Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

This Is Apple's Next iPhone 492

An anonymous reader writes "There has been some speculation about it. Not anymore: 'This is Apple's next iPhone. It was found lost in a bar in Redwood City, camouflaged to look like an iPhone 3GS. We got it. We disassembled it. It's the real thing, and here are all the details.' Judging by Gizmodo's reaction, it looks like a winner."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This Is Apple's Next iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • Re:FAIL! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pete Venkman ( 1659965 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:26AM (#31896664) Journal

    I was under the impression that this was the same phone. That's what macrumors said.

  • Re:Um... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:31AM (#31896732)


    iPhones have supported remote wipe via Exchange server or MobileMe for a long time now. Blackberry and Windows Mobile can also do the same (through their respective servers, of course)

    Surely Apple would want to use the same features it gives to customers to rein in lost devices on its own prototypes.

  • Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:33AM (#31896754)
    It's a selling point for some actually. The ability to wipe ones personal information off the phone in case it gets lost or stolen. Admittedly keeping sensitive information on a hand held is just asking for trouble, but being able to wipe remotely does have legit uses. Of course those are all out weighed by the possible abusive uses.
  • by Stenchwarrior ( 1335051 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:51AM (#31896992)

    Actually, I was able to get it in HTML. Someone take a look and see if it tells us anything....

    IPTC Record Version0

    IPTC Core (Adobe XMP)

    Expand All [] / Collapse All [] / Show/Hide XMP Source [] / Show/Hide XMP Legend []

    Namespace PrefixMeaning auxAdditional EXIF schema crsCamera Raw Schema dcDublin Core schema exifEXIF schema pdfAdobe Portable Document Format schema photoshopAdobe Photoshop schema rdfResource Description Framework schema tiffEXIF schema for TIFF xap(obsolete designation for XMP) xmpExtensible Metadata Platform Basic schema xmpBJXMP Basic Job Ticket schema xmpDMXMP Dynamic Media schema xmpMMXMP Media Management schema xmpRightsXMP Rights Management schema xmpTPgXMP Paged-Text schema <?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:05:41 "> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=""> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:tiff="" xmlns:exif="" xmlns:xmp="" xmlns:aux="" xmlns:crs="" xmlns:photoshop="" xmlns:dc="" xmlns:xmpMM="" xmlns:stEvt="" xmlns:stRef="" tiff:Make="Canon" tiff:Model="Canon EOS 5D Mark II" tiff:XResolution="2400000/10000" tiff:YResolution="2400000/10000" tiff:ResolutionUnit="2" tiff:Orientation="1" tiff:NativeDigest="256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,271,272,305,315,33432;AD17727827D6F50A42F51709DE6189F5" exif:ExifVersion="0221" exif:ExposureTime="1/100" exif:ShutterSpeedValue="6643856/1000000" exif:FNumber="71/10" exif:ApertureValue="5655638/1000000" exif:ExposureProgram="2" exif:DateTimeOriginal="2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00" exif:DateTimeDigitized="2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00" exif:ExposureBiasValue="0/1" exif:MaxApertureValue="4/1" exif:SubjectDistance="29/100" exif:MeteringMode="5" exif:FocalLength="40/1" exif:CustomRendered="0" exif:ExposureMode="0" exif:WhiteBalance="0" exif:SceneCaptureType="0" exif:FocalPlaneXResolution="5616000/1459" exif:FocalPlaneYResolution="3744000/958" exif:FocalPlaneResolutionUnit="2" exif:PixelXDimension="1024" exif:PixelYDimension="605" exif:ColorSpace="65535" exif:NativeDigest="36864,40960,40961,37121,37122,40962,40963,37510,40964,36867,36868,33434,33437,34850,34852,34855,34856,37377,37378,37379,37380,37381,37382,37383,37384,37385,37386,37396,41483,41484,41486,41487,41488,41492,41493,41495,41728,41729,41730,41985,41986,41987,41988,41989,41990,41991,41992,41993,41994,41995,41996,42016,0,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30;D6478666B801EB0A5EB2A1D991D7E944" xmp:ModifyDate="2010-04-15T17:21:49-07:00" xmp:CreateDate="2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00" xmp:Rating="0" xmp:MetadataDate="2010-04-15T17:21:49-07:00" aux:SerialNumber="220101095" aux:LensInfo="17/1 40/1 0/0 0/0" aux:Lens="EF17-40mm f/4L USM" aux:LensID="231" aux:ImageNumber="0" aux:FlashCompensation="0/1" aux:Firmware="2.0.4" crs:RawFileName="IMG_7731.CR2" crs:Version="5.6" crs:WhiteBalance="As Shot" crs:Temperature="4200" crs:Tint="+24" crs:Exposure="+0.40" crs:Shadows="5" crs:Brightness="+50" crs:Contrast="+25" crs:Saturation="0" crs:Sharpness="25" crs:LuminanceSmoothing="0" crs:ColorNoiseReduction="25" crs:ChromaticAberrationR="0" crs:ChromaticAberrationB="0" crs:VignetteAmount="0" crs:ShadowTint="0" crs:RedHue="0" crs:RedSaturation="0" crs:GreenHue="0" crs:GreenSaturation="0" crs:BlueHue="0" crs:BlueSaturation="0" crs:FillLight="0" crs:Vibrance="0" crs:HighlightRecovery="0" crs:Clarity="0" crs:Defringe=

