Quote :

"i wish there was an option to download portions of google maps so i don't have to wait for it to load. like individual states or sections of states would awesome."

It's not google maps exactly, but...

http://www.offmaps.com/

Also the new google map app will allow you to pre-cache your route so an internet connect isn't required.

4/23/2010 4:54:44 PM

So anyone have any idea when this Google maps update will come to the iPhone?

4/23/2010 5:46:32 PM

^^yeah, i saw the precaching part and that's what reminded me. i hardly ever use the maps app for directions but i do use it as just a regular ol map. like those gps/hiking/tracking apps where you pay an extra $1.99 to download all the trails in glacier national park or the whole appalachian trail, etc. i just wanna store NC on my phone.

i'll look into offmaps, thanks

[Edited on April 23, 2010 at 11:45 PM. Reason : ]

4/23/2010 11:43:46 PM

David Letterman's "Top Ten Excuses of the Guy Who Lost the iPhone Prototype"
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/23/david-lettermans-top-ten-excuses-of-the-guy-who-lost-the-iphon/

short version: "Who cares?"

[Edited on April 24, 2010 at 1:48 AM. Reason : "It must have fallen out of my iPants!"]

4/24/2010 1:47:56 AM

4/26/2010 11:12:49 AM

That looks like Wozniak?

4/26/2010 11:37:26 AM

it looks exactly like him haha

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM. Reason : *]

4/26/2010 11:47:05 AM

haha...thats what I thought. lol nice shirt.

4/26/2010 11:47:59 AM

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

lol. fuckin owned.

4/26/2010 4:53:12 PM

Who? and Why? Skimming through it revealed no answers.

4/26/2010 4:59:05 PM

the guy that broke the story

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

that's jason chen

4/26/2010 5:03:34 PM

[new]

4/26/2010 5:11:26 PM

Again, why is anyone that isn't an Apple employee concerned about how strict they are? I guess if you were debating a job with Apple then you would take this into consideration but thats as far as I go with /care on the matter.

Also, why was his house raided? Did he not return the phone? (i thought he did) and he already published his articles.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 5:13:46 PM

because we have a fucking heart i guess


you goddamn tinman golovko...goddamn tinman...

4/26/2010 5:16:01 PM

the iphone was stolen, then fucking gizmodo purchased it and drove it across state lines. Its a felony offense and the cops took all his shit. L M A O. gizmodo is so bad.

4/26/2010 5:18:57 PM

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

4/26/2010 5:20:36 PM

I didn't believe it, but that is actually apple.com homepage right now! LOL

4/26/2010 5:22:00 PM

Scott Adams needs to add another strip to this to cover the PC seizures haha

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

4/26/2010 5:26:02 PM

As if Gizmodo needed more advertising revenue

Oh, and who said Apple doesn't do home invasions? Well, I guess you're right, they just get the cops to do it.

4/26/2010 6:01:37 PM

hahahahahaaha GIZMODO PWNT STAY HOME

4/26/2010 6:07:00 PM

^^If laws were broken heads need to roll!

4/26/2010 6:08:07 PM

If that really were the apple.com page, that would've really made my day. It's unfortunate that this is not the case. :-(

4/26/2010 6:48:38 PM

Oh they must have taken it down already.

4/26/2010 6:51:31 PM

Stolen my ass. If you leave something in a bar, try to return it but the owner denies you, it's yours to do with as you wish.

4/26/2010 10:27:18 PM

Apple is coming off really bad in all this. No better than Gizmodo. What a bunch of cunts.

4/26/2010 11:38:47 PM

i don't really understand this, assuming the iphone was bricked and no message alert was posted on the lock screen.

a) person 1 loses phone
b) person 1 locks phone remotely
c) person 2 finds phone tries to access it, cannot
d) person 2 not being able to find it's rightful owner assumes possession of lost item
e) person 2 sells item to media
f) media reports on phone assumed lost, with no way of finding original owner.

theft implies the owner had the phone in their possession (which clearly did not) and it implies that the person who found it didn't try to return the phone (which gizmodo implies he couldn't since it was bricked)

assuming person 2 did everything he could to return it, i don't see any wrong-doing.

assuming person 1 locked the phone with a message on how to get in contact with rightful owner, i think both person 2 and gizmodo are to blame.

if Apple is claiming they are the rightful owner, then they should be going after the real culprit, the person that removed it from company grounds and lost it.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 11:51:31 PM

Drive to 1 Infinite Loop, done.

Keep in mind Gizmodo is on record for saying they bought the phone from someone that did not own it, I believe that's a felony. This you can't argue the legality of, but there are many other charges they may or may not throw on top, including corporate espionage. There's a difference between journalism, and exposing trade secrets...

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 12:13 AM. Reason : more info]

4/27/2010 12:12:48 AM

I'm sorry, but you are insane if you think you could just sashay up to 1 Infinite Loop and drop off the iphone prototype. It does not happen that way. Besides, with the exception of a very tiny group of people in the dev team working on THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT, no one in Apple likely would have any clue what you were presenting them. And honestly, with it being bricked, I think most people would assume it was a knock-off of some sort.

4/27/2010 12:18:21 AM

You guys are giving an awful lot of credibility to a guy who made $5000 selling the phone to Gizmodo.

I'm neutral on the whole situation simply because the prototype finder could have just as easily been making up the whole 'I tried to give it back' bullshit but its also just as likely that if he did try, whoever he spoke with at apple didn't believe him.

Also, if any of you were in his situation and you just discovered you are in possession of an unreleased iPhone prototype...what will your first reaction be? Good Samaritan and send it back to Apple or contact the media and profit?

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2010 12:23:10 AM

From "How Apple Lost the Next iPhone":

Quote :

"During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times." The iPhone didn't seem to have any special features, just two bar codes stuck on its back: 8800601pex1 and N90_DVT_GE4X_0493. Next to the volume keys there was another sticker: iPhone SWE-L200221. Apart from that, just six pages of applications. One of them was Facebook. And there, on the Facebook screen, was the Apple engineer, Gray Powell."

The guy who found the phone knew all along who the owner was, quit acting like he was not able to find the rightful owner. All it would have taken was a message on facebook. Instead, he contacted Apple tech support, got a ticket number in an attempt to cover his ass, and then sold the thing for 5 grand. The worst thing Gizmodo could have done in this situation is exactly what they did, admit that not only did they knew who the owner was, but admit that the person they bought the phone from knew who the owner was the night he found it.

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2010 12:38:22 AM

I actually do think that if you showed up at 1 Infinite loop with phone in hand, it wouldn't be more than 15 minutes before somebody knows what to do with it would come around to pick up the phone.

That aside, I think Gizmodo's trouble here is that not only did they do exactly what they should not have done, but documented it, basically admitting to the entire crime. All they had to do was say that "an anonymous source submitted these pictures to us", and destroy the phone when they were done w/it.

4/27/2010 12:54:08 AM

It's a shame that Apple as a corporation has such a large stick up it's ass (in general, not particularly in relation to this specific situation).

A company with more of a sense of humor about itself might quickly insert a "if you found this phone lost pelase call ########## or return to ___________________" screen as an option on top of the lock screen. Particularly with 4.0 coming out so soon and them likely having enough time to do that sort of thing.

Make a little tongue-in-cheek joke about it when the officially present the next-gen iPhone. Even have the guy who lost it do the presentation on stage for the new feature. Get a few laughs and have a little fun with their next "omg must buy" product.

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 2:43 PM. Reason : granted, most corps have big sticks up their asses about IP, new technology, and brand identity...]

4/27/2010 2:42:40 PM

Keep in mind, Apple hasn't done anything yet. The investigation and subsequent raid all started at the DA's office. Apple will probably sue for damages related to revealing trade secrets, or something equally ridiculous, but they haven't done so yet.

4/27/2010 2:51:04 PM

they'll wait until after the criminal case before they do anything b/c it makes it much easier.

4/27/2010 2:52:25 PM

I hope they sue and win.

4/27/2010 2:55:38 PM

of course you do

here's the EFF's take on the raid and subpoena. they argue that the search and seizure violated both the california constitution and federal protection acts

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-illegal

also, Apple is on the steering committee of the REACT group which initiated this.

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2010 10:55:49 PM

IANAL, but I agree with the EFF on this one.

4/28/2010 12:12:37 AM

After reading some of the articles on EFF (which i've never even heard of before) I've come to the conclusion that they sound an awful lot like the ramblings of Al Sharpton but for tech.

4/28/2010 2:29:25 AM

The problem I see with the EFF's interpretation of this is the assumption that the warrant was issued for information pertaining to the source and not to the felony sale of the iphone prototype (as it specifically states in the warrant). By almost any interpretation of the law, Gizmodo / Chen committed a crime by purchasing property from someone they knew was not the rightful owner. Now, they tried to claim early on that they didn't know it was real until they bought it and opened it up, but that's going to require them showing that they routinely pay $5,000 to every crackpot with a knockoff from china that tries to claim they have the newest prototype; something I sincerely doubt they do. The shield laws aren't designed to protect journalists from being investigated for crimes they themselves have committed.

Ultimately, I think Apple really wouldn't have cared who found and sold the phone as long as they had gotten it back in a timely manner. But Gizmodo / Chen committed a crime, and they were quite blatant and boisterous about it, continued to hold the phone in their possession until Apple called them up, and then published the personal details of one of their employees all over the internet (ironic that they blocked out Chen's personal information from the warrant), so Apple is going to press for them to be hit hard with every bit of pain they can, up to and including criminal charges. As for Apple being on the REACT committee, so what? Unless someone can show that the DA never would have pressed criminal charges for a similar felony appropriation of trade secrets, I fail to see what relevance that had. Should REACT not be able to conduct any investigations concerning its member companies?

^ How far under a rock do you live to have never heard of the EFF? Seriously, they are the most prominent advocacy group for digital rights and ethics, and have been involved in numerous cases and lawsuits for the last decade. You don't always have to agree with them, but I don't think you can call yourself a tech guy if you don't know who they are.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 8:06 AM. Reason : sadf]

4/28/2010 7:57:15 AM

Quote :

"As for Apple being on the REACT committee, so what? Unless someone can show that the DA never would have pressed criminal charges for a similar felony appropriation of trade secrets, I fail to see what relevance that had. Should REACT not be able to conduct any investigations concerning its member companies?"

It's a pretty big conflict of interests.

4/28/2010 8:59:18 AM

Only if Apple has any direct input on the decision making process surrounding this case.

Otherwise Giz or the EFF have to prove that someone else helping run REACT is acting out-of-character specifically to protect Apple.

If they can consistently show that they do this all the time and show that Apple's been directly left out of any decision making they probably won't have a problem.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 9:07 AM. Reason : Remember, it's not reality, it's what you can get a jury or judge to believe.]

4/28/2010 9:06:54 AM

Quote :

"^ How far under a rock do you live to have never heard of the EFF? Seriously, they are the most prominent advocacy group for digital rights and ethics, and have been involved in numerous cases and lawsuits for the last decade. You don't always have to agree with them, but I don't think you can call yourself a tech guy if you don't know who they are."

I've just never really cared or kept up with any digital rights and ethics cases. I've probably seen their name a few times but never cared enough to find out who they were.

I still don't care about digital rights cases. Mainly because what the RIAA and the likes want they get so whats the point, they're holding us back with their old school bullshit. Its not even worth reading about anymore.

4/28/2010 11:27:14 AM

SO back to the actual phone...

WWDC was announced to be June 7th, that's when they usually unveil the new iphone hardware right?

4/28/2010 12:16:31 PM

correct.

4/28/2010 12:18:41 PM

whatever happened to WWDC being about software?

4/28/2010 12:20:58 PM

^Most people don't understand what software is and why it's cool. Hardware is much easier to get people excited. Sad truth.

4/28/2010 12:25:12 PM

Quote :

"It's a pretty big conflict of interests."

Then why have companies as part of REACT at all if they can't do what they can't conduct investigations if it involves one of their member companies? And it's apparently not the first time REACT has investigated issues related to a company on their steering committee.

Quote :

"According to the San Jose Business Journal, other steering committee members include Cisco Systems, Microsoft, and Adobe. This isn't the first criminal investigation REACT has conducted in which a steering-committee member was a victim: In 2006, REACT broke up a counterfeiting ring that was selling pirated copies of Norton Antivirus, which is produced by steering-committee member Symantec. REACT has also launched piracy investigations in response to requests from Microsoft and Adobe."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795

Further, the actual charges are pressed by the DA, so unless we are saying that Apple is also controlling the DA...

4/28/2010 2:00:29 PM

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/wi-fi-sync-wirelessly-syncs-the-iphone-with-itunes-in-your-d/

my fav. part:

Quote :

"Greg says he'll be submitting it to Apple for approval at the end of the week -- good luck with that Greg, we hope to be seeing you on Cydia at the very least. "

lol

4/28/2010 4:13:22 PM

hoping and praying for this one, myself. it's a goddamn iPhone. ought to be able to sync across a network.

4/28/2010 4:14:38 PM

Sorry to bring up an old topic but I'm in an Edge area and using thr Opera Mini browser and it is ridiculously fast compared to Safari.

Hell it's fast compared to my Dad's wifi...

4/29/2010 7:31:36 AM