backtop

Print 52 comment(s) - last by Paj.. on May 17 at 8:58 AM
Is Apple getting sloppy with its iPhone prototypes?

Nearly a month after Gizmodo spilled the beans on the next generation iPhone, a Vietnamese site has gotten their hands on another prototype. The pictures reveal a phone that differs slightly from the version that Gizmodo exposed.

The latest prototype no longer has the two screws flanking the dock port (screws were first seen on the iPhone 3G/3GS and on Gizmodo's iPhone prototype). The newest iPhone prototype also appears to be further along in the development process as it has its capacity, 16GB, imprinted on the back of the device instead of an XXGB designation.

Also, unlike Gizmodo efforts, this latest iPhone was fully dissected right down to its juicy hardware bits. The system-on-a-chip (SoC) is left wide open for everyone to see and displays the following the markings (in addition to an Apple logo):

  • 339S0084
  • K4X2G643GE
  • YN6024Z3
  • APL0398

Other features seen on the previous iPhone prototype also make there way over to this phone including the dual cameras, LED flash on the back, side-mounted micro SIM slot, and the curious grooves along the metal rim wrapping around the phone.

You can view a video of the phone (and listen to some Beegees goodness) in real life here. You can view more pictures of the device here.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Send the Army in
By Gungel on 5/12/2010 7:29:35 AM , Rating: 5
In other news, Steve Jobs requested that the Army is sent in to Vietnam to apprehend the blogger and all its hardware.




RE: Send the Army in
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/12/2010 7:35:28 AM , Rating: 5
I dunno man, remember what happened the last time we sent a full scale army into Vietnam... ;-)


RE: Send the Army in
By Denigrate on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Send the Army in
By Chapbass on 5/12/2010 7:48:53 AM , Rating: 4
Hey, the Minbari did it...


RE: Send the Army in
By Smartless on 5/12/2010 2:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yah but they were boneheads.


RE: Send the Army in
By SSDMaster on 5/12/2010 7:53:18 AM , Rating: 4
I thought the U.S. got owned in Vietnam by a bunch of dudes in tunnels?

That's what my high school taught me.


RE: Send the Army in
By mjcutri on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Send the Army in
By gamerk2 on 5/12/2010 8:33:28 AM , Rating: 3
Funny, if by "winning", you mean having a populace that absolutly hated its current government, overthrowing the dictator that we ourselves put in power, and an insurgency that wasn't going away, then yeah, we were doing a great job.

You don't win wars by killing the enemey. Thats one lesson that is clear the US did not learn, and why we continue to make the same exact mistakes in Afghanistan. Sure, the US never lost a single military engagement in Vietnam, but that in itself is totally irrelevent.


RE: Send the Army in
By Chaser on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Send the Army in
By Mitch101 on 5/12/2010 8:45:56 AM , Rating: 4
Is there really a winner in a war? Generally a lot of people die because of a single or group of morons.

Can we learn to take out the root cause and save a number of people from dying?


RE: Send the Army in
By QuantumPion on 5/12/2010 9:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
The root cause is crazy dictators that want to rule the world.

The solution to this problem is to stop being a pussy about war and take them out before they cause death on a massive scale.


RE: Send the Army in
By gamerk2 on 5/12/2010 9:46:15 AM , Rating: 4
Funny, I recall we openly BACKED dictators in Vietnam and Iran because they were anti-communist. Same with the Saudies, parts of South America, etc. Selective memory much?

The thing conservatives tend to forget about Vietnam is that its a war we started. For those who forget, the Gulf of Tonkin was North Vietman territorial waters. The US at that time was escorting South Vietnameze ships that were shelling the North Vietnam coast, and naturally, a US ship ended up getting shot, provided the excuse for the war.

Also, you win war by convincing both sides that further fighting is pointless. Killing enemy troops in only one way to accomplish that, but in the case of insurgencies, political means are almost always the way in which the conflict ends. In the case of Vietnam, the US was seen as the country meddling in its affairs, destroying its livlyhood [Vietnam used the be called the "Breadbasket of Asia", prior to the extensive use of Agent Orange], and backing a brutal dictator who the US then overthrew when it was poltiically convienent. You do NOT win wars in this manner, no matter how many enemies you kill.


RE: Send the Army in
By mcnabney on 5/12/2010 9:59:19 AM , Rating: 5
Don't try arguing with the Neocons. They believe any lie that a conservative tells them because they can't be bothered to think for themselves.

The sad truth is we could slog it out in Vietnam forever. It just took us a decade and nearly 60k American lives to figure that out.