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:52AM (#31897000)
    If you look at the EXIF data on any of the images you can see Photoshop tags placed in the file. Not sure what if that means some "manipulating" was done, but I'm not sure why PShop was needed unless it was to change the format from TIFF to JPEG (which was done). It won't let me post the entire stream here but this is /., I'm sure you all know how to get the info yourself. :-)

    Uhhh, it's not the slighest bit uncommon to crop or convert photos in Photoshop (or whatever your preferred image editing app is) before posting them on a website. Or would you rather every image posted on the web be some 10MP monstrosity?
  • by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:56AM (#31897074)

    It has become like one giant apple advertisement.

    They used to have lots of different articles on a lot of different topics. Now they'll write 50 articles on a single device. Anyone who saw gizmodo on the ipad's launch day can attest to this. It's one giant fanboy fapping contest.

  • by InsprdInsnty ( 1793100 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:57AM (#31897080)
    They probably just used photoshop to place the watermarked ' Exclusive' on each of the photos, change the brightness contrast and apply some of those focus effects. All the usual stuff one might do to photos before publishing them on a commercial website
  • Re:iPhone - NOT (Score:3, Informative)

    by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @11:58AM (#31897094)

    Micro SIM is going to be in use in just a couple of weeks when the 3G iPad comes out....

  • Re:FAIL! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @12:00PM (#31897112)

    Engadget never got its hands on the device. They got their hands on photos of it.

  • Re:iPhone - NOT (Score:5, Informative)

    by anaesthetica ( 596507 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @12:00PM (#31897116) Homepage Journal

    Only can a true fanboy turn the phrase "like a Braun product from the 70s" into a compliment.

    Not really. Dieter Rams is considered one of the best industrial designers. Take a look: comparison of Braun and Apple []; and, slideshow of his work [].

  • Re:FAIL! (Score:2, Informative)

    by IWaSBoRG ( 992305 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @12:08PM (#31897224)
    Engadget's images are stamped with "Gizmodo Exclusive", so I don't think Engadget has one.
  • Re:iPhone - NOT (Score:3, Informative)

    by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @12:09PM (#31897246)

    Braun has been highly lauded for their industrial design in the past, and has been a large influence to Johnathan Ive. Aside from looking fairly different from anything else Apple currently sells, it is both Braun-like and Ive-like.

  • by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:14PM (#31898472)

    Gruber is reporting that Apple considers the device stolen, and it's been well-known that someone's been shopping it around tech sites asking $10,000 for some hands-on time.

