I found an iPod on the road today - any chance it still works?

It was in a protective case, but the front glass is completely busted up (so some of the circuits are exposed). It has obviously been driven over many times. Is there any chance of it still working if I get new glass put on the front? It’s an 8 gig iPod, if that makes any difference.

be careful. the rightful Macfag owner may call up his god, Steve Jobs, and enlist his help, and the help of the Apple Gestapo, in recovering his precious piece of iShit by getting the local sheriff to come and execute a search warrant. And then sending you the bill for the pleasure.

To answer your question: why don’t you try plugging it in and seeing if it works? Would hooking it up to the computer not be a fairly good way to tell of its current operational status? Then maybe plug in some iHeadphones and play a song (is it possible to start playing the song through the computer application, or otherwise pushing the play/enter buttons enough time to get to a song) (I mean I understand that you would need to buy a cord for it, but wouldn’t spending the 4 bucks, or whatever some generic ripoff for the cord costs on ebay, be worth it for a 8gig solid piece of gol… ipod?)

But at least you’re not bitter. :slight_smile:

Hmmm, the glass is completely broken in the front, so I can’t really see anything on the screen.

not bitterness. just iDisgust at the company and its practices. but that’s for another thread :cool:

Hooking it up to the computer could possibly bypass that. Also, I’ve had pieces of equipment with totaled screens before and usually i can (blindly, or intelligently, based on my knowledge of what I would be seeing had the screen worked) push enough buttons for a while to get some operation out of it.

If you don’t want to buy a cord for it, perhaps an iFriend can loan you theirs?

No chance for less than a working used one costs. Trash it.

Denzel Washington’s character in the Book of Eli, had an iPod that matches the description of the one found by the OP. It was playable.

I guess I’ll go buy a ticket to Pandora then.

I assume you are referring to the unreleased iPhone that some blogger posted about. It is clear that you are not familiar with intellectual property law so let me fill you in here. If the company does not act to protect it’s secrets, then they are no longer secrets and they are public domain.

In other words, Apple had no choice but to go all out protecting every last bit of proprietary information. If it did not act this way, then whatever technology is in that phone was up for grabs.

Don’t blame Apple, blame the lawyers that created this system.

That is completely against my understanding of IP law. Trademarks need to be defending lest they become lost but patents and copyrights do not.

[Moderator Note]

Rumor_Watkins, this kind of post is not appropriate in GQ. If you want to rant about Apple (or on any other subject), do so in the Pit. Don’t do this again, or you will receive a formal warning. I also note that you have several other moderator warnings and notes for inappropriate posts. As I have before, I strongly advise you to pay closer attention to forum standards.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

True which is why Dinsey gets an (unfair) bad rap when they find out about unlicensed Disney characters being used and force trademark compliance like the preschool in Florida a few years back. Incidently, there is only one licensing that Disney has ever given out - the mascot for the University of Oregon.

Sell it on eBay “slightly used.”

Not any more, in a good way for the UO.

Of course patents and copyrights don’t need to be protected as secrets. They aren’t secrets. They are published publicly with a big stamp saying that you own that idea. Trade secrets on the other hand must be protected. If I come across the formula to Coke and publish it, then Coca Cola MUST act to shut me down or their “secret” formula becomes public.

I can guarantee you that there is unpatented technology or information on that phone that was the companies trade secret. Apple did what they had to do to protect it. In fact, their suppliers probably have it in a contract somewhere.

And in any case, Gizmodo bought something from someone who they KNEW was not the owner, then took it apart!. That’s receiving stolen goods right there, whether you hate Apple or not. A journalist’s press pass is not a get out of felony free card. The original finder is somewhat murkier (when can you claim ownership of a lost object apparently varies from state to state), but in California he’s apparently guilty of theft too.

Regardless of the law, both the finder and the blog knew they were doing something unethical, and yet somehow Apple is the bad guy? I know it’s fashionable to hate Apple, but they’re clearly morally and legally the victim here, not the oppressor.

Not true. Our family owns the license to a character that Mr. Disney himself sketched up for my father-in-law. Disney may not commonly give out licenses to characters to private citizens, but they did do it at least once.

As for the OP’s iPod, it’s iRuined. If the display is broken and the thing looks like it’s been driven over, chances are excellent that there is more internal damage. The hard drive is tiny and can probably withstand almost any abuse short of being hit directly with a hammer, but the rest of the circuitry and the battery is fragile.

Seeing the condition it’s in, this made me laugh out loud. :smiley: (It wasn’t driven over once, it was driven over A LOT.)

I have a brother-in-law who’s a Mac expert - I’ll let him take a look at it and see it it’s worth fixing. I have a strong feeling it isn’t worth fixing, either, but all it cost me was the effort to pick it up.

Maybe the battery is worth something to someone.

Oh please.

This is an incremental change from previous iphones. Obviously Apple does doesn’t want it out before they release it. But to say that Apple needs to send in the police on a jackbooted fishing expedition is ridiculous.

You have no idea what state any of the information on that phone was. There could be formatting changes, or even formats that previous iPhones have not had. The phone itself could have had vendor phone numbers on it. Since the phone was never intended for public use, proper encryption may not have been done, so even technology available on older iPhones could become public. The secrets they are trying to protect do not have to be technology related at all.

I can guarantee you that there were trade secrets on that phone. That is why they acted that way.