IPhone Gate

[PoLiX]

Seriously surprised noone has posted about this yet.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36875060/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/?GT1=43001

[»Lynx]

Mhmm, I've been following this on Wired and Slashdot. Personally, I feel that both the seller of the iPhone and Gizmodo deserve their just deserts for this one. The engineer (Gray Powell) will probably struggle to find another job within any large corp after this screw up.

[PoLiX]

Well, the question is though, did they really commit a crime?

 

Technically it wasn't stealing as it was found just left laying around. You're not REQUIRED to turn something into the police's lost and found.

 

People do this to other coorporations all the time, and nothing happens.

[»Lynx]

Yeah, that's where it's cloudy. According to CA. law you have to report anything found to the police; or the law will consider that you stole it. You also have to take into account that the finder of the iPhone also contacted Wired about a review of the phone, but wired declined after they noticed the finder was after money. It's pretty clear (to me at least) that the finder clearly knew what he was doing, and was looking to make a few (thousand) bucks out of a quick story.

 

I've no real pity for Apple, or the money that they've lost (if they have... ) over this getting leaked. I only feel sorry for the Apple engineer who will probably have a hard time finding another job. Who I'd like to see suffer over this would be Gizmodo, for not only paying 5K for (what is technically stolen goods) to just put out a story. Not only did they report on the phone, but they dismantled it, too. They also named the engineer, publicly shaming him just for credibility.

 

Of course, Powell was a fucking dumbass for taking a 4G out of the campus, but people do make mistakes. It would be shameful (but not unexpected) of Apple to fire him over this... But Apple is an asshole company; they'll definitely (if they haven't already) fire him.

[»Xog]

The interesting back story in all this that is bleeding through is that Apple (and specifically Jobs) had enough influence to talk a judge into issuing a warrant that any second-year law student would have known violated both state and federal laws that protect journalists.

 

Apple has always been incredibly paranoid about new products because their extremely high profit margins depend on getting a jump on the competition. That's how iPhone captured 2% market share and 14% of the profits. If the competition learns of the features of a new Apple product, they simply duplicate it and sell it much cheaper --- then Apple gets 0% market share and 0% of the profits. Apple is always a generation back in technology for its "new" products and this accounts for the ease with which competitors can replicate their products.

 

And if you wonder where this culture originates, just look at recent history. Jobs bought or already owned housing in 48 states and got himself listed as a resident on each state's liver transplant list. When he finally got to the top of the List in Tennessee (who'd a thunk he was a Tennessean at heart?) he got an entire liver. Livers for transplant are normally divided by how many lobes, go to several recipients, then the lobe grow into a full liver over 2-3 years. Jobs got a whole one, probably killing 2-3 people at the bottom of the list. This is the kind of "entitlement" culture than spawns Apple's scofflaw attitude.

 

My understanding is that like most iPhones its battery was run down and there was no way of determining the owner immediately. (At least that is the story. I think that it charged enough to see the Apple logo before it shut back down at least a few times.) There was at least one call to Apple who denied it was theirs before it was sold. It was not until a charger was jury-rigged, that the Apple logo became visible. And the blogger returned it to Apple as soon as it was requested. They are just miffed because he decoded many of its secrets and Apple will not have a jump on the competition with this one. That will cost them millions.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Xog

[»Lynx]

The interesting back story in all this that is bleeding through is that Apple (and specifically Jobs) had enough influence to talk a judge into issuing a warrant that any second-year law student would have known violated both state and federal laws that protect journalists.

 

Just because Jason Chen is a journalist, it doesn't mean that he's except from the law - fortunately the aforementioned laws that protect journalists are except if the journalist is thought to be breaking the law themselves. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for stolen goods. That's breaking the law.

 

Apple has always been incredibly paranoid about new products because their extremely high profit margins depend on getting a jump on the competition. That's how iPhone captured 2% market share and 14% of the profits. If the competition learns of the features of a new Apple product, they simply duplicate it and sell it much cheaper --- then Apple gets 0% market share and 0% of the profits. Apple is always a generation back in technology for its "new" products and this accounts for the ease with which competitors can replicate their products.

 

Apple is just based around secrecy, it always has been. They adopt security via obscurity, and have a large legion of knee-jerk buyers. If the market knows that a new iPhone with better features is coming out soon, they'll likely wait before purchasing (more so, not purchase the current iPhone - leading to losses on Apples end). Pretty much any technology company works like this. I do call bullshit to your marketshare:profit theory. Give me an example of how the iPhone has ever been a generation back in technology; or the iPad, or the iPods. As far as I can tell, the iPhone still has a far superior OS to RIMBB/Android/Symbian/WinOS etcetera from a UI point of view, and from an accessibility point of view. It's also doing far better in terms of sales (in the smart phone category), and of course profits. Perhaps you're talking about the actual hardware; but I think we can both agree that's a pretty moot difference.

 

And if you wonder where this culture originates, just look at recent history. Jobs bought or already owned housing in 48 states and got himself listed as a resident on each state's liver transplant list. When he finally got to the top of the List in Tennessee (who'd a thunk he was a Tennessean at heart?) he got an entire liver. Livers for transplant are normally divided by how many lobes, go to several recipients, then the lobe grow into a full liver over 2-3 years. Jobs got a whole one, probably killing 2-3 people at the bottom of the list. This is the kind of "entitlement" culture than spawns Apple's scofflaw attitude.

 

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in that paragraph, as well as a lot of speculation. I really do have doubts to your theory.

 

My understanding is that like most iPhones its battery was run down and there was no way of determining the owner immediately. (At least that is the story. I think that it charged enough to see the Apple logo before it shut back down at least a few times.) There was at least one call to Apple who denied it was theirs before it was sold. It was not until a charger was jury-rigged, that the Apple logo became visible. And the blogger returned it to Apple as soon as it was requested. They are just miffed because he decoded many of its secrets and Apple will not have a jump on the competition with this one. That will cost them millions.

 

Uh, if you read more of the coverage on the story it shows that pretty much everything in the last para. is rhubarb.

[Samapico]

And if you wonder where this culture originates, just look at recent history. Jobs bought or already owned housing in 48 states and got himself listed as a resident on each state's liver transplant list. When he finally got to the top of the List in Tennessee (who'd a thunk he was a Tennessean at heart?) he got an entire liver. Livers for transplant are normally divided by how many lobes, go to several recipients, then the lobe grow into a full liver over 2-3 years. Jobs got a whole one, probably killing 2-3 people at the bottom of the list. This is the kind of "entitlement" culture than spawns Apple's scofflaw attitude.

 

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in that paragraph, as well as a lot of speculation. I really do have doubts to your theory.

 

And about the 'whole liver' thing... It's not like a supermarket and you decide what you pick... "Oh, I'll take that entire liver please".

First of, I couldn't find any source stating that "he got an entire liver", and second, if the doctors gave him an entire liver, they had a reason to.