Newest iPhone Leaked [Pics & Video]

[accadacca]

http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

[jman]

I saw this just a few minutes ago too. MicroSIM? Well there goes everyone's chance of unlocking it. Why, why, why, why must AT&T suck so bad. I have never had so many dropped phone calls in all my life than with my iPhone on AT&T. And while Verizon and Sprint have plans for unlimited everything al for $69.99, AT&T's unlimited plan is about $99.99. And again overpriced plans on a subpar network (although GSM is better than CDMA), why, just why can't AT&T spend some money and improve their network in the US.

Good thing my work provides a 20% discount on my phone plus I have another discount which brings my bill down to $72/month...but I loathe AT&T so much. I'm going to get a stroke and than a heart-attack if I rant more about the worst carrier for reliability in the world.

Let's just hope that the rumor mill is true - with a CDMA version in the works.

[asdf]

Sweet, but with a Droid costing $50 is it REALLY worth the $500 or whatever they are going to over charge for the new iphone.

[accadacca]

Pretty cool looking. Much more rugged is what they need IMO. Yeah, not looking forward to seeing the price...

[stefan]

Sweet, but with a Droid costing $50 is it REALLY worth the $500 or whatever they are going to over charge for the new iphone.

are you talking unsubsidized? if so i thought it was more.

but for the subsidized phone i'm expecting $199 and $299 for (hopefully) 32GB and 64GB, respectively.

not sure what the "REALLY" in all caps is about, surely you don't think EVERYONE wants the droid, do you?

[asdf]

I think at 199 and 299 you are up in the night.

The Android is a pretty awesome OS regardless if its on a Droid, Nexus One, or other of the other options that are currently out there. With virtually seamless integration with most everything "google" its far superior to the iphone.... at least for my needs.

oh.. and wheres the Micro SD slot on the new Iphone?

[accadacca]

Gizmodo paid $10,000 for "lost" iPhone 4G: http://www.edibleapple.com/gizmodo-paid-10000-for-lost-iphone-4g/

[Iceaxe]

Other reports are they paid $5000
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1694

Yahoo has a good story on the subject.... including the part about requiring Apple to file a formal request to have their property returned.... which pretty much proved everything Gizmodo was saying........ It's been interesting to follow this...

33192

[theking648]

I think at 199 and 299 you are up in the night.

The Android is a pretty awesome OS regardless if its on a Droid, Nexus One, or other of the other options that are currently out there. With virtually seamless integration with most everything "google" its far superior to the iphone.... at least for my needs.

oh.. and wheres the Micro SD slot on the new Iphone?

X2 android 2.1 ftw. doesn't matter what phone it's on...

right now I'm not even using the stock droid os.. i'm using a nexus one variant. with 7 desktops.

http://www.ultimatedroid.com/
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/blackdroid/37382-ultimate-droid-v10-apps2sd-360-rotation-2-3d-launchers-built-source-more.html

[accadacca]

:lol8::lol8::lol8:

Matthew Browing, an Apple customer wrote the following to Jobs:
Steve,

I was converted to Apple products with the announcement of the iPhone 3G. (My friends have been trying to convince me for years.) Since then I’ve purchased 4 iPhones, 2 computers, several routers, and miscellaneous other items. Unfortunately, I’m really starting to have a philosophical issue with your company. It appears that more and more Apple is determining for it’s consumers what content they should be able to receive. For instance, the blocking of Mark Fiore’s comic app (due to being political satire) or blocking of what Apple considers to be porn.
I’m all for keeping porn out of kids hands. Heck – I’m all for ensuring that I don’t have to see it unless I want to. But… that’s what parental controls are for. Put these types of apps into categories and allow them to be blocked by their parents should they want to.
Apple’s role isn’t moral police – Apple’s role is to design and produce really cool gadgets that do what the consumer wants them to do.

Thanks for listening

-Matthew
In response, Jobs replied:
Fiore’s app will be in the store shortly. That was a mistake. However, we do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy and Android phone.


Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/steve-jobs-android-porn/#ixzz0llP2Mlve

[Iceaxe]

I'm pretty sure I just found an iPad Mini. I know it's not announced yet and it looks a lot like the iPod Touch, but seriously, this thing is just like a miniature iPad. It plays all the same games and I found it in, of all places, on a bar stool. I'm sure someone drunkenly left it there. Please send me $5000 and I'll gladly give it to you.

[jman]

Summit and the King,

Did you know that a jailbroken iPhone can run Droid? Haha. Yup. I downloaded the alpha version of it and u can actually dual-boot on it. It's not too polished yet, but everything works. Best of both worlds (right) on the best device. Haha

[Don]

Folks who want porn can buy and Android phone.


