Found Page Where Bionic Is Likely to Land

[eygraber]

Verizon knows how anxious everyone is for the Bionic. They had to have leaked this on purpose.

Reasoning? At any big corporation (I speak with the experience of three), you simply cannot release something like this in a production build. Things are checked out on the staging/QA/test environment well before production code and files are pushed and whatever shouldn't be there is always removed.

Furthermore, Verizon "accidentally zomg" leaks stuff like this all the time. Remember the "3...2...1.." and second T-Bolt commercial leaks on YouTube? The Droid 3 leaks a month ago? Etc.

Are you referring to the pages that I found or to the new allegedly real photo of the Bionic? Because if you are referring to my pages, I can assure you that this is not a leak of any kind. These are the XML files used to populate the flash movies on droiddoes.com. Without these files, if one were to go to droiddoes.com all they would see is a blank screen.

 

[eygraber]

check the AC front page!

Without getting a closer, more valid, look to see if it is photoshopped, I'm gonna say that it's photoshopped, if only because I just went on a frenetic search for any of the graphics or XML files that could possibly be used to make a flash movie which that picture is a screenshot of, and I found nothing. That being said, it would be extremely easy to photoshop that based off of a screenshot from one of the droid flash movies.

 

[albertgeorge]

Im sorry but Ive been photoshopping for 5+ years, and this is clearly photoshopped. You can tell the webtop dock was plasted on, on the bottom right the WEBTOP is definitely photoshopped. Everything else is good but then those are blurry? No thanks

Edit: The E in charge and 2 in incredible line up with the D in droid, but the C in bonic overlaps it? No thanks.
Edit2: The blur in that picture seems to be the old blur, why would the bionic be carrying the old motoblur? The new motoblur is the one on the DROID 3.
Edit3: The x2 is missing from the left side. hmmmm...

 

[Vanilla Ice]

Im sorry but Ive been photoshopping for 5+ years, and this is clearly photoshopped. You can tell the webtop dock was plasted on, on the bottom right the WEBTOP is definitely photoshopped. Everything else is good but then those are blurry? No thanks

Edit: The E in charge and 2 in incredible line up with the D in droid, but the C in bonic overlaps it? No thanks.
Edit2: The blur in that picture seems to be the old blur, why would the bionic be carrying the old motoblur? The new motoblur is the one on the DROID 3.
Edit3: The x2 is missing from the left side. hmmmm...

Nice catches. Thats why it's good having peeps on forums like this! @DroidLanding WHERE ARE YOU?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once we start seeing tweets for that user name, it's a good sign that it's coming!

 

[Arizone]

Here's a fresh screenshot taken from DroidDoes.com to compare with. I know the image has already lost a lot of quality, whether that's just from adding the Android Central watermark or not. I think the other evidence is more than enough to tell that this is a fake.

 

[trsohmers]

Could someone explain these image analysises? By doing a side by side comparison of the two images, the bionic has many more colors, but according to the description each color grouping would be a layer(?), but that doesn't make much sense... also, what are the squiggly colored lines in the background?

A theory that I'm not sure if it is possible: If the page is still being worked on by Verizon, then would it have the marks/elements/features of a photoshopped picture?

 

[eygraber]

Could someone explain these image analysises? By doing a side by side comparison of the two images, the bionic has many more colors, but according to the description each color grouping would be a layer(?), but that doesn't make much sense... also, what are the squiggly colored lines in the background?

A theory that I'm not sure if it is possible: If the page is still being worked on by Verizon, then would it have the marks/elements/features of a photoshopped picture?

If it actually from Verizon it should be a fresh screenshot of a flash movie screen from the purportedly real Droid Bionic flash movie. If someone took a fresh shot of the Droid Charge and then photoshopped it, then the Error Level Analysis would show it (which I feel it does).

 

[Preach2k]

Question when you put pages like the Droid Does page together you do not think the Page is photoshopped? Remember it is in the early stages not completed. Phil will never post anything with checking the sources.. So I think it is real IMO...

 

[Last Ride]

I say the page in the AC headline is fake, or at the very least, just a placeholder. It looks like the Droid 3. The webtop dock is clearly a different, more rounded phone. I have no idea how to do all the photo analysis, but this much I can tell just by looking at it. YMMV,

Bryan

 

[eygraber]

Question when you put pages like the Droid Does page together you do not think the Page is photoshopped? Remember it is in the early stages not completed. Phil will never post anything with checking the sources.. So I think it is real IMO...

