Oops - Apple lost their secret phone! They want it back!

Biggins

A top secret phone that was/is the next gimmick from Apple was stolen and lost by apparently a stupid thief.

The next generation iPhone has apparently been found on the floor in the toilet of a bar in California.



The handset was disguised in a case designed to make it look like the latest model, the 3GS, according to technology website Gizmodo.
But, when its eagle-eyed finder noticed a few differences, they peeled off the casing and saw a new-look model with a host of different features, the website said.
Pictures show an Apple-branded handset with a front-facing camera for video chatting, a much larger lens on the rear camera and, for the first time, a flash.

More here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100419/twl-new-iphone-prototype-found-in-bar-to-3fd0ae9.html

The people that found it were contacted: http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-iphone-back

I guess someone is in big trouble at Apple.

Danbo!

I call bull****, if this story is true, apple are behind it. They are excellent at getting the rumour mill going in the months coming up to new product launches, and will have apple fanboys creaming themselves before june

Sanjuro

Good ol' Gizmodo. They should hang onto it as long as possible. Does 'possession is 9/10s of the law' apply in a case like this?

Standard Toaster

Didn't gizmodo pay $10,000 for it I hear?
The state of the fúcking thing, step backwards

Biggins

Stee wrote: »

I call bull****, if this story is true, apple are behind it. They are excellent at getting the rumour mill going in the months coming up to new product launches, and will have apple fanboys creaming themselves before june

50/50 myself.
An alternative new PR stunt? Wouldn't put it past them.
Anything to combat the new Microsoft phone coming out I suspect.

Homer

Sanjuro wrote: »

Good ol' Gizmodo. They should hang onto it as long as possible. Does 'possession is 9/10s of the law' apply in a case like this?

Apparently not under California Law. Owner has up to 3 years to claim the item back.
The letter from Apple to Gizmodo looks well dodgy, the wording the Apple logo, the lot..

I call shenanigans!!!!!

Dravokivich

phone happened to be left in a bar... picked up by some super sharp eyed techy who did a bit of fiddling and uncovered the new iPhone...

oh and then Gizmondo bought it...

...yeah

that's believable :pac:

wes

Yeah, wouldn't put it past Apple for this to be a promo stunt.

Standard Toaster

Steve Jobs wrote:

Give it back

Sent from my iPhone 4G

eoinbn

The last employee that lost a 4th Gen iPhone prototype was found dead...

Bazzy

Stunt.com they are getting as bad as ryanair with advertising shennanigans !

Voodu Child

Biggins wrote: »

A top secret phone that was/is the next gimmick from Apple was stolen and lost by apparently a stupid thief.

I don't think it was stolen by a thief, it was (apparently) lost by a hapless employee who was testing the device.

Although I suppose you could say whoever found it, took it home and sold it to the highest bidder did indeed steal it.

tipperaryboy

I would think that it is a publicity stunt.surely that actually couldn't happen that apple would even let it out of the building and then an employee loses it and a tech head just happens to pick it up.

mikom

Biggins wrote: »

they peeled off the casing and saw a new-look model with a host of different features,

The main feature is a microscope to enable the user to actually see his dick.

Biggins

tipperaryboy wrote: »

I would think that it is a publicity stunt.surely that actually couldn't happen that apple would even let it out of the building and then an employee loses it and a tech head just happens to pick it up.

Thats what has my guard up too.
I can assume the Apple tech labs are well guarded by cameras and security.
Everything they work on logged and/or recorded on file as to whom is doing what to what item.

I smell a rat - or should it be "apple"?

The sheep eventually will instantly fork out for this latest way to make them part with their cash though.

Elessar

It doesn't seem to by a publicity stunt. Apple have formally requested it back. And before the 3G was released, there were sightings in public of the phone. It's part of testing it.

I genuinely believe this was an actual mistake by that employee.

jon1981

Sickner to be Gray Powell!!

Standard Toaster

Oh hai

Mal-Adjusted

Biggins wrote: »

Thats what has by guard up too.
I can assume the Apple tech labs are well guarded by cameras and security.
Everything they work on logged and/or recorded on file as to whom is doing what to what item.

