Slashdot Mirror
Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC
recoiledsnake writes "Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has refused to answer its request to attend the company's big Worldwide Developers Conference keynote this Monday. Apple's move to ban Gizmodo seems a direct repercussion of Apple's prototype leak by Gizmodo and subsequent actions of Apple to get the prototype back. Meanwhile, Gizmodo said that it would resort to a live blog to cover the event in case of the ban. This comes a few days after San Mateo County authorities announced that a 'special master' had been appointed to assist in the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's belongings: goods seized as part of a police investigation into the disappearance (and Gizmodo acquisition) of one of Apple's prototype iPhones. It's the very device that's rumored to be announced at the Monday keynote."
Gizmodo crossed the line, you do not bite the hand that feeds you. They need to be taught a lesson.
I mean, it was quite clear from Steve's reaction during D8 that he regards it as having been stolen (and CA law would seem to agree, at least IMHO). Why the hell would he give free passes to the people who he thinks stole from his company ?
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I don't care so much that they exposed Apple's new phone but the fact they so happily gave up the guy's name showing no journalistic integrity. Fuck 'em, ban them for years.
Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature to be allowed attend these types of events.
So ... Gizmodo can't provide news at the WWDC after obvious events previously, so they're plugging link-bait about their inability to provide news.
And this is news - how?
Why, it's Gizmodo news! But of course! (Get your news that's only news to Gizmodo, on Gizmodo!)
This is the same outfit that thought it would be an amusing prank to show up at CES with a universal TV power-off remote, which they used to interrupt demonstrations, presentations and meetings. I wouldn't blame anyone for banning them from a trade show. Apple just has more specific reasons than most for barring them.
The apparent snub has left the tech blog in a bit of a predicament—according to Editorial Director Brian Lam, Gizmodo is going to use the liveblogging of a number of other sources to construct its own, well, liveblog, of the WWDC keynote instead of its planned, "we're actually there" coverage.
All of the Gizmodo sources can start this concerted effort to make something up. Have one guy write that Steve showed up Naked. One the Steve had a pink faux turtle neck. Steve came out. Steve introduces the iWall for the very wealthy who want a touch screen wall for their internet a movie viewing pleasure..
This could be really fun!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Seems to sum up the situation pretty well. >:)
Apple and Gizmodo really are playing this publicity stunt to the hilt. It's almost like notoriously anal-retentive Apple really was stupid enough to allow a top-secret prototype to be taken to a bar by some junior employee, and almost like Gizmodo really was stupid enough to purchase stolen property, report on it, and then tell everyone exactly how they got it. But everyone knows that could never have actually happened.
Right?
Rob
There seems to be a real lack of editorial power at Gawker Media. Gawker itself is factually wrong rather often. Gizmodo has a real bad habit of doing things they just shouldn't be doing. Paying for play with the iPhone prototype was really disgraceful, then hiding behind being "journalists" as an excuse. The remote incident. Then there's Kotaku, which seems to be run by immature 18 year olds who have yet to touch a boob in their life before. Jalopnik can't keep their mouth shut about Top Gear spoilers. It's frustrating.
I'm through with the entire Gawker Media network. Engadget and Destructoid are much better blogs than Giz and Kotaku. Really haven't had a need for celeb gossip or car news, but when I do, it's not going to be Gawker.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If Gizmodo pissed in my Cherios - I wouldn't invite them to my party either.
yes we do
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Every fucking day they had an article summarizing the iPhone 4 coverage. Even if there was no actual new content. There were only ever two articles. The first one breaking the news, and then a second on where they showed a tear-down. But what do you expect from a firm that destroys presentations and displays at trade shows with TV-B-gone.
It's interesting how their tone changed. They used to sit around and wax and masturbate at great lengths about anything Apple. Now, not so much. Though it seems they all but forgot that computex was on this week.
I've pretty much abandoned them for Engadget.
PLEASE never call these narcissistic twits journalists again. Journalism is based on research, fact finding, source checking and has a goal to keep a check and balance on the democratic process. Agreed, much of the media today fails this. But in a spectrum of "news" Gizmodo "stories" are on par with Bat Boy in the Enquirer. Their usage of the English language is barely a step above txt speak while their maturity is nowhere above that of a third grade child.
CNET News: According to Wagstaffe, a special master is an unpaid agent appointed by the court to make sure judicial orders are followed. Special masters are typically volunteers, mostly former judges or law professors, Wagstaffe said. They are supposed to be unconnected to the cases they are working on. Wagstaffe said he was under court orders not to reveal the identity of the special master reviewing Chen's possessions.
