The engineers back then certainly wouldn't have seen the iPhone-shaped screen assembly, they would either use the video out to a regular monitor (sufficient for most hardware testing and kernel development) while the developers responsible for making the touch screen work might have gotten a screen unit that wasn't iPhone-shaped.
(This particular board might have been assigned to someone who was only ever expected to use the video output ports.)
The video out ports were only used for the 30-pin video out, the main display never ran on them (could not run on them).
iPhoneOS kernel developers could hardly care less about the display; everything was done with the serial port and JTAG (I don’t recall whether Ethernet debug was ever supported).
There are a bunch of other errors / misconceptions in the article sadly. These boards were pretty cool & highly functional and it’s sad not to see justice done to them.
Most engineers wanted nothing to do with the display units; they were bulky and relatively fragile and desk space is always at a premium.
Take the old eMac software, and bam, iPad.
(100% speculation)
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/03/exclusive-super-earl...
The on-board (pun intended) documentation - "Do not connect battery without removing J49", etc - is pretty neat too. Is this something that's fairly standard in the industry?
Items 6.14.* on http://pcbchecklist.com gives an overview of what is typical.
Basically the purpose of EVT to a) ensure all the components identified in the initial survey/design review actually work together b) enable software development early in the process c) iron out any showstoppers and kinks that could jeopardize the project later on.
The next few design stages usually get rid of all the super-debug stuff (such as the ethernet port on the iphone; also maybe get the form factor down) while still retaining the regular debug stuff (JTAG etc). This usually when mechanical can jump in and preliminary compliance stuff can take place (EMC etc)
Maybe Apple has strict secrecy rules that are only partially enforced? I don't quite get it.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/195053/gizmodo_iphone_police...
Same company that once optimized negative publicity just by making an official guideline warning iOS developers not to talk to the press...
"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
Apple probably considers this board their property.
This is a stretch. Guaranteed that if you are working on just chips then you might be living in just your own silo.