Last week Engadget came across a phone that could possibly be a prototype for the next iPhone (4G?). Several tech enthusiasts were curious about its glass panel. While the enclosure would look sleek, it wouldn’t be the best for signal transmission. Daring Fireball received a note from its reader that suggests that it might be ceramic rather than glass:
But, reader Antoine Hebert emailed with this 2006 Apple patent, for high-durability ceramic enclosures. Glass-like appearance and feel but far stronger and more scratch resistant. And: radio transparent.
Apple has always been forward thinking with the materials it uses. So it wouldn’t be surprising if the company started a ceramic phone craze. Along with the other rumored specs, I’m pretty psyched for the next iPhone. Looks like it’s time to get rid of my 32GB 3GS!
It looks pretty slick. I would get this and sell off my 16gb and probably get the 32 gb. They will probably take over the 16gb slot when they introduce the 64gb iphone.
Maybe this is just me, but I don't see the point of using ceramics to case a phone…yeah it's kind of cool, but what's the point?
Apparently I am questioning everything today, lol.
@bsukenya Like DF said, strong, scratch resistant, and doesn't interfere with signal.
@Ray
I thought it said it would interfere with the signal, and that was one of the cons mentioned right after how it would look sleek…perhaps I'm reading this all wrong. In addition though I would be curious as to what the difference in feel would be, good or bad.
@bsukenyan
It would feel like the glass multitouch pad on a macbook probably.
@bsukenyan Read the link to the patent above.
@Smartguy
Interesting, now it's just piquing my interest as to how much noticeable difference there will be in the surface feel.
@Ray
Got it now, I was looking at the wrong section before. I mistakenly read the part about a glass enclosure to be the opinion about a ceramic enclosure.
APple is requesting the phone back. Here's the article.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20002892-37.htm…
@smartguy The ethics of the whole situation are interesting. I'm probably going to write about it later today. A lot of people have been bashing Gizmodo for buying a device that was lost or possibly stolen.
@Ray
I agree, the line seems blurred..but in Gizmodo's defense they were simply doing what they normally do. Which is writing about upcoming products, reporting on rumors, and showing allegedly leaked and or authentic photos of unannounced devices. I honestly thought, and still do to some degree that the device is a chinese knockoff. That said, I don't know how anyone could outright claim that they did something unethical.
There is no confirmation to who the device belonged to. I know they said they tracked it back to an apple employee's facebook page, but that sounds a bit fishy as well.
@smartguy I've been reading a little CA law and at first glance the lines don't seem blurred at all. Again, I'll have to give it more thought, but it seems like a case of Gizmodo buying a product that was stolen.
@Ray
I'll save my thoughts on the ethical side till you post the article.
@Smartguy
Just read that link and if they have the right person, then it sounds like it might be a preproduction model after all. He was a software tech, so I don't think he had anything to experimental and it fits in with him having 4.0 on it.
@Sandrock
I read the link. I don't think the device is the consumer model.
@smartguy I would say it's definitely not the consumer model. If it's the customary June release then it'll be a few more weeks until it starts going into full production.
I think he was taking it home to test 4.0 or future updates to 4.0 and that the phone itself isn't even a prototype at all, but an in-house iPhone they use for testing.
@Ray
If the product was stolen. Section 496 in the Cali state law covers this. (I'm a nerd). If Gizmodo takes the defense that they didn't know the property was stolen, with the right attorney (not a noob) then they won't face a penalty. The only sticky part after this would be how Cali laws apply to the person(s) that sold Gizmodo the device.
I don't think anything will happen to Giz as far as a felony or even a misdemeanor is concerned. They can argue they didn't know it was stolen and thought it was a chinese knockoff.
My opinion based on a brief looking over.