I smell a rat - or should it be "apple"?

The sheep eventually will instantly fork out for this latest way to make them part with their cash though.

I agree...
Apple are a massively secretive company who guard everything they make like it was the ark of the covenant. i'd be really surprised of they let this thing out of the lab.
definite publicity stunt.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17153_9-corporate-attempts-at-edgy-that-failed-hilariously.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18377_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-apple.html

120_Minutes

Lol @ the pisstake gray powell facebook page. i'm sure he deleted his profile when this blew up.

heres a more detailed story

http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone?skyline=true&s=i

Dravokivich

Biggins wrote: »

I smell a rat - or should it be "apple"?

A rotten apple perhaps?

faceman

A secret phone that could have a 5mp camera with a flash, front facing camera, noise cancelling microphone and who knows, even text message delivery reports!

Go apple, welcome to 2005!

ProjectColossus

Sarcasm Spasm wrote: »

Steve Jobs wrote:

Give it back

Sent from my iPhone 4G

You totally copy pasted that from here :P

I dunno, whole story seem entirely plausible to me. Apple have a history of testing new tech in the field. And the fact that the phone is not shown to operate falls in with Apple remote wiping it, cause they've lost it.

For what it's worth, I think the phone looks great asthetically, better than the previous versions. Love to be able to afford one

Ghost Train

Hard to know if it bull**** or not, usually they don't give any info out before a product is launched... so why do something like this when you don't need to

Bonkers_xOx

Had a bit of a heart attack when I was just on the apple website.



My brain only took in the words "iPhone", "Sneak Peak" and "4". I feel like a tool now.

Des Carter

Its clearly a publicity stunt to take the attention off Microsoft but its clear that Microsoft or way better than Apple and are leading the way.

Just look at their next new product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZrr7AZ9nCY

I cant wait.

sron

Stee wrote: »

I call bull****, if this story is true, apple are behind it. They are excellent at getting the rumour mill going in the months coming up to new product launches, and will have apple fanboys creaming themselves before june

If Apple marketing is behind this they've misstepped considerably. Instead of a gradual 'leaking' which takes place over a few moths and maintains interest with a few photos here and there, they now have headlines saying, "New IPhone Found on Toilet Floor". I happen to think that the Apple marketers are too smart to let that happen.

lil_lisa

That Microsoft Table has been in development for the last three years or more, what are they doing??

There's only one way to solve the case of the "iPhone: Lost Or Stolen in Toilet to Make Scandal"

I call it the "iPhone lost to MS" mystery.

If we here reports on the 'employee' who 'lost' the phone and they are threatening to commit suicide (like the previous unfortunate Apple employee) then we know its true. Otherwise its a publicity stunt!

donkey balls

steve jobs replied to the loss of the iphone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjhta_KmPkE

Overheal

Stee wrote: »

I call bull****, if this story is true, apple are behind it. They are excellent at getting the rumour mill going in the months coming up to new product launches, and will have apple fanboys creaming themselves before june

Its legitimate. Giz wasnt even sure if it was. But they paid $5k for it and ran with the story.

Finally though Apple wrote to them requesting/insisting on Giz Returning Apple's Property. The letter well confirmed this was no hoax. What you're looking at is the 4th generation iPhone, and this was not a deliberate leak.

Giz has already agreed to return it; theyve already gotten their story out of it.

Overheal

Just an update on this, it looks like Jason Chen, the editor @ gizmodo directly involved in the whole spiel has had a search warrant serviced on all of his home electronics on the basis that the state of california believes it was used as a felony.

Meanwhile Gawker Media, the rather large multimillion that owns Gizmodo, has jumped to the defense of Chen and his belongings under California's Shield Law - which protects journalists from revealing their sources. As a full time Gizmodo employee, his computers are likely chocked full of sensitive journalism sources.