Why do media sites always complain about Apple, then proceed to give them so much free advertising? Every time Apple releases a new product, the media falls over themselves to tell everyone about it. If they wanted to teach Apple a lesson, they'd impose their own ban on Apple news. No free product placement on the front page. No glowing "reviews" about how great the new iWhatever is and how you just have to have one.
Of course, that would imply intelligence in the media, and so far there's been very little evidence of that.
(that, and as others have noted, Gizmodo isn't exactly above reproach in many ways)
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Coverup? Coverup would be if Apple invited no news outlets and kept everything hush and squelched any reporting which Apple has done in the past. I think the word you are looking for is "retribution".
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"I pity the fool who messes with Mr. Steve."
HEIL APPLE!
That's seriously what it's coming down to. Apple is going to drive away so many people with their closed-minded situation. Can they not see this? Can they not see the global trend toward free and open? Or do they just not care for the sake of profit and propriety?
I'm done with them. Go to hell Jobs. Take that shitty King Sized iPhone-sans-phone with you.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is, is rotten PR at the very least.
I think that under the circumstances, the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what. More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
As for Gizmodo being a legitimate news organization, well, that's debatable, isn't it? IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property. And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen. I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
This ain't rocket surgery.
solution. Fuck Steve. Fuck Apple. If there is one thing I cannot stand I'ts the "Hey you are locked into our world" arrogant ass headed ignorance these fucking snake oil picklefucks ram down the throat of the stupid. It gets old. I don't know about normal people since I rarely see any on the /dot. /end fucking rant
Apple, they will format your life.
I'm pretty sure Fox didn't steal Obama's Blackberry...
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Get an account, go to Preferences, Sections, block the Apple category and STFU.
Really? I'm not sure why I'm replying to an AC, but really? You think that after the shit that Gizmodo pulled that Apple should invite them to WWDC, and that if they don't it's somehow going to hurt Apple? If you left an upper decker at my place I wouldn't invite you to any more parties either.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
They are welcome, they just don't get their tickets gratis. If they bought a ticket they would be at the keynote. You can construct whatever narrative you like. Either this is apple imposing their iron fist on dissent or this is Gizmodo getting their comeuppance for buying stolen property and attempting to extort apple for it. In both cases apple (presumably) has the right to refuse to extend a welcome to a press organization. That may be unseemly, but it is true.
I don't think either party comes out looking good, but Gizmodo is really milking it. You bought a leaked phone, attempted to get confirmation that the phone was real to get a scoop, and you got burnt. Oh well. that shit happens. If you don't want to get burnt, don't play with fire. This isn't the pentagon or the white house, where some public service is gained through continued access by all parties--Apple is not a government agency. They are a private company. We may feel (As I do) that Apple SHOULD allow press to attend regardless of their orientation, but apple is under no mandate to do so. If we feel strongly enough, we should refuse to buy the products and/or own the stock on the basis of our reservations. Beyond that, we don't have much sway.
You know, fuck PR. If Obama refused to "talk to Fox" I guess many people would approve.
As someone who is tired of Gizmodo's general behavior and attitude, but enjoys the spectrum of coverage they provide, what would be a viable alternative tech blog to read? I mainly read giz, slashdot, and ars.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
look it up.
"Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is..." Yeah, and so is Faux News.... Gizmodo a legitimate news organization. Ha!
If you'll note the article is by PC Magazine which is not associated with gawker as far as I am aware. So how is this link-baiting? I certainly think it isn't news and there is HUGE difference between BANNING Gizmodo and not giving them a free pass with news credentials but I don't see how you are correct in your assertion that this is link-baiting.
I haven't eaten Cheerios in years; can we please stick to the car analogies?
Heck, I'll start:
Steve Jobs left the keys in his Mercedes SL55 AMG after parking it in the usual handicapped space. A Good Samaritan quickly discovered this abandoned vehicle and yelled out "Finders keepers!" before driving it straight home.
It then took more than a month of negotiations before Steve Jobs finally got his car back, but not before the Good Samaritan disassembled the vehicle and put it back together again.
What's for them to see? They already got their scoop, right?
And if there is anything new announced there that they miss, well, I guess they'll just have to echo conventional sources that have enough journalistic integrity not to deal in stolen goods and not to reveal their source's identity (failure to make best effort to return misplaced property, such as returning the item to the bar in question where it was lost == stolen, and they knew that or should have consulted with their lawyer about it).
Apple could do them the courtesy of sending them a PFO letter, but that would be the limit I'd feel obliged to give them if I was Apple. Oh, and I might add an "Apply next year and we'll consider it."
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Sure they do. They even pay worse criminals and occasionally keep their identities secret from the authorities, preventing justice.
And Apple can then add libel to the Gizmodo editors' rap sheet, and seek injunctions to take down gizmodo.com, in addition to the criminal charges?
Steve introduces the iWall for the very wealthy who want a touch screen wall for their internet a movie viewing pleasure..
You know that's completely unfeasible, but that's the kind of stuff that a company known for "thinking different" should be known for.
At the moment they seem to be at "think the exact same, but lock it down and stick a shiny logo and a larger price tag on it".
Fox hasn't committed any felonies against the Obama Administration though.
Well to begin with this is a public event and Gizmodo was not denied the ability to buy a pass. Do you really think Apple should support an organization that knowingly stole from them and then laughed about it?
This stuff happens when you leave things like secret prototypes lying around Starbucks; it's not the news media's fault that they write about it. It is by way of being their job.
It's their fault they do not immediately return it or hand it over to authorities. Instead they chose to illegally dissect and did not return it. Their holding onto someone else's property for their own purposes is obviously criminal conversion, if they actually did that.
Losing press credentials should be the worst of their worries. After Apple is done with them, they will be lucky if Apple does not decide to pursue having gizmodo shut down over this.
And this is news why?
They'll be welcome again at another Apple shindig when Steve Jobs is dead and buried.
And, probably not then.
Steven
Are you some kind of fucking lawyer or something?
If not, shut the fuck up. You don't know whether or not it was stolen any more than anybody else.
Hell even if you are some kind of lawyer shut the fuck up.
So just shut the fuck up.
I am the JOBS !!! Don't FUCK WITH ME !! FUCK WITH ME AND I WILL CRACK LIKE THE TOOTHPICK I HAVE BECOME !!!!
In reply to (what the fuck is a gizmodo anyways):
Rafael Nadal Just Won the French Open Wearing This $525,000 Wristwatch
Congratulations to Rafael Nadal, whose dominance on Roland Garros clay was reaffirmed today following his French Open victory over Swede Robin Söderling. The victory is sweet, to be sure, but so was the bling he wore on his wrist.
I agree with the ban. However, I do hope Apple shows a sense of humour by bringing out that guy who lost the phone (Gray Powell? was that his name?) Have him come out and say a couple lines about losing something. Then Jobs can come in and say, hey, I think this is yours? Then a rimshot, chuckles and everyone can line up to blow Jobs.
Which is the single greatest token of respect they've shown for the office since it left Republican hands.
Gizmodo's publisher Gawker Media has a history of disrupting presentations according to the Wikipedia article about Gizmodo. They didn't have a spotless reputation to begin with. The iPhone prototype affair only confirmed what people were already thinking.
Not just dissect. According to the affidavit, they also broke it in their half-assed attempt to put it back together. It mentions ground shorts among the damage, so it's likely that they effectively destroyed critical parts the phone.
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously. Any civil suit will likely come after the criminal charges, which Apple has no part in.
Obviously, your definition of legit differs from mine. My definition excludes those who pay others to steal, misappropriate trade secrets and remove vowels from any comment on gizmodo that is critical of gizmodo.
cat
Wow, the old "Apple is for gay people" joke.
The 1980's called. They want their humour back.
But congratulations on being a homophobic bigot - your parents must be so proud.
Apple came up with the tiered data plan?
I mean, I'll agree with you that their partnership with AT&T is kind of idiotic, because AT&T sucks massive balls (though if they *had* to pick GSM or CDMA, I think GSM makes a lot more sense from a market perspective).
I don't see what Apple has to do with the tiered data plan though.
Google shows 643 news stories referencing Gizmodo. That's roughly half as many stories as those about the terror arrests at an NYC airport. And the Developer conf. hasn't even begun. This is how Apple gets even? Reminds of the mafia guys who shot a rival in the skull and left him in the trunk of a Caddy parked in Hunters Point. Said guy showed up at their trial with a band-aid on his head, testifying his ass off. But, as someone quite correctly said, "Fuck PR." This is a technical board, so somebody tell me how Gizmodo's servers have thus far avoided being slashdotted into scorched earth.
When I read the headline in the RSS feed, I didn't know what WWDC stood for, so I had to make up my own.
WWDC = "What Would Dingoes Chew?" A nascent Australian evangelical movement. They're a little confused.
And here's the link to that story. Gizmodo isn't even clever enough to pull it off the web.
Video
I kinda agree. I could understand if it were a prototype of a new form-factor(like if it were an iPad leaked a year ago), but it's only an iPhone. Everybody knows what they look like and what they do and the new features are hardly revolutionary.
The story is only interesting because of the legal brouhaha surrounding the acquisition of the prototype.
Any real journalist knows their defining characteristic is integrity. Everybody just wants to overlook that when it comes to Gizmodo though. Integrity means you don't go to a trade show and disrupt the demonstrations of companies that paid lots of money to be there. Integrity means you don't even offer, let alone actually pay for a stolen device. Failing that, integrity means you simply give the device back when asked for it, you don't try to use it as a bargaining chip. Integrity means you don't harm members of the public for no good reason.
Now, let's get into common sense. If journalists are to be the protectors and the propagators of truth, discernment and common sense are two of their most valuable tools. Common sense tells you that you don't attempt to acquire trade secrets of a company that has less than three months ago sent you a letter to cease and desist attempts to acquire said trade secrets. Common sense tells you that if you want greater access to a company, and someone offers to sell you something valuable belonging to said company, you buy it, then return it to said company without making a story about it. Common sense tells you if you do purchase a device that is likely to be stolen in California, pay no more than $799 for it, thereby avoiding any implicit acknowledgement that the device is worth enough to you, to constitute grand theft in the eyes of the law.
So who thinks these guys are journalists? People who don't care about what a journalist is supposed to be.
cat
But congratulations on being a homophobic bigot - your parents must be so proud.
Congrats on being a humorless prick - Phantom Limb must be so proud.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
You can blame him for a lot but what Gizmodo did was plain stupid and they deserve punishment for that, including removing any preferential treatment they were previously getting.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Why is /. wasting our time on this? It's not at all surprising.
Oh, yeah, yet another baseless opportunity to dump on Apple.
the legitimacy of almost any news organization out there these days is rather questionable, even really big ones like Faux...
The "news" outfit that's willing to pay for an iPhone prototype of murky origins is whining because they don't want to pay for a WWDC ticket?
Blog about it in a way that publishes faster than Apple can act.
Instant publicity either way.
Apple's disinvitation becomes worthless, and Gizmodo still gets the story.
Waiting for folks to irrationally modbomb in 3,2,1...
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did
Wtf are you talking about? Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS and all the other legitimate major news organizations pay for their stories. Remember when CNN paid for a photo of the guy who stopped the underwear bomber? Every "non-legitimate" news organization followed it for weeks complaining about double standards.
It is not clear at all that they (Apple's employee) left their prototype lying around, it is quite likely the prototype was initially stolen, not found. In any case it became stolen once the 'finder' tried to sell it. Engadget did their job as you describe it, Gizmodo did not. If Fox paid someone for stolen documents from the White House, you think it would be shrugged off as "doing their job"?
Apple either did not answer, or they told them they weren't welcome. If they had done the latter, I guess Gizmodo would have told us, so I guess Apple did not answer. That could have any reason, for instance the fact that Apple has already run out of room for any journalists, and does not have the time right now to reply to all requests.
IMO, publishing this as "Refused to answer" puts quite some spin on this. It may be true, but the link you point to does not give a iota of evidence for it. Worse, even the Gizmodo article this references just uses "has not responded to our requests".
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Problem is: that doesn't actually work.
Gizmodo might be in trouble since 60% of what they cover is Apple. Here is a funny fact though. Apple is only 10% of the market share for computers and 25% for mobile phones. Why the fuck do they get so much coverage? The majority of people don't fucking care. Find something worth while to cover.
Apple's the new Microsoft so you damn well should care.
What does this remind you of?
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/06/apples-html5-showcase-less-about-web-standards-more-about-apple/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+(Wired%3A+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No. we don't.
More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
Yes, we do know where it's coming from - the almighty Lord Jobs is pissy that someone found out about his closely guarded "secret" (really, is he dumb enough to think we don't know a new update to every iDevice is coming each year with minor improvements?). Jobs has proven time and again that he's an arrogant prick who wants to force everyone to do as he says. This is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum from a childish CEO who has a fixation on making sure everyone knows how powerful he is.
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Actually, they frequently do. Also, the iPhone was found not stolen. If I leave my phone at a bar and you take it, it's my own goddamn fault for being irresponsible and leaving it there.
And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
Ah, so you're one of those people who blindly follows the law as opposed to using your brain? Wake up and think a little, you'd be amazed at how many unjust laws exist to cause certain people to profit at others expense.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
No, a legitimate news organization just makes its stories up. Oh, I mean - reports stories that are 'insufficiently fact-checked'.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Heh, you make me laugh with your impotent rage.
