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