The G1 gets a near-complete unboxing, we get totally jealous

Well we see where this is headed. It was nice to catch a few of those quasi-unboxing pics of the T-Mobile G1 the other day, but now the cats and kittens at TmoNews have gone and gotten pretty much the full monty. If you want to get a taste of what's to come, here's the perfect chance. You can check out photos of the Android device being wrenched from its packaging, as well as some glamour shots of the bundled accessories -- including a bizarrely retro remote on the earbuds and "handsome" carrying pouch. October 22nd, you can't come soon enough.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 2nd 2008 6:22AM]

first!

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 2nd 2008 8:28AM]

^Worst!

G1 is pretty slick. Is that screen totally flush?

[PEZ Posted Oct 2nd 2008 6:36AM]

holy shit, that photo gallery technology sucks.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 2nd 2008 8:38AM]

wow spoke go somewhere else then, no point in placing your comment

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 2nd 2008 2:21PM]

Bizarrely retro remote? It has its own pot. and an answer switch, just like all other HTC earsets have now...

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 3rd 2008 12:29AM]

ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT IF U HAVE AN IPHONE UR GONNA HATE ANYTHING THATS NOT APPLE , SO WHATEVER
U SAY IS VALID UR TANITED BY APPLE ,
AND ANDROID WILL HAVE PORN APP SO IN UR FACE IPHONE MAKE WAY FOR THE G PHONE

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 3rd 2008 3:17PM]

I'm kind of curious as to why EngadgetMobile didn't link the name TmoNews in the post, to the TmoNews website. I have no affiliation with them other than being a casual and less frequent reader than I am of Engadget, which I check out daily.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 3rd 2008 5:40AM]

@ iNToIT
I don't know if you are new to Engadget or if you are simply trying to stir up some s*** but the 'read' link takes you to Tmonews.com.
That is how Engadget has always done it

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 3rd 2008 3:22PM]

@plh2034

No, I wasn't "trying to stir up some s***"

I was genuinely curious. So, I asked. There are times Engadget links to other sites mentioned in their copy, and times they don't. It may just be on the authors whim, or they may have some protocol they follow. I was wondering about it as it stood out in this post to me.