I'm not sure it has wider market appeal but there is a niche market where this sounds like a slogan Google could use. :naughty:

[Sombeech]

Steve Jobs wants this phone back REAL bad. Gizmodo's Jason Chen's computers just got taken by the police:

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

[Iceaxe]

:roll:

[Sombeech]

Wow, they even took a box of business cards

33412

[Sombeech]

And here is why the warrant was flawed:

33413
33414

[stefan]

does anyone really believe that in such a high profile case, the authorities didn't recognize he was a journalist and didn't understand the law?

[Sombeech]

does anyone really believe that in such a high profile case, the authorities didn't recognize he was a journalist and didn't understand the law?

Yes

[Iceaxe]

does anyone really believe that in such a high profile case, the authorities didn't recognize he was a journalist and didn't understand the law?

Absolutely.... my experience is cops are usually the last to understand the law and are the first to break it if it suits there needs.

[accadacca]

:roflol::roflol::roflol:

Two questions I am often asked:


How far in advance do you work?
How quickly can you publish a comic on a current event?

Today I will indirectly answer both questions by talking about something else entirely. I assume you've all been following the story of the Apple engineer who left a prototype 4G iPhone at a beer garden. I found this story too delicious to resist, but I worried that the story would become stale before my comics would work through the pipeline. I think the soonest I can get something published is in about a month, perhaps a bit sooner, but I've never tested it.

I drew two comics while considering my options. In the end, I thought it wasn't worth the extra friction to push them to the front of the line. And it would be June 18th before they ran in their normal position, which seemed too far in the future. So here now, exclusively for you blog readers, the totally unfinished first drafts of those comics. You will never see these in newspapers.

http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/tiny/File/Lost%20Phone%201%20.jpg

http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/tiny/File/Lost%20Phone%202%20.jpg

Take a moment to marvel at the fact that I didn't need to add anything to the story as it has been told in the media. All it really needed was Wally. I don't think any of us will ever know what really happened. I based the comic on the media's speculation of events. Remember that I'm in the parody business and not the truth business.

[stefan]

from this ARTICLE (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0)



Journalist shield law may not halt iPhone probe



It's clear that federal and state law generally provides journalists--even gadget bloggers--with substantial protections by curbing searches of their employees' workspaces. But it's equally clear that journalists suspected of criminal activity do not benefit from the legal shields that newspapers and broadcast media have painstakingly erected over the last half-century.

No less an authority than a California appeals court has ruled that the state's shield law does not prevent reporters from being forced, under penalty of contempt, to testify about criminal activity, if they're believed to be involved in it.

California law does not prevent "newspersons from testifying about criminal activity in which they have participated or which they have observed," the court ruled in a 1975 case involving the Fresno Bee.

Eugene Volokh (http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/), a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who teaches First Amendment law, says that court decision--the case is called Rosato v. Superior Court (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14889904887221073179&q=Rosato+v.+Superior+Court&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_vis=1) (PDF)--means that California's state shield law "wouldn't apply to subpoenas or searches for evidence of such criminal activity."

Translated: If Gizmodo editors are, in fact, a target of a criminal probe into the possession or purchase of stolen property, the search warrant served on editor Jason Chen on Friday appears valid. A blog post at NYTimes.com (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/computers-seized-at-home-of-gizmodo-reporter-who-wrote-about-iphone-gawker-media-says/) on Monday, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, said charges could be filed against the buyer of the prototype 4G phone--meaning Gizmodo.

In the Fresno Bee case, the judges noted that the attorney-client privilege, the physician-patient privilege, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege are circumscribed during criminal investigations of lawyers, doctors, and therapists. Each of those privileges is stronger than the limited immunity that California extends to journalists.

Editors at Gizmodo, part of Gawker Media's blog network, last week said they paid $5,000 for what they believed to be a prototype of a future iPhone 4G (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20002834-260.html). The story said the phone was accidentally left at a bar in Redwood City, Calif., last month by an Apple software engineer and found by someone who contacted Gizmodo, which had previously indicated that it was willing to pay significant sums for unreleased Apple products. Other gadget blogs were contacted too, including Engadget, and the criminal probe appears to be widening (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003477-37.html).

That criminal investigations can surmount journalist protection laws should come as no surprise. "It would be frivolous to assert--and no one does in these cases--that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws," the U.S. Supreme Court has said (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0665_ZO.html). "Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news."

Under a California law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485) dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s496) says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

Knowing that an item probably belonged to someone else has led to convictions before. "It is not necessary that the defendant be told directly that the property was stolen. Knowledge may be circumstantial and deductive," a California appeals court has previously ruled (http://politechbot.com/docs/people.v.boinus.042710.txt). "Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen." (California law says (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/6/4/1/s2080.1) lost property valued at $100 or more must be turned over to police.)

[trackrunner]

Daily show clip just watch
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes

spark notes
\/ \/ \/
Apple is big brother 1984
& MS is trying to eradicate malaria