Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

This Is Apple's Next iPhone

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the or-so-they-say dept.

Cellphones 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."

cancel ×

492 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FAIL! (4, Funny)

alexandre (53) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896508)

So they actually got it connected with a SIM card or WiFi before trying it and filming the result and that's how it got remotely killed by big brother?

Major FAIL !

Re:FAIL! (4, Interesting)

five18pm (763804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896618)

With both engadget and Gizmodo getting their hands on the "next iPhone" in different bars in different cities, it is difficult to believe that somebody actually lost the phones. Either both engadget and Gizmodo got fooled or this is more a marketing campaign than lost phones. I would bet on latter.

Re:FAIL! (3, Informative)

Pete Venkman (1659965) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896664)

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

Re:FAIL! (4, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896786)

With both engadget and Gizmodo getting their hands on the "next iPhone" in different bars in different cities, it is difficult to believe that somebody actually lost the phones. Either both engadget and Gizmodo got fooled or this is more a marketing campaign than lost phones. I would bet on latter.

"Oh hi you techreporters. I'll just be finishing my drink and then conveniently leaving my NEW FREAKIN' IPHONE 4 *cough* here for someone totally random to find."

What? It could happen...

Re:FAIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896864)

In fact, this is perfectly compliant with the reputation of Apple concerning communication and information leak. These "non official" leaks are a way to assess the market before official declarations.

Re:FAIL! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897154)

Apple!
iPhone!

APPLE!
IPHONE!

APPLE!
IPHONE!

APPLE!
APPLE!
APPLE!
IPHONE!
IPHONE!
IPHONE!
aPple iPhone!
aPple iPhone!
aPple iPhone!
aPple iPhone!
aPple iPhone!
aPple iPhone!
aPple iPhone!

yay SLASTROTURFING!!!!

Re:FAIL! (0)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896882)

According to the person who found it, this iPhone was running iPhone OS 4.0 before the iPhone 4.0 announcement. The person was able to play with it and see the iPhone 4.0 features. Then, Apple remotely killed the phone before we got access to it. We were unable to restore [...]

It doesn't sounds like marketing to me.

Re:FAIL! (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897216)

I liked. If is a marketing move, is a really, really good one.

Re:FAIL! (1, Troll)

ragethehotey (1304253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896860)

With both engadget and Gizmodo getting their hands on the "next iPhone" in different bars in different cities, it is difficult to believe that somebody actually lost the phones. Either both engadget and Gizmodo got fooled or this is more a marketing campaign than lost phones. I would bet on latter.

Its far more likely that these are just very well made counterfeits, and that the people at gizmodo are fucking stupid. (or they know its fake but realize that they will get a shitload of hits)

Re:FAIL! (1, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896884)

Too much about this just doesn't add up.

1) Engadget and Gizmodo both stole phones!?
2) I won't deny that hype-building is something of a pastime for Apple, but this is distinctly not their way of doing things.
3) People walk around with camouflaged, non-functional engineering samples?
4) The design reflects current trends, but the seams are so, so, so incredibly un-apple-like. Also, would a metallic phone with an internal antenna even work?

Re:FAIL! (5, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897034)

According the TFA the phone was functional before being remotely wiped by Apple. Certainly people do walk around with camouflaged, functional engineering samples during the testing cycle for new phones. I know employees at Nokia are often given pre-release hardware to try out both in the building (early testing) and outside the building (later in testing)

It really does sound like this is a real unit. It may have been leaked intentionally but that doesn't make it less relevant.

The only thing that makes me suspicious is that I cant find any report on what chip it is using. I would expect them to say something about that, even if all they said was that the processor didn't have any markings on it. I would think that would be one of the first things they would look at.

Re:FAIL! (1)

jason.sweet (1272826) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897118)

The only thing that makes me suspicious is that I cant find any report on what chip it is using. I would expect them to say something about that, even if all they said was that the processor didn't have any markings on it. I would think that would be one of the first things they would look at.

They also failed to mention the signed NDA they "lost" at the same bar.

Re:FAIL! (1, Interesting)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897218)

It's camouflaged but still has an Apple logo on the back? I agree with some others - this strikes me as more of a marketing stunt than an accidental leak. Letting it run for long enough to verify that it's of legitimate origin, then remotely disabling it isn't inconsistent with this.

Though what I don't get is... this new design is ugly. Maybe it is just an easy access case used while the product is still being engineered (eg, trying several antenna configurations inside the case, etc). But if that's the direction design is going, I'm glad I got a phone in the generation when they didn't look like a cardboard box.

Re:FAIL! (2, Funny)

Ipeunipig (934414) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897068)

Plus being "Found" in the city of their greatest competitor??

