Apple is famously secret about the new features coming in its unannounced products. As a result, there is always a lot of speculation about what is coming in its next generation products and a lot of (free) publicity for Apple when the product is finally announced, especially when Steve Jobs himself unveils the new product. For example, everyone expects a new iPhone to be unveiled by Apple this summer, perhaps in late June, so normally we would expect a lot of speculation for the next two months, followed by the big reveal, followed by a ton of buzz and excitement. Presumably, the end result would be a boost in sales of the next generation iPhone.
For this sequence to work best, Apple needs to keep the details of a new device secret. It is difficult to generate buzz when people already know what is coming. However, this past Saturday, Engadget posted blurry photographs of what it claimed to be the next generation of the Apple iPhone. And then yesterday, Gizmodo revealed that it actually had the device in question because it paid $5,000 to a person who picked it up in a bar after an Apple employee mistakenly forgot the device on a bar stool.
The story that has unfolded over the last 48+ hours is fascinating, as reflected in the following:
- Original Engadget story on Saturday with blurry pictures purporting to show the next generation iPhone.
- Followup Engadget story on Sunday asserting that the pictures are real.
- Monday morning post on Gizmodo revealing that the site had acquired the device, including video and photos of the device, and listing the new hardware features such as a camera on the front (presumably for video chat), a flash next to the camera on the back, a possible secondary mic on the top of the device for noise cancellation, split buttons for volume, and improved display, a flat back made of glass or ceramic, a larger battery and a more squared off design.
- Monday morning tweet by Nilay Patel, an attorney who is an editor at Engadget, stating that "in California, the
finder of a lost item is required to tell the police and turn it over
to rightful owner." Patel subsequently tweeted that he was referring to Cal. Civ. Code § 2080.
- Monday afternoon tweet from Nick Denton, head of Gizmodo's parent company Gawker, confirming that Gizmodo had paid for the device.
- Monday night post on Gizmodo identifying the Apple employee who they assert lost the device and the alleged details on how it was left in a bar on a bar stool by mistake.
- Monday night AP story saying that Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the device.
- Monday night online New York Times story (printed this morning on page B1 of the newspaper) outlining the sequence of events.
- Late Monday night post on Gizmodo by Brian Lam stating that the Apple had called during the day to ask for the device back, Gizmodo responded it wanted a formal demand [in other words, something that Gizmodo could publish on its website], and that in response Apple's Senior VP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell sent a formal demand letter. Note that Brian Lam says in his reply to Apple: "Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen when we bought it." Stolen? By the way, if you want to know more about Bruce Sewell, I posted about him last September when Apple hired him as its new general counsel.
[UPDATE: This is an interesting post by Ian Betteridge, who is not an attorney, about the potential civil and criminal liability of Gizmodo and the person who the site paid $5,000. Link via Daring Fireball.]
Thus, it appears that the device that Gizmodo asserts was left in a bar on March 18, 2010 is indeed Apple's property. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the device is exactly what Apple will reveal this summer. It could be just one of several possible prototypes with some features that will not be included and missing other features that will be included. One can only speculate. But whether or not the device itself is what we will see this summer, I agree with John Gruber who noted on his Daring Fireball website that "the story behind this unit is almost certainly more interesting than the device itself. And the device is fascinating."
And if the device really was mistakenly left in a bar by an Apple employee as Gizmodo asserts (although its latest post does say "stolen"), I feel bad for the Apple employee who made that mistake. We've all had moments in our life when we wish we could go back and change just one thing that we did that causes a big fallout. This would be one of those moments.