Bottom line is, we know Giz and the guy who sold the phone knew Powell had lost it and could have contacted him. They chose not to. Like I said before, Calacanis's take on this is everyone involved is either an idiot or a dick, there are no innocents here...I like that version myself.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, David K Watson <davidkirkwat...@gmail.com>wrote: > OK, so supposedly Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to > demand he give them back the phone, but he wasn't there, so > he didn't. Then presumably having heard about this from his > roommate who was there, he nonetheless sells the iPhone to > Gizmodo. > > It still looks wrong to me. PC World reports this part of the > story as "unconfirmed" by the way, not as a fact. > > > On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:00 AM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: > > phartz...@gmail.com > > Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:13:28 -0700 > > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar <t...@tjpa.com> wrote: > > > > > Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back > the > > > phone. He didn't. > > > > Let's do get the facts straight. The PCWorld article you referenced > > was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine. > > > > The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the > > person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able > > to confront the person they were looking for. When they arrived, the > > individual they were interested in was not there. His roommate was, > > and it was he who answered the knock on the door. The Apple Corp. > > folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but > > the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was > > not present. I would have done the same thing in that situation. I > > would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the > > belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been > > specifically told by that individual to allow it. > > > > Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to > > recover the phone at that address. > > > > Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that > > Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in > > question. We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for > > the authorities to have said in the first place. At a minimum, Apple > > would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already > > knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have > > provided that information to police. That is called having a hand in > > the execution of the search. I am not casting aspersions toward Apple > > Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were > > initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the > > execution of the search. Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner > > (consultant) with them? > > > > Steve > > > > > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