Maybe it was a super secret spy mission from M$ and he was so happy it was successful that he went to celebrate at the local bar before handing the 'package' over to Gates himself!!

Re:FAIL! (2, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897112)

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

Re:FAIL! (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897114)

Why do people always seem to think things can only be solved in exactly two ways?

A third (and more likely) way, Gizmodo bought the phone from someone who stole it or maybe found it. "Found it in a bar" is more plausible than "fell off a truck" in this type of situation.

Not sure that there are two phones, but either way, the same sort of thing comes into play, except you're right to think it highly coincidental that two phones were "found" in the same way. Sounds an awful lot like stolen prototypes.

It would be kind of clever for Apple to have planted it/them deliberately, especially if they are fakes (to discredit the rumor sites and/or to make people think they are one thing, then release something entirely different) (note: a fourth option). But it's not really Apple's style.

Re:FAIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897146)

Either both engadget and Gizmodo got fooled or this is more a marketing campaign than lost phones. I would bet on latter.

Yes. Especially given how much Engadget and Gizmodo love sucking on Apple cock.

Re:FAIL! (4, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897170)

Considering how Gizmodo always squees over every little thing Apple makes, it seems specially suspicious

Re:FAIL! (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897174)

Or the third, most likely possibility--it was stolen.

Re:FAIL! (2, Informative)

IWaSBoRG (992305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897224)

Engadget's images are stamped with "Gizmodo Exclusive", so I don't think Engadget has one.

iPhone - NOT (3, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896536)

Take a good look at the photo of the back of the phone. The bottom of the device looks white (like a white iPhone) and has the normal iPhone contours. That device is different from the other pictures they're showing.

And not showing the UI? Shenanigans!

Re:iPhone - NOT (4, Insightful)

radicalskeptic (644346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896586)

If you'd actually read the article, you'd know why they consider it to be a next gen Apple phone (many parts inside branded APPLE, in a case designed to make it look like a 3G iPhone, behaves just like an iPhone when you connect it to a Mac, uses the Mac proprietary dock connector, etc, etc). Are you saying that everyone at Engadget had been fooled, or are you saying they are playing a late April Fools joke on us? Frankly I don't think either is very likely.

Re:iPhone - NOT (1, Interesting)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896648)

It's a relatively interesting article, especially the bit about the Micro SIM it supposedly uses, which is not in use anywhere in the US right now. But in any case, one can't help thinking that the reviewer at Gizmodo would pay good money to vigorously and servilely pleasure Steve Jobs. From TFA:

The seams are perhaps the most surprising aspect of the new design. They don't seem to respond to any aesthetic criteria and, in terms of function, we can't adventure any explanation. But they don't look bad. In fact, the whole effect seems good, like something you will find in a Braun product from the 70s.

Only can a true fanboy turn the phrase "like a Braun product from the 70s" into a compliment. Because we all want to show off our new iEpilators.

Re:iPhone - NOT (2, Informative)

friedmud (512466) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897094)

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

Re:iPhone - NOT (5, Interesting)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897098)

The original iPod's design was clearly heavily influenced by the design of Braun products - especially radios - from the 1950's and '60s. Braun's historic designs are widely regarded as some of the best examples of industrial design from the 20th century. Many Braun designs are on display at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. Saying that something looks "like a Braun product" - if you're comparing it to one of Braun's traditional designs - is an enormous compliment.

That having been said, this new iPhone - if it indeed is an iPhone - reminds me more of Sony's designs from the early 1980's. Which isn't a bad thing - that's the period during which Sony reached its design peak, and influenced the rest of the consumer electronics industry.

I wonder if the seams are functional, though. If the case is all metal, perhaps the seams are there for the antenna to use.

Re:iPhone - NOT (4, Informative)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897116)

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 [gizmodo.com] ; and, slideshow of his work [wallpaper.com] .

Re:iPhone - NOT (1)

jwinster (1620555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897122)

They're using it in the iPad 3G. Engadget article [engadget.com] . It's actually kind of nice, because this way people may be able to use their iPhone microsims on their iPad, if that's truly how they're going to go.

Re:iPhone - NOT (1)

lochnessie (1291986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897128)

I don't care much for the iPhone, but I've always admired the Functionalist qualities of Braun's product lines, and their (at least historically) good production quality. I'm not sure that this prototype phone follows his famous ten principles, but Dieter Rams [wikipedia.org] is a clear influence on Jonathan Ive; I wish Ive and others would follow his lead a little more closely and maybe let form follow function for a change.
for example, A label for every button! [wikimedia.org]

Re:iPhone - NOT (2, Informative)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

I .. (5, Funny)

Ignatius (6850) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897064)

0) Fixed that for you; 1)Linux; 2)Car analogy; 3)Insensitive clod; 4)A Beowulf cluster 5)In Soviet Russia; 6)??? [citation needed]; 7)Profit!