For what reason would they have to photoshop a flash movie. Everyone should remember that this screenshot is purportedly coming out of what will be the Droid Bionic's flash movie. When you make a flash movie, you don't put together a bunch of images into one big static image and make frames out of it, so there are no early stages of developing any images. Especially since they already have the general template for all the other Droids. To make a new movie for the Bionic all they would have to do is stick the proper JPEGs in their resource directories and the new XML files in the pages that I found. There would be no one image like the one on the front page.

 

[Preach2k]

For what reason would they have to photoshop a flash movie. Everyone should remember that this screenshot is purportedly coming out of what will be the Droid Bionic's flash movie. When you make a flash movie, you don't put together a bunch of images into one big static image and make frames out of it, so there are no early stages of developing any images. Especially since they already have the general template for all the other Droids. To make a new movie for the Bionic all they would have to do is stick the proper JPEGs in their resource directories and the new XML files in the pages that I found. There would be no one image like the one on the front page.

So you are telling in the very early stages and planning you do not Photoshop any thing you just flash movie?

 

[eygraber]

So you are telling in the very early stages and planning you do not Photoshop any thing you just flash movie?

Well this is a very specific case. Since in the end they want a flash movie, AND because there is a template already, they should have absolutely no reason to photoshop anything. If you go to droiddoes.con right now, you'll see what I mean. Wait until the Droid Charge movie loads. Then switch to the Droid 3. Notice how the only thing on the page that changes is the info about which phone you are viewing. The way they make these changes are XML configuration files that tell the flash movie exactly what image to display in what place. So in the Droid Bionic XML file, it would say to load a picture of Droid Bionic instead of Droid Charge; to load Droid Bionic eye instead of Droid Charge eye and so on. This is extremely easier than having to work everything out from scratch if they would photoshop a previous still image. And besides, it would be very bad practice to create a new image by photoshopping another one, particularly because Verizon should have enough skilled designers at its disposal to not have to do such an amateurish move.

 

[SnydersWeb]

I'm a web developer, have been one my entire career since 1996. Generally I do programming but I also have extensive experience with graphic design programs both vector based (Illustrator) and raster based (Photoshop) and I've also done some Flash development/maintenance (though generally I much prefer DHTML/HTML5).

Bottom line is that people don't understand to fully get a given graphic into Flash it also takes a bit of extra scripting to hook everything up through ActionScript and so on. That doesn't count keyframing and so on. You don't just simply add all this stuff fully overnight, it takes a few days. Particularly if you're talking about a high production quality site.

When it comes to stuff on the level of adding a whole new section with a new device, it's not at all unusual for a developer to take a screen cap of a flash movie and then just frame it out to give the uppers something to judge/approve/disapprove. What we likely see here, if legit, is a mock-up. The Mockup is how designers and developers work before pouring all our efforts into something that can be blown out of the water.

You do not prototype in code.. I've been in situations where I was more/less forced to do so and makes a programmer's job pure screaming agony. Hours spent on making X only to have it trashed a moment later.

Now how Phil found that image I don't know. Really it comes down to this: Would you/do you believe Phil? I do. He has a good thing going here, why would he risk his journalistic credibility as an Android news site?

 

[Asterdroid]

Well said. Phil's usually spot on.

 

[anon(392870)]

it's not at all unusual for a developer to take a screen cap of a flash movie and then just frame it out to give the uppers something to judge/approve/disapprove. What we likely see here, if legit, is a mock-up.

People seem to completely ignore this for whatever reason. I'm sure tons of people who work at large corporations (and not even in tech areas) can relay how they had to do something similar in their field so someone higher up could give something the ok. This really isn't anything uncommon. Maybe someone in marketing wants a mockup or wants something showing they approved something. Corporate structure is not simply "Make a flash. End."

 

[eygraber]

I'm a web developer, have been one my entire career since 1996. Generally I do programming but I also have extensive experience with graphic design programs both vector based (Illustrator) and raster based (Photoshop) and I've also done some Flash development/maintenance (though generally I much prefer DHTML/HTML5).