RE: Send the Army in
By MrBlastman on 5/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Send the Army in
By MrBlastman on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Send the Army in
By The0ne on 5/12/2010 1:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Chinese citizens, of course, are taught history differently. My co-worker for example explained to me that China was just "defending" itself from Vietnam and hence had to go and wipe out the northern regions and moved towards the capital. I wonder if we here in US are taught differently as well?

History be damn, my family was there with my Father in the CIA operatives and my Grandfather as a General in the French military before they pulled out. We lost the war. So many American lives were lost due to terrain alone. Hence, why local people were recruited to battle charlies...successfully.

Wars, especially World Wars, should not be taken lightly when you don't have all the facts.


RE: Send the Army in
By The0ne on 5/12/2010 2:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
I just realized we're talking about war in an iPhone thread >.> Holy crap we're screwed up; how much more off tangent can we all get :D


RE: Send the Army in
By Nfarce on 5/12/2010 1:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post. You have to remember as someone above pointed out that today's government/public schools are not telling the truth about America's history and definitely about America's involvement in conflicts like Vietnam. Every time I see a post about "America started Vietnam" I just shake my head at ignorance and miss-education.

It's no different than high schoolers and college kids getting indoctrinated into believing that socialism is a good thing, as a recent poll from 18-25 year olds showed. meanwhile we watch socialist and liberal policies collapse Greece and other EU nations like Spain digging themselves deeper and deeper in the hole.


RE: Send the Army in
By sviola on 5/12/2010 2:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
When the US threw the bomb in Japan, the japanese were already defeated. The bomb was thrown to show the Soviet Union the americans had got the bomb before (btw, most of the brains behind the bomb were germans running from the war).


RE: Send the Army in
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2010 3:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. The Japanese were not defeated yet (as far as they were concerned) and were willing to sacrifice every man in a suicidal attempt to inflict further harm. The only two options we had at that point was to

a. Drop the bombs
b. Full scale mass invasion of mainland Japan

Option b would have cost millions in lives

Option a cost a couple hundred thousand

If you knew those numbers then (like our command and control did), which choice would you make? We chose a, as it was the least costly of the two.

You have to remember, the Japanese subscribed to Shintoism, and through the divine wind (kamikaze) they could sacrifice their lives in the name of their Emperor and Country. They were willing to fight to the last body--an inhuman cost by our own countries standards.

The bomb helped them see the light, in both a figurative and metaphorical way.


RE: Send the Army in
By The0ne on 5/12/2010 4:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
The Japanese made a wise choice to save as many of his people as he did. There were many opposition from his generals to continue the war even after Hiroshima. There were even secret plans behind his back hahaha. Thus, America had already plan to drop more bombs if they should consider that option. A mass invasion would not have been require as more a-bombs were scheduled already to utterly and completely destroy the country of Japan. I tell ya, it's great reading if you have the time :)

Take note that since this was the first time anyone had used the bomb, radiation was not well known yet...nor the years after >.>! Consequences, always after that we think about them GRRRR


RE: Send the Army in
By eddieroolz on 5/12/2010 11:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to vigorously deny your assertion, MrBlasterman.

What brought down Japan was the invasion of Manchuria by Soviet Union. The Japanese were more fearful of the Soviets and Communism all along - it dates back to the early 1900's, prior to the war against United States. During the debates, the Norther Route (attacking the USSR) advocates nearly won. United States wasn't a threat to Japan until the US began interference/involvement in China and cutting off oil exports.

In short, the bomb was NOT the "light". Sure, it was mentioned in the surrender speech by Emperor Showa. But the USSR invasion was the definitive nail in the coffin.


RE: Send the Army in
By Treckin on 5/13/2010 10:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the official line LMAO.

Spouting 65-year-old propaganda??

You have Palin t-shirt huh?


RE: Send the Army in
By AntiV6 on 5/13/2010 8:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you've never heard of Operation Overlord...

The reason Truman opted to use nuclear arms were the shear number of prospected casualties a mainland invasion would have cost(1-2 million MORE Marines/Sailors/Soldiers/etc.)

The Russian's knew the U.S. was working on the bomb in 1940; they started researching it then too.


RE: Send the Army in
By Paj on 5/17/2010 8:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, so I would love to see you try and go back and win World War II through peaceful means. I'm sure if you went to Hitler, Hirohito or Kantaro and begged for a peaceful conclusion they would have laughed in your face.


Hes talking about insurgencies, which is a very different situation. Iraq is still technically under an invasion.

Its much easier fighting on the side of the invaded. Many locals in Iraq view the 'terrorists' as being something akin to the French Resistance - resisting a foreign invader. Its extremely difficult to win wars like this, vastly superior military force notwithstanding (as any Israeli soldier would know).


RE: Send the Army in
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 10:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
Pat Robertson is that you? WTF are you doing on a tech site man?


