Supposed iPhone 2.0 photos
The folks at iPhon.fr have got what appear to be two photos of iPhone 2.0 in the wild. It's in keeping with the other photo we saw of a black iPhone, though the logo appears grey this time, as opposed to the bright white, and the rear of the case seems less rounded. The only thing we dislike about this shot is how scratched up the rear of the unit appears to be. My own phone is (I assume) older than this model and not nearly as scratched - and I don't use a case!
Of course, we could be comparing fake photo #1 to fake photo #2 here, so take all of this with a grain of iSalt. We'll all see the real thing soon enough, and we can look back on Photoshop jobs like this and laugh and laugh.
[Via Engadget]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
krye said 9:13AM on 5-02-2008
I hope that's not it. It looks uuuugly!
Reply
Luigi193 said 9:24AM on 5-02-2008
Yo MOMMA
Greg said 3:44PM on 5-02-2008
Remember those leaked iPod Nano photos? We all thought they were ugly, but it turns out, it was just a bad photo of them.
This could be the same thing.
... That is, if it isn't fake...
Think Adrian said 9:23AM on 5-02-2008
Fake and fugly.
Reply
Ryan Valle said 11:40AM on 5-02-2008
isnt that what everybody said for the iPod nano leaks?
Mark said 9:26AM on 5-02-2008
I actually really like it. Focuses a lot more on the wonderful display.
I always thought the silver around the 1stGen iPhone was stupid, and favoured the iTouch case a lot more, except for the back getting scratched.
Reply
N. Ziarek said 9:28AM on 5-02-2008
The scratching is my only real concern. It looks a little like an HP Journada from back in the day, but I'm guessing its a prototype and will be a little more elegant in person. But, they have to use extremely hard paint/plastic/whatever on the case there -- those little hairline scratches annoy me to no end. Of course, if the tradeoff is 3G, GPS and better reception with less metal, you'll find my complaints about scratches to be fairly minimal :)
nz
Reply
Ryan Schmidt said 9:29AM on 5-02-2008
It's funny how people get suckered into these photoshop jobs. This looks like a screwed up iPod Touch to me...
Note: Before you claim something is real, ask why they didn't turn it on? Ask why they didn't take a VIDEO of it? 99% of the cameras today have a VIDEO function...
Move along, nothing to see here.
Reply
iamwatson said 11:03AM on 5-02-2008
My sediments exactly...
Ryan Trevisol said 9:31AM on 5-02-2008
iSalt lol. It's not often that you come up with a new and actually funny iJoke.
Reply
Ryan Trevisol said 9:32AM on 5-02-2008
Well it seems you used iSalt 6 days ago, Dave, and I missed it. Time to put it back in the holster, chief.
mike said 10:01AM on 5-02-2008
You're an iTool. Your condescending posts on here annoy me. If your avatar is actually you, you look like this kid who went to my college- thought he was god's gift to man. So it's ironically fitting that you look like him.
But yeah, I doubt this is real.
Ryan Trevisol said 11:34AM on 5-02-2008
Well I can understand how the last two comments I've made on here could sound condescending, but a lot of what gets posted on this blog is a joke. I've been reading TUAW since the iphone came out, and back then TUAW was the one being referenced at Macrumors, MacNN, Gizmodo, Engadget, CNet, and other news sources. That's what got me started reading this blog. There was a lot of original and fascinating content on here, but lately it's really lame.
Almost anything interesting on here is a copy from Engadget, and usually hours or days old. And I saw that "New iPhone" picture weeks ago. It was proved fake on MacRumor's forums, and the rumor should die. TUAW eats it up.
Erica seems to rarely post around here anymore, and when she does, it's often to complain or push her own agenda for the iPhone. That last post about the phone in iPhone was first of all repetitive (she's ranted on here about that before), and second of all really insecure (like she was trying to get people on board with her).
So I called her on it. It was a completely worthless blog post. I don't find it condescending to say that, but whatever.
Anyway, that's my name, that's my picture, and I went to FAU, but I kept to myself.
badweasel said 1:37PM on 5-02-2008
Ryan is or isn't an iTool.. can't comment on that. But he's certainly correct that some of the recent posts are a bit stretching and repetitive. Perpetuating an obviously (or previously agreed to be) fake photo or rumor is almost as bad as starting a fake rumor yourselves.
Having said that.. TUAW, Engadget, Gizmodo.. these are BLOG sites. Not NEWS sites. As such it's people commenting on crap they see elsewhere on the web. They are not "reporting" things like a news station does - verifying sources and worrying about retaining credibility. Not saying that they never do - just that it's not what a BLOG is generally about.
Alvin Toffler one told me, "We're developing the technologies of deception faster than the technologies of verification." And the www certainly falls in to that category.
Ryan Trevisol said 3:48PM on 5-02-2008
Leaving aside the veracity of the content, the question becomes, when you're getting paid to blog, should there come some measure of responsibility to produce _meaningful _ content?
Even if the iPhone pic wasn't fake, reporting it 2 weeks after it hit the net, and not bothering to trace it back to its original source, along with not supplying both full-size pictures is just bad content.
I like Engadget. They have new product alerts and rumors like TUAW, but they generate their own content (benchmarking machines, interviews, hands-on reviews, and the like). Plus they have a measure of FUN, they have caption contests, and the KIRF series. It's more entertaining and informative to read their blog. I dunno. Maybe they have a bigger budget.
But for the 10% of this blog that's original, I keep reading.
That said, the other reason the site's rather dead is Erica's up to her eyeballs in the SDK (I read her personal blog since my last post), and that's cool, and I suppose once iPhone firmware 2.0 comes out, she'll return with posts on it and new info.
I Hope.
mark said 9:32AM on 5-02-2008
Via Engadget Engadget Engadget Engadget...Seriously, how many times you can quote Engadget on APPLE news? this blog is becoming a shell.
Anyway, F.A.K.E!
Reply
TomWBrowning said 9:38AM on 5-02-2008
Photoshopped LG Vu.
Reply
a ham sandwich said 9:39AM on 5-02-2008
FAKE!
Reply
Andrew A. said 9:44AM on 5-02-2008
Indeed. If you look at the picture of the front of the phone (It's on Engadget), then it looks just like this http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2008/05/lg-vu-retail-hands-on-004.jpg but photoshopped. Sorry all, looks like a fake.
Joe said 10:31AM on 5-02-2008
Andrew, how are you so sure that this is a shopped image from the LG phone you linked? The angle is different, the screen size is different, the glare is different, the bottom buttons are different, it's in somebody's hand (if it's shopped, then you'd think they wouldn't do additional work to put it in someone's hand), and the top button is different.
It just seems like if that LG phone was the source image, the final result would bear more similarities.
The only similarities are the color and the fact that it has curved corners - and those aren't exactly unique ideas for a piece of consumer electronics.