The case is on hold and afaik the PCs are in lockup until lawyers can decide if its lawful to have the hard drives searched.

http://consumerist.com/2010/04/police-seize-gizmodo-editors-computers.html

Police on Friday seized several computers from the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, after they were granted a warrant allowing them to confiscate property that "may have been used as the means of committing a felony." The warrant specifically mentions that officials are looking for information about the iPhone 4G, a prototype of which Gizmodo obtained from a source who found it after an Apple engineer left it behind in a bar.

Gizmodo previously admitted paying $5,000 to acquire the phone, and has stated that they "didn't know it was stolen." Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gizmodo parent Gawker Media, believes any information on Chen's computers is protected under California's shield law, which allows journalists to protect anonymous sources. "Jason is a journalist who works full-time for our company," she wrote in a letter to the officer who executed the warrant. According to Darbyshire, the law protects any "unpublished information" on Chen's computers, and she requested the "immediate return" of all seized property.

Gizmodo had previously replied to a letter from Apple's lawyers by saying they were "happy to see [the phone] returned to its rightful owner."

Update: The case is reportedly on hold as the San Mateo County District Attorney's office reviews Gizmodo's shield law defense. According to one report, Chen's computers haven't been examined yet, and won't be until after the DA completes the review. (Thanks, GetEmSteveDave!)

Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers - Iphone 4 leak - [Gizmodo]

How the Shield Law plays out, however, may potentially prove ground-breaking:


http://mashable.com/2010/04/26/gizmodo-gawker-and-online-journalism/

Mashable.com wrote:

The tale of the engineer who lost the next-generation iPhone that was leaked across the web has taken a dramatic turn, one that could determine not only whether criminal charges are filed, but whether bloggers should be treated as journalists under the law.

Last Monday, gadget blog Gizmodo posted pictures and videos of what is most likely a prototype of Apple’s next-generation iPhone, which was lost at a bar by an Apple engineer. It was soon revealed that Gizmodo’s parent company, Gawker Media, paid at least $5,000 for the device. Controversy soon erupted over whether Gawker violated the law by purchasing the next-gen iPhone, as it could be construed as stolen property.

On Friday, police raided Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home and seized his computers as part of an investigation over whether purchasing and leaking the phone was indeed a crime. Now Gawker is claiming that the search warrant was illegal because it confiscated the property of a journalist, a protection granted in section 1070 of the Evidence Code.

The entire saga has brought a slew of legal, moral, and ethical issues that could impact the future of blogging and journalism. It depends on how the legal and criminal issues play out.
The California Shield Law

To frame the rest of this analysis, it’s important to understand the laws that are being referenced over and over again in this investigation.

Section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code and section 1070 of the Evidence Code state that no warrant shall be issued for refusing to disclose a source or unpublished information. This was brought up by Gawker Media in its legal response to the search and seizure conducted on Friday.

Here’s what Section 1070 says:

1070. (a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

(c) As used in this section, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.

Gawker has also pointed out that there is precedence that states that online journalists qualify under Section 1070.

On the surface, Gawker seems to have a case. But given the nuances of law, it may not hold water.
Does Gawker’s Defense Apply, Though?

Gawker would like to frame the debate in the context of the shield law. However, as others have pointed out, it does not protect evidence related to the commission of a crime.

This is where the legal issues get sticky. Was the raid conducted by California’s REACT Task Force — the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team — illegal because it violated the shield law? Or was it legal because the shield law doesn’t protect this type of crime?

It’s not even clear whether California is targeting Gizmodo or the person who sold the gadget blog the prototype iPhone. Even the police aren’t sure if the shield law applies in this case.

Oh, and there’s another potential issue: Apple sits on the task force that raided Jason Chen’s home.
Nobody Actually Knows How This Will Play Out

Let’s be clear: I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t and won’t give a prediction as to which way the legal issues will go. However, I will talk about the potential outcomes of this case.

It’s too early to say whether this will be a case that “defines” whether bloggers and online publications are indeed journalists and journalistic institutions. This case may only apply to a unique situation in which a felony was committed. It’s also possible that this case could define whether technology bloggers and online journalists should be afforded the same rights as traditional newspaper and print media journalists.