RE: Send the Army in
By Chaser on 5/12/2010 9:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
Ask the victims of the holocaust if singing kumbaya works.


RE: Send the Army in
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/12/2010 10:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, there is. Whoever doesn't surrender is by definition the winner. And good job not answering the question.


RE: Send the Army in
By intelpatriot on 5/12/2010 8:35:24 AM , Rating: 5
We were stabbed in the back by the liberal Jews and Homosexuals, mein Fuhrer.


RE: Send the Army in
By DanD85 on 5/12/2010 8:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
You know, I'm still cannot fathom the idea the US lost the VN war. It's pretty amazing that the US has yet to loose any war before and after the VN war. That fact really give those Vietnamese commie bastards feel so high and mighty. They celebrate every year how they kick some fat, capitalist, imperialist, colonialist ass that is the USA.


RE: Send the Army in
By oab on 5/12/2010 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
Except for loosing the war of 1812.


RE: Send the Army in
By Keeir on 5/12/2010 5:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
What now?

War of 1812 was a stalemate.
Its true some Canadian's feel like it was a "win" for Canada because the US did not conquer Canada.

But that wasn't the goal. The goals all disappeared with France's fall in 1814.


RE: Send the Army in
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/12/2010 8:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
"The war only ended because congress stopped funding it." You're funny. Sad, but funny. Vietnam is the same as Afghanistan: all about drugs and overpriced military hardware.

No amount of John Kerrys and Jane Fondas would have changed the outcome. Because the outcome was predetermined: stay there and milk as much black drug money and arms sales as possible until the public realizes it is a scam and orders congress to pull the plug. If your history books do not teach you that then throw them in the trash because they are worthless.


RE: Send the Army in
By therealnickdanger on 5/12/2010 10:11:11 AM , Rating: 3
The war ended with a peace treaty. American forces DID stop communist-backed NV forces from taking over SV. The war officially ended, our POWs were exchanged, our troops were coming home and we stopped fighting.

The problem was that our cowardly Congress FAILED to keep its end of the treaty. Our soldiers did their job. Our ally did its job. Our Congress hung everyone out to dry. The Paris Peace Accord stated that each side could continue to replace military personnel and equipment, but not expand further.

Soon after the treaty was signed by ALL parties, our Congress voted not to continue funding and broke off its support to SV, violating the treaty, effectively betraying SV and leaving them to be slaughtered.

We won the war, but failed to keep the peace.


RE: Send the Army in
By omnicronx on 5/12/2010 11:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't win anything, unless there is some magical way to win a war that you never declared ;)

Vietnam was nothing more than a stalemate, the while the US most likely could have kept the North at bay had they continued supporting the south, I would not consider that a win.

The similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam are crazy, heck even the Vietnamization plan is eerily similar to what is going on in Afghanistan today. Coincidently the US has also never declared war on Afghanistan either..(nor have they officially since World War 2)


RE: Send the Army in
By ekv on 5/13/2010 12:35:50 AM , Rating: 2
"The similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam are crazy"

I think we ought to have stayed the course in Vietnam -- get the politicians out of the way. And win. Look at Vietnam now, very industrious. They make s_h_o_e_s, semiconductors, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they're involved in assembling the iPhone (or what-have-you). The loss of life is tragic. [Don't forget about the boat-people either, and why they left].

Consider East and West Germany. Before unification -- what, oct. 1990? -- the East was an ecological disaster, which they are still cleaning up. But the before and after pictures are dramatic. It's not even 20 years and the German form of capitalism has turned things around. Market-driven. Private property. Etc.

Look at Hong Kong or Taiwan vs. pre-Tiananmen Square China. Or look at the difference tween North and South Korea. The North doesn't even know how bad they have it [which is probably why they haven't revolted]. Or look at Iran and Iraq. Iraqi's are quite enterprising -- yes, difficult situation and I simplify enormously, bear with me -- and I suspect the only reason Iranians ARE upset with Ahmadinejad is that some of the cross-border trade brings info as well. Hell, they have a Victoria's Secret in Tehran [it's a fake, but the goods are real].

My point is simply that Afghanistan reportedly has significant oil reserves. On the order of Libya "sweet". It'd be interesting to see the tribal war lords turn to protecting oil fields [as opposed to their stupid opium fields]. Market-driven reforms can do wonders. So think twice before drawing trite parallels.

I'll let the voters address your point about the lack of declarative will-power by politicians.


RE: Send the Army in
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2010 3:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
You have a pretty messed up perspective on history. I suppose you also think the war in Iraq was only for the oil also, just like the war in Korea was to corner the ramyeon market.


