“Just as we had predicted, the iPhone mod that aims to turn your iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S into an iPhone 5 — which we told you about yesterday — has been pulled by Apple,” Killian Bell reports for Cult of Mac.
“The site selling the kit has received a letter from a third-party who is ‘authorized to send notice and takedowns on behalf of Apple,’ and it will stop selling in 48 hours,” Bell reports. “Despite the takedown notice, new customers still have a chance to get their order in, and all orders placed before the mod is pulled will be shipped.””
Bell reports, “It’s a shame that the mod kit will be pulled, but it did seem inevitable. After all, it uses Apple’s logo and the iPhone branding, which the Cupertino company does not accept.””
Full article, with the letter sent to iPhone5Mod, here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
That confirms the design of the new iPhone 5 then not that we weren’t already convinced yet.
This also confirms the design of the Galaxy IV whenever it gets ready for production.
not really.
It just confirms that using the apple logo will get a legal notice from apple…
Samsung: ‘Marketing director please schedule our next major product announcement for September 13’
Probably Samsung is going to buy up this mod company…
The real notice that needs to be received is ‘Why?’ As in, ‘Why would anyone want to modify their iPhone4/4S to this two tone scheme?’. Unless it looks better than the photos floating around the web, I’m not too particularly smitten with this reiteration, especially the white version. Just not warming up to them. Of course that can change when seen in person, but I can remember when people gagged at a “line” in the frame of the iPhone which turned out to be a needed break because it was the antennae. But oh how the Apple-ites posted ‘How un-Apple to put out such a thing. Steve would never allow this’. I’m sorry but those two slithers of black at the top and bottom and that large swath of whatever, eww… Just got to see it in person I guess. So hopefully I’ll be impressed. Fortunately, at the end of the day, after the Keynote, we usually are!
Yes, Why? was my first question. Who would bother with this? I suspect that the back we’ve seen is real, in which case Apple will present it with some technical mumbo jumbo that positions it as a achievement rather than a compromise. Since 80% iPhone owners put a case on their phones, it is a moot issue. Speaking of covers (I have one on my 4S), I’d rather not use one. I found the 4S to be too slippery with the glass back, and I was also concerned with potential damage to the glass. If the new back is primarily metal, I will be pleased. The top and bottom segments don’t bother me.
No biggy. I do my own mods with the amazing variety of duct tape colors. Cost – $2.99
can you do a ducttape modification of BLN’s mouth for $2.99?
I’ll do a baseball bat modification to his mouth for nothing!
Sure. Just let me know the coordinates of the car trunk you put him in.
We inbred Texans wholeheartedly agree with you.
All this confirms is that somebody was selling some merchandise with Apple logo on it. Whether the merchandise is a toaster, an electric razor, a stapler, or a case for a cellphone, unless they have obtained express written approval from Apple to use the logo, they will be taken down.
Apple (as well as other high-profile brands) does this fairly often with all kinds of merchandise. Of course, tech press will only report this when the merchandise in question is related to some rumored yet-to-be-released product.
About the only part of that letter that might raise some flags (depending on how carefully we want to interpret it) is the using of word “counterfeit”. There are three distinct forms of goods that fall into the category of illegal copies of protected content/goods. These are bootleg, pirated and counterfeit.
Bootleg is a product that is based on the illegal content but was produced by the offending party (such as an illegal bootleg recording of a concert that is sold for profit without permission from the band). Pirated product is when content and production is stolen, but no effort is made to make it look like the original product (such as pirated IMG files of music and software CDs and movie DVDs). Counterfeit, though is when the product is made to look identical to the original one (such as counterfeit Coach handbags, Ray Ban glasses, etc). In this context, counterfeit may mean that the offending product looks exactly identical to the original.
I have a feeling the third-party legal office representing Apple here is a bit careless with words, rather than carefully wording this take-down request.