Suuuure, it was "found" (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896560)

And they "got" it from whom? Directly from Larry Lightfingers, or via Frankie the Fence?

J'accuse: they're dealing in stolen property, and they know it, or should know it. But ethics be damned, because ZOMG IPHOAAAN!!!!11! Right?

Re:Suuuure, it was "found" (5, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896678)

either that, or this is yet another "accidental" leak by apple.

Re:Suuuure, it was "found" (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897276)

Well, what is the big story here? All this debate about the intrigue, but what did they actually learn? Basically all I see is it has a second camera with a flash. I thought that was already known, or maybe I am thinking of some other phone that recently got that. But bottom line, is this enough of a "revelation" for anybody to care how it came about?

Gizmodo, yeah, right (4, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896594)

Whether this is truly a new iPhone or not, Gizmodo's opinion doesn't count for much. They would adore Job's lunch kit if they found it in an alley

Re:Gizmodo, yeah, right (4, Funny)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896686)

Yeah, but have you seen Jobs's lunch kit? OMG I want one! ;)

Re:Gizmodo, yeah, right (5, Funny)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896690)

This Lunchable has real ham in it, not the processed kind offered by Microsoft.

Re:Gizmodo, yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897102)

You sure it isn't a lot of cheese and tongue?

Re:Gizmodo, yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897302)

Yeah but the crackers are unsalted wheat and you can't get any other kind.

Reward (1, Interesting)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896604)

From TFA:

> So I called around, and I now believe this is an actual unit from Apple -- a unit Apple is very interested in getting back.

If it's so important for Apple to get this phone back, I wonder why there's no reward...

Re:Reward (4, Insightful)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896972)

From TFA: > So I called around, and I now believe this is an actual unit from Apple -- a unit Apple is very interested in getting back. If it's so important for Apple to get this phone back, I wonder why there's no reward...

How do you read the sentence a unit Apple is very interested in getting back. and NOT think Apple offered Gizmodo something in return for the phone? Information, maybe, if not direct money. I'm aware the sentence didn't contain the word "reward" but you can read between the lines.

Re:Reward (1)

byuu (1455609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897284)

I can totally see that, especially now.

"Reward: lawsuit for publishing the "trade secret" details about our new phone on Gizmodo. Please submit your name, phone number, address, and lawyer's name to youaregoingtopaydearlyforthis@apple.com."

Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896612)

Does it not creep anyone out that Apple is willing to show off that it can wipe its phones remotely? Yes, it's possible that that "feature" is only installed in the prototype, but how would we know?

Re:Um... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896732)

No.

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896744)

Does it not creep anyone out that Apple is willing to show off that it can wipe its phones remotely? Yes, it's possible that that "feature" is only installed in the prototype, but how would we know?

Uhhh, remote wiping of iPhones is a feature that Apple released to the public last summer. Why would you think that Apple wouldn't have access to a feature that nearly every other iPhone out there has?

Re:Um... (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Um... (1)

ryanleary (805532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896796)

If you own the device, you can do this, too? Would it not make sense for Apple to be the owner of the prototype device and thus possess the ability to do the mobileme remote wipe? See MobileMe - Find Your iPhone [apple.com] , particularly the "Protect your privacy with Remote Wipe" section.

Re:Um... (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896888)

Business LOVE remote wiping capabilities.

imagine you're the CEO of a fortune 500 company. you lost your notebook/iphone/whatever. it's full of data that could be worth millions to a competitor. wouldn't you want the ability to lock/wipe/destroy the unit remotely ?

we're not talking about pictures you took of your junk with the camera here. we're talking serious business. remote wipe in this case is a selling point that will definetely put the iphone into blackberry's turf.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897010)

As much as CEO's would love to pretend that are worth billions, and ever just some info on what they do is worth million. Its not fucking true.

There are a couple select few that deal in big secret bid contracts that might have information about that, but really that is far and few between. Most contracts are made and sealed on the golf course, regardless if someone underbids, they just backdate another copy showing something different if anyone complains.

The best held secrets from CEO's as people finding out they do almost nothing for the million the rake in....

Re:Um... (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897004)

Does it not creep anyone out that Apple is willing to show off that it can wipe its phones remotely?

Anyone who owns an iPhone and has a me.com account has the ability to wipe the data remotely. The phone in question--assuming it really is a prototype--would be registered to Apple, hence they were able to wipe it. I don't think that means Apple can wipe somebody else's phone.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897242)

Apple owns me.com, so any admin can issue a remote wipe.
They won't for the same reason I won't wipe my own iPhone right now, because that would anger customers.

Sounds like a strategy to hold others sells... (4, Interesting)

viraltus (1102365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896614)

Android getting too popular and want to create expecation Steve?

Re:Sounds like a strategy to hold others sells... (1, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897236)

Yeah, there wasn't already expectation after their iPhone 4 OS event or anything. What a silly post. This is obviously a stolen test unit.

viral marketing ploy? (5, Interesting)

aapold (753705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896622)

Doesn't sound like apple does it?

$5 says its some wannabe iPhone killer, just waiting for everyone to say how great it is before they go "tada! we secretly switched your java with folgers" in hopes of generating hoopla...

Re:viral marketing ploy? (5, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896768)

If it turns out to run Android, then they'd go "tada! we secretly switched your Objective-C with Java."

Re:viral marketing ploy? (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897054)

$5 says its some wannabe iPhone killer, just waiting for everyone to say how great it is before they go "tada!

I sure wouldn't bet against you on that. The case design looks like a step backwards from Apple's current design trend; I suspect it's a Chinese knock-off.

iPhones aren't big news anymore so... (2, Interesting)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896628)

"Let's work with Gizmodo to make a big deal out of this new iPhone. This is top secret stuff, and people are going to salivate over it like nobody's business." Maybe.

Re:iPhones aren't big news anymore so... (1)

secretcurse (1266724) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897282)

Gizmodo is already going to do everything they can to make as big a deal as they can out of the iPhone. They do it with every Apple product. (I actually like Apple products and Giz, but I tend to not read Giz as much around the release of the next shiny from Apple because their coverage will be overbearing and I don't care enough to filter out the Apple shiny coverage.)

Re:iPhones aren't big news anymore so... (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897294)

iPhones aren't big news anymore? What planet are you living on?

Left at a bar in Redwood? (2, Funny)

Orga (1720130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896630)

Obviously it's infected with some virus.

Re:Left at a bar in Redwood? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897180)

Obviously it's infected with some virus.

You think it's got Pokerus? 'Cause I really need to work on my EVs...

Still too big (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896640)

The phone is still too big for those of us who want to use it for jogging. There are plenty of apps related to jogging, not to mention the whole "portable music player" feature. But the phone is just too bulky to take jogging.

Something a quarter of the size would be great. Keep the resolution, but shrink the whole thing by half in both dimensions and you'll keep perfect compatibility with existing apps.

I'm sad to see that this looks like more of the same old same old. It'll be another iPhone that I have to pass up because it just isn't what I need.

Re:Still too big (5, Funny)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896734)

You insensitive clod!

Not all of us are young with good eyes and good knees.

Re:Still too big (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896890)

Not all of us are young with good eyes and good knees.

Once you start using your fingers, as you're supposed to, you'll see you can hold it much closer to you face, making good sight unnecesary.

You're welcome.

Re:Still too big (1)

kencurry (471519) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897032)

dude, you don't get presbyopia.

Re:Still too big (1)

michael_cain (66650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897182)

...you can hold it much closer to you face, making good sight unnecesary.

One of the first things to go is the ability to focus at close-in distances. Watch your elders hold magazines and newspapers at arms-length, trying to get the page far enough away that they can focus on it. I'm not that bad yet, but it is irritating to get my head behind the equipment where the SN is stamped, only to find that I can't read the numbers because they're too close for me to focus.

Re:Still too big (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896832)

I run with my iphone from time to time. It fits in most of my running shorts pockets and I quickly forget it's there. A smaller version would be nice, but there's smaller devices aimed specifically at runners for that (granted, they're not phones, but I'm not carrying my iphone with me on my runs for it's phone capabilities anyway)

Re:Still too big (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896844)

It isn't "compatibility with existing apps" you'd need to be worried about, its compatibility with the laws of physics....

Pretty much all moderns smartphones are already noted for having fairly packed mainboards and pretty unexciting battery lives. Something a quarter the size(unless you are happy to have a phone an inch thick), would have a truly sad battery life.

Apples Marketing Department (5, Insightful)

affenhund (1371117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896668)

Embarrassing, how the media got played to do advertisement for them. Goodbye, journalism.

You expect quality journalism from a gadget site?? (2, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896892)

Come on , you barely get proper journalism in proper gadget magazines , just lots of hyperbole, poorly researched waffle and laughable tests. What makes you think you'll get it on a website full of wannabe gadget mag staff writers?

Re:Apples Marketing Department (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897158)

Embarrassing, how the media got played to do advertisement for them. Goodbye, journalism.

Marketing pays better than journalism. Nothing new here.

What does Jobs throw? (2)

CompressedAir (682597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896836)

We know it isn't chairs, but one has to imagine that whoever lost this will be getting Job'd (or de-Job'd) in the near future.

(I know, the easy answer is "a massive fit, followed by going with a different vendor" but I was thinking something more physical.)

Unless this is just marketing, in which case, good show Apple. If I'm going to be marketed to, I prefer a little bit of drama.

For what it's worth (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896862)

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. :-)

Re:For what it's worth (2, Informative)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896992)

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

http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/04/800x600_iphone16.jpg

IPTC Record Version0

IPTC Core (Adobe XMP)

Expand All [slashdot.org] / Collapse All [slashdot.org] / Show/Hide XMP Source [slashdot.org] / Show/Hide XMP Legend [slashdot.org]

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="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/" xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/" xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/" xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#" xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#" 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="0" crs:HueAdjustmentRed="0" crs:HueAdjustmentOrange="0" crs:HueAdjustmentYellow="0" crs:HueAdjustmentGreen="0" crs:HueAdjustmentAqua="0" crs:HueAdjustmentBlue="0" crs:HueAdjustmentPurple="0" crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple="0" crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple="0" crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta="0" crs:SplitToningShadowHue="0" crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation="0" crs:SplitToningHighlightHue="0" crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation="0" crs:SplitToningBalance="0" crs:ParametricShadows="0" crs:ParametricDarks="0" crs:ParametricLights="0" crs:ParametricHighlights="0" crs:ParametricShadowSplit="25" crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit="50" crs:ParametricHighlightSplit="75" crs:SharpenRadius="+1.0" crs:SharpenDetail="25" crs:SharpenEdgeMasking="0" crs:PostCropVignetteAmount="0" crs:ConvertToGrayscale="False" crs:ToneCurveName="Medium Contrast" crs:CameraProfile="Adobe Standard" crs:CameraProfileDigest="3DA8CE4A626CE36A1D0C55BF157793C9" crs:HasSettings="True" crs:HasCrop="False" crs:AlreadyApplied="True" photoshop:SidecarForExtension="CR2" photoshop:ColorMode="3" photoshop:ICCProfile="Adobe RGB (1998)" dc:format="image/jpeg" xmpMM:InstanceID="xmp.iid:C38E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D" xmpMM:DocumentID="xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D" xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID="xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"> <exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>400</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <exif:Flash exif:Fired="False" exif:Return="0" exif:Mode="2" exif:Function="False" exif:RedEyeMode="False"/> <crs:ToneCurve> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>32, 22</rdf:li> <rdf:li>64, 56</rdf:li> <rdf:li>128, 128</rdf:li> <rdf:li>192, 196</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurve> <xmpMM:History> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D" stEvt:when="2010-04-15T17:21:49-07:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"/> <rdf:li stEvt:action="converted" stEvt:parameters="from image/tiff to image/jpeg"/> <rdf:li stEvt:action="derived" stEvt:parameters="converted from image/tiff to image/jpeg"/> <rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:C38E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D" stEvt:when="2010-04-15T17:21:49-07:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"/> </rdf:Seq> </xmpMM:History> <xmpMM:DerivedFrom stRef:instanceID="xmp.iid:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D" stRef:documentID="xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D" stRef:originalDocumentID="xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta>

  • 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 = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
      • rdf:Description
      • rdf:about = ""
      • xmlns:tiff = "http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/"
      • xmlns:exif = "http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/"
      • xmlns:xmp = "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
      • xmlns:aux = "http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/"
      • xmlns:crs = "http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/"
      • xmlns:photoshop = "http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"
      • xmlns:dc = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
      • xmlns:xmpMM = "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
      • xmlns:stEvt = "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#"
      • xmlns:stRef = "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#"
      • tiff:Make = "Canon" / Camera Make = Canon
      • tiff:Model = "Canon EOS 5D Mark II" / Camera Model = Canon EOS 5D Mark II
      • tiff:XResolution = "2400000/10000" / X-Resolution = 2400000/10000 ===> 240
      • tiff:YResolution = "2400000/10000" / Y-Resolution = 2400000/10000 ===> 240
      • tiff:ResolutionUnit = "2" / X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
      • tiff:Orientation = "1" / Picture Orientation = normal (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 Version = 0221
      • exif:ExposureTime = "1/100" / Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/100 second ===> 0.01 second
      • exif:ShutterSpeedValue = "6643856/1000000" / Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 6643856/1000000
        Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/100 second
      • exif:FNumber = "71/10" / Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 71/10 ===> /7.1
      • exif:ApertureValue = "5655638/1000000" / Aperture Value (APEX) = 5655638/1000000
        Aperture = /7.1
      • exif:ExposureProgram = "2" / Exposure Program = normal program (2)
      • exif:DateTimeOriginal = "2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00" / Original Date/Time = 2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00
      • exif:DateTimeDigitized = "2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00" / Digitization Date/Time = 2010-04-15T16:09:00.78-07:00
      • exif:ExposureBiasValue = "0/1" / Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/1 ===> 0
      • exif:MaxApertureValue = "4/1" / Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 4/1 ===> 4
        Max Aperture = /4
      • exif:SubjectDistance = "29/100" / Distance to Subject = 29/100 m
      • exif:MeteringMode = "5" / Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
      • exif:FocalLength = "40/1" / Focal Length = 40/1 mm ===> 40 mm
      • exif:CustomRendered = "0" / Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
      • exif:ExposureMode = "0" / Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
      • exif:WhiteBalance = "0" / White Balance = auto (0)
      • exif:SceneCaptureType = "0" / Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
      • exif:FocalPlaneXResolution = "5616000/1459" / Focal Plane X-Resolution = 5616000/1459 ===> 3849.21
      • exif:FocalPlaneYResolution = "3744000/958" / Focal Plane Y-Resolution = 3744000/958 ===> 3908.14
      • exif:FocalPlaneResolutionUnit = "2" / Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
      • exif:PixelXDimension = "1024" / Image Width = 1024 pixels
      • exif:PixelYDimension = "605" / Image Height = 605 pixels
      • exif:ColorSpace = "65535" / Colour Space = 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 = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentRed = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentOrange = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentYellow = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentGreen = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentAqua = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentBlue = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentPurple = "0"
      • crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple = "0"
      • crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple = "0"
      • crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta = "0"
      • crs:SplitToningShadowHue = "0"
      • crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation = "0"
      • crs:SplitToningHighlightHue = "0"
      • crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation = "0"
      • crs:SplitToningBalance = "0"
      • crs:ParametricShadows = "0"
      • crs:ParametricDarks = "0"
      • crs:ParametricLights = "0"
      • crs:ParametricHighlights = "0"
      • crs:ParametricShadowSplit = "25"
      • crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit = "50"
      • crs:ParametricHighlightSplit = "75"
      • crs:SharpenRadius = "+1.0"
      • crs:SharpenDetail = "25"
      • crs:SharpenEdgeMasking = "0"
      • crs:PostCropVignetteAmount = "0"
      • crs:ConvertToGrayscale = "False"
      • crs:ToneCurveName = "Medium Contrast"
      • crs:CameraProfile = "Adobe Standard"
      • crs:CameraProfileDigest = "3DA8CE4A626CE36A1D0C55BF157793C9"
      • crs:HasSettings = "True"
      • crs:HasCrop = "False"
      • crs:AlreadyApplied = "True"
      • photoshop:SidecarForExtension = "CR2"
      • photoshop:ColorMode = "3"
      • photoshop:ICCProfile = "Adobe RGB (1998)"
      • dc:format = "image/jpeg"
      • xmpMM:InstanceID = "xmp.iid:C38E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
      • xmpMM:DocumentID = "xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
      • xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID = "xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
      • exif:ISOSpeedRatings
      • rdf:Seq
      • rdf:li ==> "400"
  • exif:Flash
    • exif:Fired = "False"
    • exif:Return = "0"
    • exif:Mode = "2"
    • exif:Function = "False"
    • exif:RedEyeMode = "False"
  • crs:ToneCurve
    • rdf:Seq
      • rdf:li ==> "0, 0"
      • rdf:li ==> "32, 22"
      • rdf:li ==> "64, 56"
      • rdf:li ==> "128, 128"
      • rdf:li ==> "192, 196"
      • rdf:li ==> "255, 255"
  • xmpMM:History
    • rdf:Seq
      • rdf:li
      • stEvt:action = "saved"
      • stEvt:instanceID = "xmp.iid:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
      • stEvt:when = "2010-04-15T17:21:49-07:00"
      • stEvt:softwareAgent = "Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh"
      • stEvt:changed = "/"
    • rdf:li
      • stEvt:action = "converted"
      • stEvt:parameters = "from image/tiff to image/jpeg"
    • rdf:li
      • stEvt:action = "derived"
      • stEvt:parameters = "converted from image/tiff to image/jpeg"
    • rdf:li
      • stEvt:action = "saved"
      • stEvt:instanceID = "xmp.iid:C38E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
      • stEvt:when = "2010-04-15T17:21:49-07:00"
      • stEvt:softwareAgent = "Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh"
      • stEvt:changed = "/"

xmpMM:DerivedFrom

  • stRef:instanceID = "xmp.iid:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
  • stRef:documentID = "xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"
  • stRef:originalDocumentID = "xmp.did:C28E67E71E20681192B0D2EC97C7A89D"

EXIF IFD0 Camera Make {0x010F}CanonCamera Model {0x0110}Canon EOS 5D Mark IIPicture Orientation {0x0112}normal (1)X-Resolution {0x011A}72/10000 ===> 0.01Y-Resolution {0x011B}72/10000 ===> 0.01X/Y-Resolution Unit {0x0128}inch (2)Software / Firmware Version {0x0131}Adobe Photoshop CS4 MacintoshLast Modified Date/Time {0x0132}2010:04:15 17:21:49

EXIF Sub IFD Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) {0x829A}1/100 second ===> 0.01 secondLens F-Number / F-Stop {0x829D}71/10 ===> /7.1Exposure Program {0x8822}normal program (2)ISO Speed Ratings {0x8827}400EXIF Version {0x9000}0221Original Date/Time {0x9003}2010:04:15 16:09:00Digitization Date/Time {0x9004}2010:04:15 16:09:00Shutter Speed Value (APEX) {0x9201}6643856/1000000Shutter Speed (Exposure Time)1/100 secondAperture Value (APEX) {0x9202}5655638/1000000Aperture/7.1Exposure Bias (EV) {0x9204}0/1 ===> 0Max Aperture Value (APEX) {0x9205}4/1 ===> 4Max Aperture/4Distance to Subject {0x9206}29/100 mMetering Mode {0x9207}pattern / multi-segment (5)Flash {0x9209}Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeFocal Length {0x920A}40/1 mm ===> 40 mmLast Modified Subsecond Time {0x9290}78Original Subsecond Time {0x9291}78Digitized Subsecond Time {0x9292}78Colour Space {0xA001}65535Image Width {0xA002}1024 pixelsImage Height {0xA003}605 pixelsFocal Plane X-Resolution {0xA20E}5616000/1459 ===> 3849.21Focal Plane Y-Resolution {0xA20F}3744000/958 ===> 3908.14Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit {0xA210}inch (2)Custom Rendered {0xA401}normal process (0)Exposure Mode {0xA402}auto exposure (0)White Balance {0xA403}auto (0)Scene Capture Type {0xA406}standard (0)

EXIF IFD1 Compression {0x0103}JPEG compression (6)X-Resolution {0x011A}72/1 ===> 72Y-Resolution {0x011B}72/1 ===> 72X/Y-Resolution Unit {0x0128}inch (2)Embedded thumbnail image

Re:For what it's worth (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897256)

> crs:RawFileName = "IMG_7731.CR2"

CR2 is Canon's raw file format. This EXIF information came from a picture taken by a canon camera. In particular a...

> CanonCamera Model {0x0110}Canon EOS 5D Mark II

And not an iPhone...

Re:For what it's worth (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:For what it's worth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897024)

They should use ImageMagick and LIBJPEG like the rest of us plebes!

Re:For what it's worth (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897040)

Makes sense to me. I wasn't accusing one way or another, really...just noting that it was there.

Re:For what it's worth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897072)

Also, they added a "Gizmodo Exclusive" watermark to most of them.

Re:For what it's worth (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897308)

Except according to the EXIF information supplied above, the picture was taken on a Canon 5D MkII.

Re:For what it's worth (3, Informative)

InsprdInsnty (1793100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897080)

They probably just used photoshop to place the watermarked 'Gizmodo.com 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

Best feature (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896876)

The best feature from the article

...it feels even nicer in your pants.

Re:Best feature (2, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897150)

With the level the fanboyism is getting to these days, they better start removing the moisture detectors or making them 'water'-proof.

Interesting feature: (1)

el_flynn (1279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896878)

TFA says "The person was able to play with it and see the iPhone 4.0 features. Then, Apple remotely killed the phone before we got access to it."

It's interesting that Apple has this killswitch -- looks like a good security feature to have. I wonder if regular iPhones have it, and if it's available as a 'value-added-service'. Previously [slashdot.org] , the killswitch was only there to disable apps on the device.

As a side note, Apple builds in a bunch of other phone-home elements in their prototype/developer devices. They get cellphone operators who offer the iPhone to do a lot of field testing for them. Where I work, one of the dev people said pretty much everything you do on that phone gets reported back to Apple. Maybe that's how it is with other companies' products as well.

How did it end up at Gizmoto? (4, Interesting)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896900)

I find it really strange/coincidental that someone loses a device and it somehow finds it's way to a technology review website? We're not talking finding the Mona Lisa here where the average person would know what it is. We're talking someone in a bar finding a lost iPhone and then realizing that the best place for it would be in the hands of Gizmoto. Unless the Gizmoto guys were the ones that happened to find it. Again, like an employee of the Louvre finding the Mona Lisa.

I also find it odd that the bar would turn it over to a 3rd party, rather than holding on to it in case the original owner came back. Unless this bar has this behavior. For example, if you left your car keys there, they'd just give it to someone else.

I don't buy it. It might be a real iPhone prototype, but I think there's some shenanigans at work here. Maybe something along the lines of:

Apple: Hey gizmoto, we're going to "lose" an iPhone at a bar (really just hand it to you) then you write up a review of what you find as if you just happened to find it sitting at a table. If someone asks about it, we'll tell the media that "an internal source" has indeed lost a prototype.

Gotta love free advertising. I was wondering when the next iPhone/iPad /. frontpage article would take place. Also, the iPad does blend. [youtube.com]

Re:How did it end up at Gizmoto? (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897140)

I think there's some shenanigans at work here. Maybe something along the lines of: Apple: Hey gizmoto, we're going to "lose" an iPhone at a bar (really just hand it to you) then you write up a review of what you find

While I'd never put it past any corporation to attempt some sort of viral marketing, Apple's extreme secrecy and past history of actually physically locking down new devices makes me doubt that's what happened in this case. My guess is that it's one of those Chinese knockoffs and Gizmondo knows that it is but is playing it up for the page hits. Everybody's gotta make a buck.

Re:How did it end up at Gizmoto? (1)

Xuranova (160813) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897278)

I can't find the very first story that had the initial details, but at first no big site physically had it, and pics were posted from the guy who found it. The story said he was charging people to spend time with it. So engadget I believe passed on paying this guy for it. How gizmodo got it? Maybe they offered him some random tech device in exchange for it or maybe he was just a big fan of Gizmodo. Also there is the good chance that after Apple wiped it, the person who found it had no use for it and just gave it to Gizmodo in exchange to hang with the giz crew and have them pay for dinner. He was probably smart enough to know that putting it on ebay would have Apple knocking on his front door.

iSick of it (1, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896912)

Can we please cut back on iCrap related stuff already? We've had more iPad news in the last weeks than Linux news in the last months. Will we get flooded by iPhone stuff now? Is this "News for Geeks" or "News for Hip Teenagers"? I don't give a shit about the iPhone, the iPad or whatever else Jobs can pull out his arse. It's alright to speak about it; I don't mind that. But this is bordering in spamming, sometimes two articles on the same damn thing per DAY! Are we going to get a news item every time someone farts at Apple?

I'm sorry, but there's just so much stuff that can be covered that splashing /. with iPhone/iPad news feels like wasted bandwidth.

Re:iSick of it (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897176)

But we need all the Apple articles so that we can get our daily quota of Apple hating in.

Hating Apple is the hip thing to do these days and just think if /. wasn't seen hating on Apple for a hour or two what would happen to its geek cred.

Let them market on their own (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896920)

They don't need to abuse us or their fanboys any further to market shit that their fanboys will buy anyways.

What a dealbreaker! (2, Funny)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896938)

3 grams heavier

That's it, I'm not buying it. My manpurse is already getting heavy.

Re:What a dealbreaker! (1)

SliceofPi (1495453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897214)

Amen brogina!

Throw up the light (-1, Troll)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897016)

Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na APPLE

Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na APPLE

Suck you off like a circus seal you beautiful APPLE

This is why I stopped reading gizmodo (4, Informative)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

What? (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897088)

The problem with this phone, even it if it is the new iPhone, is that it's like every other phone. It's almost identical to my Instinct. Why would Apple make a phone to look like this? I realize Gizmodo offered up a decent explanation for how it aligns with Apple's product line but to me it looks like anyone BUT Apple designed. If it's real, I hope it's a prototype that get's a redesign. I don't own an iPhone but I like them and would like to see them with continued differentiation from other phones.

Fired would be the best outcome (1)

Kagato (116051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897156)

Last time Apple had an iPhone leak it ended with a suspicious suicide of a Foxconn engineer in China. Just say'n.

From TFA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897186)

And because it's thinner, it feels even nicer in your pants.

I *know*

It's still locked down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31897192)

No thanks. Apple might be going the right way in a fashion/marketing sense but not it's no good for tech oriented folks.

Defective by Design? (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897204)

As noted repeatedly in TFA, the phone actually has - gasp! - recognizable SEAMS!

Oh how the mighty have fallen.... I am so disappointed, and will choose to stay with my Moto ROKR!

It's a plant! (1)

doghouse41 (140537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897306)

I can just imagine the conversation inside Jobfinger's secret lair in the hollow volcano just outside Cupertino.... ....we never thought you idea of planting a dummy iPhone prototype in a coffee bar would work, but what do you know - they fell for it!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?