RE: Send the Army in
By wiz220 on 5/12/2010 1:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's why we were evacuating people off of the roof of the embassy as the capital was being overrun, that damned John Kerry. Bastard!


RE: Send the Army in
By Solandri on 5/13/2010 3:17:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought the U.S. got owned in Vietnam by a bunch of dudes in tunnels?

That's what my high school taught me.

Vietnam was what in military parlance is called a tactical victory but a strategic loss. Tactically, the U.S. never lost a major military engagement in Vietnam. The NVA lost nearly 4x as many combatants as the U.S. and allied forces. Even the Tet Offensive was a U.S. victory, and the Vietnamese general who planned it thought he was going to be executed when it failed.

But strategically, it was a victory for the NVA. The point of war is to fight until the other side loses the will to fight any more. And the NVA, by fighting a guerrilla war with seemingly no end in sight, succeeded in sapping the political will of the U.S. to continue fighting.

So basically, the NVA got owned by the U.S. But the NVA won.

Another example of a tactical victory but a strategic loss was the Battle of the Coral Sea, the first major naval engagement between the U.S. and Japan after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese lost just 1 light carrier and had a fleet carrier heavily damaged. The U.S. lost a fleet carrier and had another fleet carrier heavily damaged - those two ships made up 40% of the U.S. Pacific carrier fleet at the time, and their loss was nearly crippling. But the battle forced the Japanese to regroup and stop their expansion in the Pacific, and more crucially deprived it of planes from two fleet carriers in the later decisive Battle of Midway which sealed Japan's fate.


RE: Send the Army in
By hughlle on 5/12/2010 9:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
thought you just lost, really badly...


RE: Send the Army in
By geddarkstorm on 5/12/2010 12:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
It was looking gnarly for us for a bit, but then we sent in Dr. Manhattan and turned it right around. What, they didn't have time to cover that bit in school?


RE: Send the Army in
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 11:12:15 AM , Rating: 3
Sheeesh and people talk about me. I came here looking for an iPhone story and instead got a Vietnam history lesson.

Well not that I needed one. But apparently a few ignorant mush-heads did.


RE: Send the Army in
By DM0407 on 5/12/2010 12:50:49 PM , Rating: 1
He'll send Martin Sheen to go deep into the jungle on a secret mission to kill this man but that the cost of his own sanity.


RE: Send the Army in
By satveeraj on 5/12/2010 11:38:07 PM , Rating: 1
Well considering 24 is pretty much over, Jobs decided to call in Jack Bauer.

Jobs: <calls CTU>
CTU: "CTU, this is director Simmons"
Jobs: "GET ME JACK BAUER"

15 mins later <music thumps>, Jack Bauer seen taking off in a harrier jet.


Seriously
By Gungel on 5/12/2010 7:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Looking at the revealed hardware it seems to me that Apple is running out of ideas to set the iPhone apart from other smartphones. It needs a lot of talking-it-up-Steve at the upcoming presentation. It must be magical^2 to compete with other manufacturers. I mean even on the OS side it's not that exiting.




RE: Seriously
By probedb on 5/12/2010 8:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well by using a micro-SIM it's going to stop anyone who just wants a new phone and swap the SIM. I'm sure carriers will try and charge people for swapping their SIM for a shiny new micro-SIM too.


RE: Seriously
By Gungel on 5/12/2010 9:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, all you need is a X-acto knife to cut down the old SIM card to the new microSIM. (Search for "convert Mini SIM to Micro SIM")


By JonnyBlaze on 5/12/2010 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 5
Quick, lose another iphone so we can get some headlines!




Operation Rolling Thunder III
By Bateluer on 5/12/2010 8:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
Is the server hosted in Vietnam as well? The content, pictures, docs, and prototype?




Hmmm...
By gralex on 5/12/2010 9:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
Design looks remarkably similar to a "mini" HP Slate.
Strange...




Looks better.
By icanhascpu on 5/12/2010 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm liking the look of these compared to the old iphones. Nice and flat and sleek. More industrial looking but in a polished way.

I wonder how games are going to handle the better screen resolution. I -really- dont want it to be upsides and all fuzzy, but I also dont want it tiny and harder to multitouch. Hopefully there is an hard coded choice and its not left upto the developers to choose one or the other (but upto us).




By fteoath64 on 5/17/2010 2:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
This one, I suspect is a deliberate attempt to garner more free press after the Gizmodo fiasco, and the news that Android surpassed their market numbers.

It is well known expectation that the next gen iPhone will launch some time this year, so those so-called claims of potential loss of sales are absolutely bogus (ie can not be substantiated in court and deemed just as "hear-say").
Yawn, it is not real news is it ?.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki