Does "arrives" mean available for purchase? Or does it just mean announced for release some time in the coming weeks/months like they did with the first iPhone? To me, "arrives" means it's actually available, not just a product announcement.

Uhm, Eric...

"This is a prediction that Apple will announce a 3G-enabled iPhone"

The word "announced" WAS stated. That's also the way this market has been trading up until Kevin's recent influx of money. CLEARLY those who've been playing this have been predicting the odds of the rumored announcement. An announcement which Apple has been playing a "will we or won't we" game with industry analysts for weeks now (including announcing OTHER contents of the keynote speech but not mentioning a possible iPhone product launch in that announcement).

As Can Koklu mentioned nearly three weeks ago, the title of the prediction is misleading. The intent, however, is very clear. This has to be a prediction of an announcement, not a prediction of a ship date (which, of course, is a separate IS prediction market).

@Bradley - oof! You're right. I was thinking of the other prediction on the site.

Maybe we should create a drop-down in the suggestion form "Acquires/Announces/Ships, etc." with rules around each option.

I'm joking, of course, but now that I think about it...

Kevin -- no problem, we'll give your your moula back;) It's not an easy process so it will take a little bit, but it is important that we not hold you to a prediction that we led you to misunderstand. Please accept our sincere apologies.

In our defense, making a bet based on the headline, rather than the body of the prediction, is a little bit like judging a book by its cover -- it's important to place bets according to the explicit definition within the body i.e. in this case:

"This is a prediction that Apple will announce a 3G-enabled iPhone for either or both the EU and US by June 9, 2008 (some reports say that the former will come first)."

Why? Because there are bound to be inaccuracies, both in predictions that we ourselves write, and in ones that users submit -- and, when the editors sit down the make a decision or judgment call on something that is unclear, we're always going to go with the body and/or "spirit" of the bet, as opposed the the headline. And, sometimes a prediction is very complex -- it might have several requirements that must be met for favorable prediction -- requirements that cannot be fully captured in the headline -- that is, the headlines, even when they are indeed accurate vis-a-vis the prediction itself (which admittedly in this case it was not) are at best summaries and/or "hooks" to get you to read the full prediction, wherein the logic for judgment is fully laid out.

We're doing our best to get better and better at clarity, and we appreciate you bearing with us as we continue to learn and improve. Feel free to send me a line at josh [at] thestandard.com if you want to discuss 1:1 -- it sounds like you feel pretty strongly about our decision and it may be that your concern runs deeper than just this prediction? If so, we definitely want to get to the bottom of it and improve the site and our governance of it accordingly.

Thanks, Kevin.

P.S. On revising predictions after bets have already been made -- if it changes the intent or nature of the prediction, we won't do it. If it only serves to clarify an incongruity, we will make the change. Here we thought that it was a case of the latter, and it seems like you thought that it was was a case of the former. Such is the human aspect of this market, and as such we will treat such disagreements on a case-by-case basis. Hope this helps too by way of a general policy.

This seems one step closer to being a done deal. Almost. "3G iPhone is finally (vaguely) confirmed for June 9"