of California law. They knew fully well that what they were publishing was in violation of further laws, such as trade secret law. Everything here says the acts that followed the initial opportunity were premeditated with willful disrespect for the law and intent to do harm to Apple and its employee Gray Powell.

Eh. Maybe. Apple so far has a regular schedule for when they release a new version of their iPhone. You would have been holding off from buying an iPhone 3GS before Gizmodo had bought the phone anyway because it is nearly June/July when all the others have been announced/released.

Depends on how closely you follow things. A coworker bought a new iPhone 3GS to replace his aging G1 2 days before the story broke. He probably would have waited had he known the new phone was on it's way, as his G1 was still functional.

After the story was posted to Gizmodo, it was shown on every major news network, including interviews on morning shows and such. A lot more people are now aware of the new phone and the planned release this summer due to Gizmodo's actions.

This fork of the conversation makes me wonder how much it would cost me to upgrade to the new iPhone when it comes out. I got the 3G shortly after it came out. I don't remember how long the contract with AT&T was.

AT&T's contracts are 2 years for the iPhone, however, being able to upgrade to a new device tends to come sometime around the 12-18 month mark, depending on the subsidy on your current phone and what plan you have. Odds are, you will be eligible for the new phone at the lowest price.

The exact date should be on your account page somewhere if you log in at ATT.com

Not if you're under 2 years. I'm fairly certain you only get the full subsidy if you're past the two years. I think there's a lesser subsidy they give you after 18 months.

According to my account page, I'll get a phone at full subsidy price 11/21/2010. I last signed a contract with AT&T July of 2009, when I bought my 3GS.

Yeah. Good point. I can see what Bruno and you are saying now.

Apple's carefully orchestrated product releases and (usually) well-secured product development lifecycles play important roles in their overall business strategy and have helped them get to where they are now.

As I said early on regarding this sample's appearance on the web, the story and details of how this all went down were probably going to be more interesting than the details revealed about the product itself. Someone else even compared the people involved to characters from a Coen brothers movie. Quite apt.

It wouldn't be entirely out-of-character for Apple to now pull that product entirely (and string the 3GS along for a bit until the 2011 model comes out) and then try and pin the cost of doing that on whichever combination of Gizmodo, Hogan and Powell it is their wish to destroy.

Peter

Ah, that's right. Still, I don't think it's 12-18 months, I'm almost certain it's simply 18 months. I seem to recall that with the 3GS, if you were 12-18 months, the subsidy brought it down to around $400-something. *edit* That is, for the most expensive model */edit*

tanstaafl.

Really? I've only heard that type of thing applied to some small accessory, not a mainstay of company income...

Think about how it works.

Apple has to be ready with hundreds of thousands of the item ready for the release date, maybe a million or more. The production for that kind of thing is tightly scheduled. Both for the logistics of the materials that have to come together, and for the economics of same.

Apple has fronted serious cash to have that quantity of items ready for sale. They need to be sold to recoup.

Depending, it might be the lesser hit to sell old stock at a discount, than to suffer the costs of holding back a product that is ready to sell.

For Peter... Once the product is in "DVT" stage, it's already too close to release to dump. I've seen plenty of systems and options they've dumped in the past, though none because of a leak. None made it as far as DVT either, such as a G5-packing 17" PowerBook.