Anyone who gives you a prediction on how they think the Apple-Gizmodo saga will play out and doesn’t have expertise in law is probably talking out of his or her ass. This is an issue that will be settled by lawyers and investigators, not journalists or technology experts, with the future of media potentially in the balance. We’re not sure what to think of that.

Biggins

Talk about an over reaction: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1269124/iPhone-4G-leak-Gizmodo-editor-Jason-Chens-house-raided-police.html

Bloody Apple - I wouldn't be buying any of their garbage.
Who the fcuk do they think they are!

Wossack

Apple is like Mom's Friendly Robot Company, all nicey nicey on the outside with some frail old person at the helm, but under the veneer...

Biggins

Wossack wrote: »

Apple is like Mom's Friendly Robot Company, all nicey nicey on the outside with some frail old person at the helm, but under the veneer...

...a bunch of jack-boot skin headed thugs!

The sad part is that the sheep of this world will still fall for their PR stunts, the polished shiny products and like all good fools who are easily parted with their hard earned cash, fork it out to them like good little boys and girls.

Professey Chin

Wossack wrote: »

Apple is like Mom's Friendly Robot Company, all nicey nicey on the outside with some frail old person at the helm, but under the veneer...

Does this mean we can class Google as Professor Farnsworth?

Standard Toaster

Just Apple keeping the PR machine going, great coverage for them regardless.
Gizmodo been Apple fanboys for years, we'll see how that changes shortly.

They shoud have just published the photos on their site from an anonymous 'source'

irelandrover

Biggins wrote: »

...a bunch of jack-boot skin headed thugs!

The sad part is that the sheep of this world will still fall for their PR stunts, the polished shiny products and like all good fools who are easily parted with their hard earned cash, fork it out to them like good little boys and girls.

So because Apple served a search warrant to retrieve their stolen goods they are full of jack-boot skin head thugs? Right, makes perfect sense. How do you explain the fact that the search warrant is signed by a judge and executed by the police. Surely they're the thugs if they bashed in the door and trashed the apartment.

So anyone that purchases an apple product is a sheep. they are not doing it because they like the product. could you have possibly got any more condescending.

Mal-Adjusted

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Does this mean we can class Google as Professor Farnsworth?

Apple is like Germany, ambitious and misunderstood
Google is like Switzerland, small and neutral.

Theta

irelandrover wrote: »

So because Apple served a search warrant to retrieve their stolen goods they are full of jack-boot skin head thugs? Right, makes perfect sense. How do you explain the fact that the search warrant is signed by a judge and executed by the police. Surely they're the thugs if they bashed in the door and trashed the apartment.

So anyone that purchases an apple product is a sheep. they are not doing it because they like the product. could you have possibly got any more condescending.

They are claiming the warrent was illegal as he was a journo and under cali law it makes him exempt from the seizure.

DominoDub

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/thatlost4gphone/

Dartz

AFAIK, it wasn't actually stolen.

The original finder *tried* to return it to Apple, but they just didn't want to hear about it...he rang customer services several times enquiring about it. It was lost weeks before it ever actually made it to Gizmodo. If the finder tries to return the property, and the original owner refuses it(or a representative of that owner), then does the finder not get to sort of keep that thing.

pickarooney

If Gizmodo didn't know it was stolen why did they pay $5,000 for it?

Panda

This just in, Wozniak wears humerous tshirt....


I went drinking with Gray Powell....

Theta

pickarooney wrote: »

If Gizmodo didn't know it was stolen why did they pay $5,000 for it?

They paid 5k for the story! And for the exclusive.

In the UK I know you can be done for theft by finding and I think in California if you lose something it is not the finders for 5 years from the date it was found so technically I suppose from Apple's point of view it is stolen even though it was just found.

irelandrover

Theta wrote: »

They are claiming the warrent was illegal as he was a journo and under cali law it makes him exempt from the seizure.

I realise this, but the fact is that the warrant was signed by a judge and executed by the police. So Apple did nothing wrong. Calling them thugs was way over the top.