Bottom line is that people don't understand to fully get a given graphic into Flash it also takes a bit of extra scripting to hook everything up through ActionScript and so on. That doesn't count keyframing and so on. You don't just simply add all this stuff fully overnight, it takes a few days. Particularly if you're talking about a high production quality site.

When it comes to stuff on the level of adding a whole new section with a new device, it's not at all unusual for a developer to take a screen cap of a flash movie and then just frame it out to give the uppers something to judge/approve/disapprove. What we likely see here, if legit, is a mock-up. The Mockup is how designers and developers work before pouring all our efforts into something that can be blown out of the water.

You do not prototype in code.. I've been in situations where I was more/less forced to do so and makes a programmer's job pure screaming agony. Hours spent on making X only to have it trashed a moment later.

Now how Phil found that image I don't know. Really it comes down to this: Would you/do you believe Phil? I do. He has a good thing going here, why would he risk his journalistic credibility as an Android news site?

I feel the same way you do about prototyping in code. However, if you were to go through the setup Verizon has, it is as simple as having a master swf template which gets its resources URI from the XML file. Why would they go through the trouble of making a mockup when all they would have to do is plugin the new resources and it will display in the movie. Much easier and less time consuming (and less error-prone I would say) than making a mockup from an old screenshot.

People seem to completely ignore this for whatever reason. I'm sure tons of people who work at large corporations (and not even in tech areas) can relay how they had to do something similar in their field so someone higher up could give something the ok. This really isn't anything uncommon. Maybe someone in marketing wants a mockup or wants something showing they approved something. Corporate structure is not simply "Make a flash. End."

As I said above they are not making a new flash; there is already a template and all they would be doing is plugging in the new images.

 

[SnydersWeb]

I feel the same way you do about prototyping in code. However, if you were to go through the setup Verizon has, it is as simple as having a master swf template which gets its resources URI from the XML file. Why would they go through the trouble of making a mockup when all they would have to do is plugin the new resources and it will display in the movie. Much easier and less time consuming (and less error-prone I would say) than making a mockup from an old screenshot.

Because making a mockup takes a couple of hours. Making code takes days if not weeks.

 

[eygraber]

Because making a mockup takes a couple of hours. Making code takes days if not weeks.

I keep saying that they do not have to write any code whatsoever. The code is already in place. All they need is a new XML file that contains the URIs for the new resources (images and whatnot). And I repeat again, no ActionScript needs to be written to get new movies in. I spent around 2 hours looking through all their code and it is quite ingenious I must say. Kind of like dynamic updating. BTW, I'm a web developer too

 

[SnydersWeb]

I keep saying that they do not have to write any code whatsoever. The code is already in place. All they need is a new XML file that contains the URIs for the new resources (images and whatnot). And I repeat again, no ActionScript needs to be written to get new movies in. I spent around 2 hours looking through all their code and it is quite ingenious I must say. Kind of like dynamic updating. BTW, I'm a web developer too

You're likely right in terms of needing to write additional ActionScript in terms of having the predefined resources. Though each movie that can be pulled in can also have its own independent scripts and resources.

Nevertheless a static image as we saw it is a quickie compared to the demo feature video you see. You have audio, a 3D model of sorts of the phone showing the various aspects and features of it, and beyond. Overall that site, for a flash site, is pretty high quality. Having said that.. I hate flash. I'm a JavaScript/jQuery C# MVC guy myself.

Regardless, this is more a discussion of the minutea and completely missing the bigger item: Do we take this as a mockup that VZW created or by Phil. I would like to know where Phil got this from or how he found it.

 

[eygraber]

You're likely right in terms of needing to write additional ActionScript in terms of having the predefined resources. Though each movie that can be pulled in can also have its own independent scripts and resources.

Nevertheless a static image as we saw it is a quickie compared to the demo feature video you see. You have audio, a 3D model of sorts of the phone showing the various aspects and features of it, and beyond. Overall that site, for a flash site, is pretty high quality. Having said that.. I hate flash. I'm a JavaScript/jQuery C# MVC guy myself.

Regardless, this is more a discussion of the minutea and completely missing the bigger item: Do we take this as a mockup that VZW created or by Phil. I would like to know where Phil got this from or how he found it.

My suspicion is that he was duped by someone usually trustworthy into thinking it was from VZW