Besides the fact that Apple thinks that a glossy back is desireable (how have they not learned?), I am loving the new design. The harder edges are great and the separate volume buttons are a nice touch. They also finally got rid of that terrible rounded back. This whole thing seems like it'll be a winner design-wise.
Thoughts?
Discussion about
Let's talk about industrial design.
Regardless of legality AND the ethics of the scoop, does anyone have a problem with Gizmodo publicly outing the guy ("Gray Powell"). Seems like a form of deflection or, at best, just another low blow.
Just seems like a tasteless move. They managed to keep the source's name out of the article.
Thoughts?
Just seems like a tasteless move. They managed to keep the source's name out of the article.
Thoughts?
Low, and classless. Enough to say it was an "Apple Engineer". I'd rather know about the guy who initiated the bidding war on this deal than about the poor sap who lost it. Not to get into blog politics, but this smacks of Denton to me.
I agree, seems pretty tasteless if true. In stark contrast they kept the source's name out of it and how they got the device in the end (obviously the source send pictures to Engadget as well). I mean if they write about it they should write about how they got the device, not how the poor guy lost it.
Classy move on their part the: "it's not our fault the guy was drunk" defense..If I find a phone at a bar I give it to the bartender. You don't take him home!
Completely agree. That's what is astounding to me in the first place. Gizmodo is giving all this attention to the engineer. Yeah, it sucks he lost the phone. But for someone to find it and not even think about leaving it with the bar (most logical place) and then later profiting off of it?
Yes. It is a tasteless move. And what they wrote was pretty condescending and snarky.
Gizmodo can do whatever they want. The truth is that most readers (if not ALL) surely wanted to know more information about what went wrong here. Apple has such a strong image and is usually so damn good about secrecy - so Gizmodo knew it was sitting on a goldmine in more than one way.
But why not keep his name out of it. He's at least in huge trouble at work, why add to that public humiliation. I mean if one of Apple's big public figures lost it (like Jobs, Schiller, Ive etc.) publishing the name would have been more justifiable, but a small time software developer? That's not information we needed to have.
Edit: That was a reply to bgribin's post. Don't know why it ended up here...
Edit: That was a reply to bgribin's post. Don't know why it ended up here...
This post has been removed.
It reminds me of Sony Ericsson design line, m600 is what comes to mind first (sans keyboard). Pretty much, the shape and choice of colors really feels like a Sony product.
I'm just happy they got rid of the putty-soft plastic that they used on the 3G and 3GS. The terribly soft plastic backs were reminiscent of the the chrome backs of iPods that scratch insanely easily and make your device feel more like a consumable than the piece of hardware it's supposed to be.
Smaller screen is also a major major letdown... but aside from that, the design seems solid. It fits in a lot better with the rest of their lineup,
Smaller screen is also a major major letdown... but aside from that, the design seems solid. It fits in a lot better with the rest of their lineup,
If you look at the side-by-side pictures the screens don't seem to be any different in size. So looks like there's just a 0.0x" difference. Most likely it's still a 3.5" display (officially).
I really don't know why Gizmodo didn't just measure the screen... same with the resolution. What did they do the whole week that they got the device? Shoot crappy pictures?
I really don't know why Gizmodo didn't just measure the screen... same with the resolution. What did they do the whole week that they got the device? Shoot crappy pictures?
I totally agree about getting rid of the soft plastic back. At least if they are going with something glossy, it's going to be hard.
Also, I don't think the display is any smaller. The phone may be shorter overall but I would assume they will end up using a 3.5" screen again.
Also, I don't think the display is any smaller. The phone may be shorter overall but I would assume they will end up using a 3.5" screen again.
I actually "disliked" this gadget because I think it looks very un-Apple. To me Apple designs are smooth and flowing, and this is certainly a diversion from that path. However, I've never really liked the design of the iPhones of old, and I find the leaked pics of this device make it out to be kind of ugly. Yet, for some strange reason, I think that if I were ever to get an iPhone, this would be the one for me. Color me "shocked."
Yeah, I expect the seams to be gone in the release device. Otherwise it goes against Apple trends of the last couple years.
Right, but have they gone backwards in product line? The whole unibody thing was about no seams at all, why add four to the new iPhone that weren't there before?
Definitely. Gawker bidding for this thing is exactly the kind of slimly behavior I expect from them.
Yeah, that's kinda confusing. What I was trying to get at there is that although I am not particularly fond of the design, there is still something about it that makes it much more appealing to me than any of the previous iPhone designs.
Perhaps it's just the fact that it is so drastically different than the previous stylings, and that makes it something I would consider getting. I think it's ugly right now, I'm not wavering there, but it just might grow on me. And at that point I might be inclined to get one.
Perhaps it's just the fact that it is so drastically different than the previous stylings, and that makes it something I would consider getting. I think it's ugly right now, I'm not wavering there, but it just might grow on me. And at that point I might be inclined to get one.
just the pure fact that it will be the only iphone that looks different will drive sales.... people will dump their "old" iphones and pickup the new hotness... hey more refurbed/discounted units for frugal iphone shoppers :)
I'm hoping that they will clean up a few of the lines, especially around the edges. There isn't too much of a reason that the aluminum surround shouldn't be flush with the front and back of the device instead of exposing the corners of the glass. I guess we'll see what they end up doing for the final design.
My question to you would be if you would have done the same as Gizmodo? There's great controversy about how they got the device, if they paid for it (looks like they did) etc. I don't know if you or Peter ever stated what you would have been willing to do to get a scoop like this in your Engadget/Gizmodo days.
I think they shouldn't have done it, especially if they paid for it, unless
"it turned up in the mail one day in a padded mailer with no return address accompanied by an unsigned note reading “Big fan of the site, thought you’d be interested in this” "
as Andy Ihnatko put it.
ihnatko.com/2010/04/19/the-increasingly-plausible-...
Last but not least a fantastic post from John Gruber:
"Photograph of Steve Jobs’s Office
Taken earlier today."
daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/19/sj-office
I think they shouldn't have done it, especially if they paid for it, unless
"it turned up in the mail one day in a padded mailer with no return address accompanied by an unsigned note reading “Big fan of the site, thought you’d be interested in this” "
as Andy Ihnatko put it.
ihnatko.com/2010/04/19/the-increasingly-plausible-...
Last but not least a fantastic post from John Gruber:
"Photograph of Steve Jobs’s Office
Taken earlier today."
daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/19/sj-office
For the record I would not have paid money for a scoop like this when I was running either Engadget or Gizmodo, and I think Engadget did the right thing when they refused to pay. Trade secrets law is pretty clear about not inducing someone to break a confidentiality agreement -- it's fine for you if someone leaks something to you, you just can't offer them money to do it (however they are still in breach of whatever agreement they have signed) -- and it's possible that this even goes beyond that and into the realm of buying stolen property. I'll give Gizmodo the benefit of the doubt, but it is entirely possible that they broke the law here. Whether or not Apple decides to do something about it is a different story. They may decide that it's simply not worth the additional publicity at this point, and I can assure you that them deciding to sue or whatever would make this a much bigger story than it already is.
Presumably, Gizmodo ran it past their lawyers first. Either (a) the likelihood of a lawsuit is low, (b) gizmodo knows something we don't and/or (c) the money in publicity and advertisement (etc) far outweighs the threat of a lawsuit. I'm thinking a combination of (b) and (c).
Regardless of legality, I'm still trying to formalize my thoughts on "the ethics" of the scoop. Props to Engagdet, you and Ryan.
Regardless of legality, I'm still trying to formalize my thoughts on "the ethics" of the scoop. Props to Engagdet, you and Ryan.
Let's say nothing legal happens. How about Apple not inviting Gizmodo to any Apple event in the next few years or providing review units. What are the chances of something like that happening? And if that happens, was this scoop worth losing all the page views for live blogging Apple events etc.? I remember Engadget saying that the iPad live blogging was the single biggest event in Engadget history in terms of traffic, or something like that.
I hadn't thought about that but:
1) Gizmodo seems to have too much of an audience/prestige to be easily cut off (although the wrath of Jobs should never be underestimated). In general, I would think it would be ill-advised for Apple to retaliate against Gizmodo in such an obvious and, more importantly, demonstrable way.
2) It's a question of short-term gains vs. long-term losses. There's no obvious "next big thing" from Apple and the probability of Apple retaliating seems low. Gizmodo bet that money now will outweigh future financial considerations. I'm not sure I can blame them/disagree?
I'm predicting that the Apple Employee ("Gray Powell") loses his/her job (and maybe an important body part), security becomes even tighter and Gizmodo is off the hook. From Apple's PR perspective escalating the news story doesn't seem to be beneficial.
1) Gizmodo seems to have too much of an audience/prestige to be easily cut off (although the wrath of Jobs should never be underestimated). In general, I would think it would be ill-advised for Apple to retaliate against Gizmodo in such an obvious and, more importantly, demonstrable way.
2) It's a question of short-term gains vs. long-term losses. There's no obvious "next big thing" from Apple and the probability of Apple retaliating seems low. Gizmodo bet that money now will outweigh future financial considerations. I'm not sure I can blame them/disagree?
I'm predicting that the Apple Employee ("Gray Powell") loses his/her job (and maybe an important body part), security becomes even tighter and Gizmodo is off the hook. From Apple's PR perspective escalating the news story doesn't seem to be beneficial.