Theta

irelandrover wrote: »

I realise this, but the fact is that the warrant was signed by a judge and executed by the police. So Apple did nothing wrong. Calling them thugs was way over the top.

Sorry I never said you did I was just saying the warrent is illegal and that any evidence gained will not be usable in court!

Biggins

irelandrover wrote: »

I realise this, but the fact is that the warrant was signed by a judge and executed by the police. So Apple did nothing wrong. Calling them thugs was way over the top.

The phone was on the way to them anyway from the gadget site, so why then was the blokes home raided?
The site posted the correspondence to prove this!

Overheal

irelandrover wrote: »

So because Apple served a search warrant to retrieve their stolen goods they are full of jack-boot skin head thugs? Right, makes perfect sense. How do you explain the fact that the search warrant is signed by a judge and executed by the police. Surely they're the thugs if they bashed in the door and trashed the apartment.

So anyone that purchases an apple product is a sheep. they are not doing it because they like the product. could you have possibly got any more condescending.

irelandrover wrote: »

I realise this, but the fact is that the warrant was signed by a judge and executed by the police. So Apple did nothing wrong. Calling them thugs was way over the top.

And yet theres a clear Conflict of Interest when Apple sits on the Task Force that carried out the warrant, broke down Chen's front door and apprehended "4 PCs, 2 Servers, an Apple iPad, and several other devices."

It was signed by a judge, but was not executed by Rank and File Police:
"
This is where the legal issues get sticky. Was the raid conducted by California’s REACT Task Force — the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team — illegal because it violated the shield law? Or was it legal because the shield law doesn’t protect this type of crime?"

Biggins

UPDATE: A sharp-eyed reader points out that the Wall Street Journal Monday quoted a deputy district attorney saying that Apple contacted authorities and "advised [them] there had been a theft," which, according to the Journal, led to the search warrant and the investigation.

UPDATE 2: San Mateo County chief deputy DA Steve Wagstaffe offered more detail about Apple's role in an interview Tuesday with the San Jose Business Journal:

"Wagstaffe said that an outside counsel for Apple, along with Apple engineer [Gray] Powell, called the District Attorney’s office on Wednesday or Thursday of last week to report a theft had occurred and they wanted it investigated. The District Attorney’s office then referred them to the Rapid Enforcement and Allied Computer Team, or REACT, a multi-jurisdictional, high-tech crime task force that operates under the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office."

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/27/did-apple-call-the-cops-on-gizmodo/?cnn=yes

Biggins

Interesting eye opening, sometimes shocking article...
(its a long one - but well, well worth it for those that want to know their stuff and not become another mindless cash forking out sheep!)

Five Reasons You Should Be Scared of Apple


5. Apple Versus Their Customers

When you buy Apple products, you don't just buy computers or gadgets. Apple sells iPods and iPhones that play music purchased in their iTunes store. It's all part of Jobs's sales pitch to people who pride themselves on individuality. Even before there were ads featuring the kid from Die Hard 4 bickering with John Hodgeman in heaven, the message was been the same: PCs are for those people who follow the herd, but you choose Mac because you think differently. And the message seemed to take. In the court of public opinion, Apple is the hip, young underdog challenging his competition. Who have fared... less well.

But there's an unfortunate catch with Apple products. Even after you spend your hard earned money on fancy Jobsian wonder-toys, you still don't really own them. Turns out Jobs might have literally been speaking in the first person when he started slapping I's in front of everything he sold. As in, "I am Steve Jobs and I just sold you suckers a gadget that iDesigned, iControl and iBreak if you break my arbitrary rules."

Think we're exaggerating? Say you want to buy an iPhone. If your town isn't on one of the postcards Luke Wilson reads in the AT&T wireless commercials, you're going to have to "jailbreak" your new gadget. Don't worry; you won't need any digging spoons or defensive sodomy. Jailbreaking is just a term for modifying your iPhone in order to make it do what every other gadget on the market does: Whatever you tell it to. For instance, without jailbreaking you can't install unapproved third party applications, customize your user interface, or unlock your phone for use with another carrier.