  • by dan828 ( 753380 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:25PM (#31898692)
    We'll see, but I'm of the opinion that Gizmodo and Apple are in cahoots on this one. Giz is such an Apple fanboy site (look at their non-stop love fest with the iPad) that they wouldn't risk getting into trouble with Apple over this. I think Apple decided to leak this to counter all the traction the new Android phones are getting, and picked a general tech blog that has been behaving the most fanboyish lately. It all seems too pat.
  • Re:FAIL! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Moridineas ( 213502 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:25PM (#31898694) Journal

    I wonder if they'll even have HSPA full implemented on this one (no iPhone does uploads faster than 384kb/s)?

    Is this true? I have the speedtest app and was looking through past results and I have two 3g results that are higher than that number, the highest being 613 kbps.

    Could be a glitch or something I guess, as most of the other 3g results have upload speeds of about 250-300kbps.

  • by not-my-real-name ( 193518 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:17PM (#31899540) Homepage

    Jobs is a vegetarian. It might look like real ham, but it's really processed soy protein.

  • by DECS ( 891519 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:30PM (#31899730) Homepage Journal

    Because Apple apparently wanted to wipe it to prevent the software from being usable/visible. Once you wipe it, the configuration for FindMyPhone is wiped too (the device has to be linked to an account in order to be found).

    It's better to lose hardware that can only be looked at than lose the hardware and the software, which would reveal a lot more about features. Gizmodo couldn't even say what the screen resolution was, because all it does it ask to be re-imaged with software Gizmodo doesn't have access to install.

    Apple never leaks prototypes into the wild for promotional purposes. If anything, the phone was stolen. Apple likes buzz, but is not going to benefit from two months of "don't buy an iPhone until this new one comes out."

    Adobe slips mobile Flash Player 10.1 to second half of 2010 []

  • by eharvill ( 991859 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:42PM (#31899900)

    Now Gizmodo has put up a note on their web page saying "Yeah, we have it. Also we took it apart.". Receiving and harboring stolen goods is illegal in basically every state, and can be a federal crime for items $5k or greater that cross state lines. It is totally plausible that a prototype is worth more than five thousand. Depending on the numbers in which they are being produced, it might have even cost that much to manufacture and, being rare and coveted, is worth rather more.

    Is it theft if they truly did find it (in a bar)? You find a quarter on the street and pick it up, is that theft? What is the moral obligation to try and return something that you found? Simply because it has more value it's more of an offense? It's not like they can call 1800APPLE and the person that answer would have any clue as to what to do. If it's traceable they should have called and said hey, you have my phone, can I have it back now? If they refused then I might consider it theft and call the appropriate authorities. /shrug

  • Re:FAIL! (Score:3, Informative)

    by iamhassi ( 659463 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:59PM (#31900224) Journal
    "I have two 3g results that are higher than that number, the highest being 613 kbps."

    Same here. Here's a link to the iPhone speed test app. []

    My highest was also in the 600 kbps range. It was so fast in fact that the 3G upload was faster than the wireless network supported by DSL I was currently connected to that the time, which topped off around 300-something.

    Here's a video of a guy testing his home network using the Speed Test app []
  • Re:FAIL! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Draek ( 916851 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @05:37PM (#31902544)

    Which is to say, in a perfectly market-based way, Apple is the leader in terms of features people actually want.

    In a perfectly market-based way, the leader is he who has sold the most units. And Apple ain't, not yet.

  • by malice ( 82026 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @04:34AM (#31907426) Homepage

    I wondered the legality of this whole situation myself. As it turns out, the item would be considered "mislaid property" [] and what the person who found it was supposed to do was leave it with the property owner (the bar in this case) on the theory that the person would return to reclaim their mislaid item.

    Given that this didn't transpire, the finder of mislaid items is the new owner, unless the original owner returns to claim it. The law also talks about the new finder making a "reasonable effort" to return the mislaid item.

    The finder did apparently did try to contact Apple []... but has since sold it to Gizmodo. Apple has made a formal demand for the property being returned to them, so it will be... but the damage has already been done, to an extent. I wonder if Apple has any recourse at all.

    Here's the CA penal code on the matter: Lost and Unclaimed Property. Article 1. Lost Money and Goods. []

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling