iFixit On Gizmodo’s iPhone Teardown: “It’s Very Close To Production”

Leander Kahney ()

iFixit On Gizmodo’s iPhone Teardown: “It’s Very Close To Production”

iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens

iFixit is famous for its authorative Apple product teardowns. I just emailed the CEO, Kyle Wiens, with some questions about Gizmodo’s teardown. Here’s Kyle’s take:

Gizmodo emailed me asking the same thing.

I asked them why they didn’t remove the (very removable) EMI shields.

It’s closer to production than I was expecting. I’d say this thing is very very close.

DON'T MISS
Techcrunch spots “Take Photo” functionality in iPad SDK

What sucks for Apple is if they have to cut features for some reason. Of course the prototypes would have all the features they’re considering (flash, camera, etc.). But realities force feature removal at the last minute, like they did with the iPod Touch. I’m sure the iPod Touch prototypes had cameras in them.

13 comments »

About the author

Leander Kahney

is the editor and publisher of Cult of Mac, and author of three books about technology culture: Inside Steve’s Brain, the New York Times bestseller about Steve Jobs; Cult of Mac; and Cult of iPod. Leander has written for Wired, MacWeek, Scientific American, and The Guardian in London. Follow Leander on Twitter @lkahney and Facebook.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in iPhone, News |

  • http://www.pastatech.wordpress.com Raymond

    I agree. Now that Gizmodo’s inside look has been plastered all over the internets and even on shows like The View, we’ll all be really bummed if Steve Jobs and company remove a lot of the features in this prototype. Seriously, watching those gals discuss this leak is so weird…

    Hopefully they’ll step up.

    We still don’t know how many MP is in the camera. My guess is 5MP. It might be 8MP for all we know.

    The screen res is still a mystery and battery life has to be the wonders of the thing like all of Apple’s latest Macs – all which boast greater battery life than ever before.

  • cv

    The fact that the Gizmodo guys didn’t even attempt to remove the EMI shielding (heck, they couldn’t even give it a name) is pretty clear evidence of how much they actually know about technology.

    *Or* they know a lot about technology and are massive liars because they are complicit partners in Apple’s charade to bamboozle the general public.

  • imajoebob

    Now let’s break down what goes into committing a felony.
    - Receiving stolen goods. They’ve made it abundantly clear from the start they knew this was an Apple prototype. Just the suspicion created an obligation to contact either Apple or the Police.
    - Receiving stolen Goods (count 2). I’d be shocked if the EULA on this doesn’t state that it’s the property of Apple (or some dummy corporation), and if you are not an authorized user you are prohibited from posessing the device.
    - Destruction of property. If I “find” a car on the street, that doesn’t mean I’m allowed to take it apart to see how it works then piece it back together. Even if I don’t do any noticeable harm it’s still prohibited.
    - Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I’m not absolutely sure, but I’d be shocked if the EULA on the phone states you can’t reverse engineer the it. That’s exactly what this is.

    While we like to think there’s some special Shield Law protecting journalists, there isn’t. Even in places there are these laws, it doesn’t protect the journalists who commit criminal acts.

    Apple is not the company to test these limits. I won’t be shocked to see them take some sort of action after the actual product release.

  • poppa

    Looking at the bits in the photo means nothing to me I want to see it working.
    http://mingramjr.com/hitler-shows-his-frustration-for-the-lost-iph

  • goosesensor

    @imajoebob

    I doubt the receiver of stolen good is subject to the EULA.

  • EricE

    @imajoebob
    Judging by your comments, you’re quite easy to shock. But I don’t see any harm in Gizmodo’s attempt to find out something about an iPhone look-a-like, because THAT is what it innitialy looked like. It was only after they opened the casing that they found components bearing the name Apple and started to realise that this could be the new iphone.
    So, you’re a bit to hasty in your conclusions, that’s what I think…

  • d.lete

    @EricE

    Where is your car parked?

  • lgeisz

    OK,

    While it may be hard to criminally prosecute Gizmodo (their are a lot of technicalities to hurdle) the bigger fear in my mind would be civil litigation, Apple may have a claim on Gizmodo exposing their trade secrets (ie the inner workings/hardware of the phone) this information could cause a competitor to try to corner the market on key components of the phone causing a higher price or diminished availability of parts…

    Action like this potentially does more harm then good there is no public right to know how things work before they are put on the market…

    Just my 2 cents

  • TRRosen

    OK… no software was left on the device, equals no EULA.

    Doesn’t matter if they knew it was Apple’s, they knew it wasn’t theirs.

    They didn’t take of the EMI shielding because their lawyers told them not to. The previously published spy-shots protect them from trade secret litigation. But if they go any further they would show previously unknown information (trade secrets) and Apple could (and still might) sue them out of existence.

    OH and on the subject of the THEFT. The bar owner has stated that the Apple employee called constantly about the phone. The thief took the phone and never told the bar owners. (I think that a. is a fail on the reasonable attempt to contact the owner. b. shows a clear intent to steal the device.)

  • NyxoLyno Cangemi

    Oh, I had no idea Gizmodo STOLE this phone! I though some idiot LEFT it at a bar!

    It’s weird, because once Apple asked for it back, Giz gave it back. I wish most thiefs were like Giz … You know, “steal” your property then give it back.

  • NyxoLyno Cangemi

    So, if I let someone USE my phone, they are bound by the EULA also? I had no idea. I am learning so much from you idiots.

  • theotherphil

    Stealing is defined under UK law (Theft act 1968) as:

    “A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

    If the intention of permanently depriving the owner of said property isn’t there, then it isn’t classed as theft.

    The guy who sold it to Giz is guilty of theft because by selling it, the intention was to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Giz then becomes liable for handling stolen goods….not theft.

  • imajoebob

    @theotherphil:
    Say you find your neighbour’s mobile in your garden and take it home. You take it apart, play with the pieces, show it to all your friends. But you don’t give it back. The neighbour hears from a mutual friend what you’ve done and calls the police. When the officers show up at your door are you seriously going to say, “But I wasn’t going to keep it! I was just waiting for him to ask for it back.”

    The fellows in the prison yard will be laughing about that for days.

    @d.lete:
    Wow! You topped anything I could have come up with in just 5 words. Brilliant!