Again, manufacturers of other cell phones and gadgets generally don't care what customers do once they've paid for their products with good, honest credit card debt. But Apple goes beyond complaining. They will actively break your schite for disobeying their arbitrary rules.

Yes, Apple has sent out updates specifically designed to disable phones that have been modified to work with carriers other than AT&T, or to run Microsoft Office. Seriously now, we'd be inventing new, fluorescent shades of berserk if, say, a PC manufacturer broke your computer for installing Linux.

So how come Apple gets away with it?


4. Apple Versus The First Amendment

Jason O'Grady writes a column about Apple for the tech news website ZDNet. One day O'Grady came across some inside information about an Apple product. He posted it in his blog and then got back to whatever tech journalists spend their time doing. Masturbating while fondling digital cameras, probably.

Upon finding out about the leak, Apple could have taken the free publicity and ignored the whole thing or simply asked O'Grady to remove his article. Instead, they went absolutely batfcuking crazy and hulked out on some poor nerd who gives them free advertising for a living.

They subpoenaed his ISP, tried to get them to take down his website and source of employment, and also subpoenaed O'Grady himself in order to get the name of the source who leaked the information. Staring down the barrel of Apple's 14 billion dollar legal shotgun, Jason went to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for help, causing a legal cluster fcuk that went all the way to the state appeals court before a judge finally convinced Apple and Jobs to act like a couple of Fonzies and be cool.

By now you're probably pretty curious to know just what sort of leak Apple thought was worth attempting to destroy O'Grady's career over. Was it a new iPod? Leaked code for an upcoming version of OS X? The iPhone?
Nope. It was a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand.

What's that? You have no fcuking clue what a FireWire breakout box is? Neither do most people. It's a minor peripheral product. Sort of makes you terrified for the poor bastard who leaks something important like...

3. Apple Versus The Poor Bastard Who May or May Not Have Leaked an iPhone

Apple is famous across the world for having some fairly strict policies on information security. On the transparency spectrum, Apple's corporate policy makes the CIA look like one of those sliding glass doors toddlers always run into on YouTube. Beyond the usual security doors and guards, according to the New York Times, "Some Apple workers in the most critical product-testing rooms must cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful, [former employee] said." The article didn't outright say that Steve Jobs has been implanting his employees with psycho-receptive "pain chips" designed to inflict unbearable agony upon the disloyal, but it was pretty heavily implied.

So what's wrong with the secrecy? Absolutely nothing. Except when it indirectly leads to torture and suicide. Then it's probably time for management to throttle things back just a smidge. It was reported earlier this year, that Apple reached that point over a possible leak of an iPhone prototype.

Sun Danyong was a young engineer who worked at the Shenzhen factory of Chinese electronics manufacturer, Foxconn. His job had something to do with handling new iPhone prototypes, one of which was lost or stolen while in his care. Apple has a zero tolerance policy for corporate leaks from the companies it works with, so Foxconn knew Danyong's slip-up could potentially cost them tens of millions of dollars in future business once Apple dropped the hammer.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, Foxconn did the only thing a self-respecting sociopathic megacorporation could: torture the crap out of their employee. Facing another session over the missing iPhone prototype, Danyong leapt to his death from a 12th floor apartment building.

Apple didn't torture Danyong themselves, but their maddeningly intense security policies set the mood. Prototypes and specs of other company's next generation devices leak out all the time, and no one gets hauled into interrogation chambers by corporate police over it.

Employees being forced to work weekends and holidays without being allowed to tell their families; spy cameras inside of offices; engineers being forced to work under sheets... isn't this going a bit too far for consumer electronics? We expect this kind of security around, say, secret government bases and hidden volcano lairs, not from the makers of the Pippin.


2. Apple Versus App Developers

To date, over three billion apps have been downloaded from the iPhone App Store. Of course, Calendars and RSS Readers and flashlights and other "useful" apps only account for part of the over 150,000 the store offers. With hundreds of apps being submitted every week, you'd think Apple would have its hands full rejecting all of the useless ones built to simulate farting, drinking beer, brandishing a light-saber, shaking a baby and everything in between.

Well, no. All that stuff gets through. Apple's main concern in policing the App Store seems to be stomping down on competition. Applications that duplicate Apple or AT&T apps (and do a better job of it) are likely to see the banhammer's vengeance visited upon them. MailWrangler, PodCaster and, most famously, Google Voice have all been banned for "duplicating functionality."
Take for instance, Apple's rejecting the Eucalyptus app for obscenity.

Ooooh! Eucalyptus. That's got to be slang for something kinky as all hell! Was this a social networking app for a very special subset of furries? A hook-up site for swinging Botanists? No, actually it was an Ebook app for public domain works. Since it provided access to a Victorian-era translation of the Kama Sutra, the app was deemed inappropriate. We asked Apple if they saw any irony in the fact that the iPhone's web browser provided access to a billion websites far filthier than an ancient translation of a religious text. Sadly, Apple's board of directors was too busy banning dancing in small Midwest towns to be reached.

Jilted developers and Google aren't the only people pissed off at Apple's App Store policies. The boys at the FCC are investigating the App Store for anti-competitive practices. Apple responded to the accusation, which kicked off yet another gigantic legal clusterfcuk the results of which have yet to be decided, but are likely to be retarded.


1. Apple Versus Absolutely Everyone: The Masterplan

You might be asking why any of this should matter to you. After all, most of Apple's dickery is aimed at a small, tech savvy minority. People who know how to hack their iPhones or program applications or work for a giant Apple subsidiary in China. Jobs has always known that the vast majority of people think technology is something to watch porn on. Lucky for him, he's fantastic at designing technology that those people intuitively understand how to use. Unlucky for the non-savvy majority, there are increasing signs that we're the eventual target of Apple's master plan.

If you're one of the tens of millions of people who have iTunes installed on their Windows machines, you might want to open up a search and see if Apple's "Safari" web browser has made its way onto your computer. No, you didn't download that on purpose and then forget about it. In March of 2008, Apple stuck a copy of Safari into a routine update for iTunes. They set the 22.65 MB file as part of the default download. Users who just skimmed over the update notice without reading it (IE: nearly everyone) soon found themselves with unwanted software.

Response from the media and major figures in the tech industry was immediate and powerfully negative. The CEO of Mozilla even wrote a big blog entry blasting Apple. As he saw it, this move of Apple's wasn't just annoying, it posed a risk to the security of the whole Internet.

In July of 2008, another iTunes update went out with a hidden program clinging to it like poop to a hairy ass. This time, the backlash was even more severe. Internet watchdog group Stopbadware.org accused Apple of spreading Malware. Bloggers again raised their flabby arms in protest. Apple quickly rescinded the update..

So they've obviously learned their lesson, right? Well, in October of 2009, a new application from Apple landed in the U.S. Patent Office. Apple's idea was to program devices to periodically interrupt users with unskippable ads. The ads would temporarily halt performance of the device in order to "compel attention." That on its own is pretty nightmarish but, innovators that they are, Apple found a way to crank it up to that hard-to-reach "Lovecraftian" level.

Their words:

"Apple can further determine whether a user pays attention to the advertisement. The determination can include performing, while the advertisement is presented, an operation that urges the user to respond; and detecting whether the user responds to the performed operation. If the response is inappropriate or nonexistent, the system will go into lock down mode in some form or other until the user complies. In the case of an iPod, the sound could be disconnected rendering it useless until compliance is met. For the iPhone, no calls will be able to be made or received."

Ho-lee Schite!!!

And this isn't just some crazy, pie-in-the-sky idea some engineer at Apple had and decided to get patented. Steve Fcuking Jobs had his name attached to the application. Is this where the man who holds the reins to the entire Apple Corporation sees his product line going? A future where cheap, malware and prime-time TV-ad-riddled devices flood the market?

Unfortunately, most of us won't know until our porn is being interrupted by an ad for FreeCreditReport.com!!!

Source: http://www.cracked.com/article_18377_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-apple.html

Kylo Ren

It's probably bullsh1t