This ain't rocket surgery.
"Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy."
AKA, "libertarianism". The autism of politics.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
No, a legitimate news organization just makes its stories up.
Wait, wait--you're saying that Fox is a legitimate news organization, then? Who knew...
This ain't rocket surgery.
As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).
Please tell me that you aren't really comparing the laws concerning a stolen cell phone with the Fugitive Slave Act. Please. Because I'd really prefer to believe that I'm dealing with the "rational person" who just claimed that rational people know the law is not the same as justice.
This ain't rocket surgery.
An unjust law is an unjust law. It doesn't matter if it's about slavery or if it's about creating a false "crime" simply because one person is irresponsible with their own property.
If a person, who you have no way of knowing who they are, leaves an object in a public place, then it is not a crime for you to take that item as long as you are willing to give it back to them if they ask for it and can reasonably prove that it is theirs. That is in no way comparable to theft, which is intentionally taking something from it's rightful owner.
Or do you try to claim that picking up a $5 bill from the sidewalk is "theft" too?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The fault is really Apple's. If I had a classified object or document and left it in a public place, there is no way I can accuse a random reader of violating the 'National Secrets Act'.
It seems to me that Apple is just deeply embarrassed about its own goof-up(s), and wants to blame and vent on someone....anyone, that it can. That said, they obviously have every right to refuse Gizmodo an invitation to their roadshow...it just seems pathetic to me.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
The 1980's called. They want their humour back
The 90's called. They want their joke back.
I'm loving all of the Gizmodo hate by all of you pencil-dicked, iPad toting, peterpuffing Apple lovers that think Apple is OMGSOFUCKINGCOOL since they released OS X. Yeah Gizmodo certainly isn't the pinnacle of journalism but for fuck's sake... Are you fucking kidding me? Especially all of you dickwads that still insist on saying that they stole that iPhone. The entire lot of you can go drown in a septic tank.
I wish Apple would just disappear. They've been guilty of pretentious douchebaggery since I had my C64 and they were claiming that the Apple 2 was better.
What makes you think that YOU have ANY right to touch it at all when it's not yours?
If you leave your car by the side of the road, is it OK for me to take it away and only give it back if you manage to find me and ask for it?
I haven't been this shocked since Woodward and Bernstein were taken off of President Nixon's Christmas card list.
The irony is lost on no one. On one hand, he apparently believes in personal responsibility and economic liberty, yet believes that Steve Jobs and Apple may not have the right to prosecute Gawker/Chan? Plus, my favorite part of the post was comparing Civil Rights legislation and our history with civil rights abuses as somehow analogous to Jason Chen and Gawker Media acquiring stolen property.
So, Apple hasn't the right to economic liberty?
How is it that Gawker/Chen are being personally responsible.
And Chris, I would partly consider my political philosophy to be small "l" libertarianism, so please spare the broad brush and avoid the rancor.
Cars have locks on them for a reason - to keep people from taking them. That's also why houses and bank deposit boxes have locks on them - to keep people from taking what's inside them. If you don't want someone to take your phone / book / any other possession, don't leave it sitting in a public place.
I've left things at restaurants or in a classroom when I was in college - sometimes I came back later and they were there (which is great), other times they weren't. Who did I blame when they were gone? Myself, because I was the one who left it there.
Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions and, more importantly, your mistakes. Don't try to make it a crime and ruin someone else's life because you messed up and left your phone laying in a cafe.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Yes we do. Plbbbbbt. Now I'm taking my iPad and going home.
Wait, so you're saying that the people who used rainbow-logo Macs are not gay?
*Head explodes*
Remember when some tool from Gizmodo went around CES turning off all the TVs and displays with a master IR remote? Legit news organization my ass. I wouldn't want them around my event either. They're the sort of immature douchebags that would set off a fire alarm in the middle of the presentation just so they could get some hits by posting about it.
... the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what.
Like Slashdot, you mean?
On one hand, he apparently believes in personal responsibility and economic liberty, yet believes that Steve Jobs and Apple may not have the right to prosecute Gawker/Chan?
Apple's behavior has nothing to do with their business or the future of their business and everything to do with Steve Jobs being childish and prone to severe anger issues. Trying to sue someone who finds a phone is bullshit - take it out on the idiot employee who lost the damn phone.
Jason Chen and Gawker Media acquiring stolen property
Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.
How is it that Gawker/Chen are being personally responsible.
How is it that they were being irresponsible? I've yet to see anything to show that they were in any way acting irresponsibly. If this had been a major news source (say the NY Times) who'd obtained this or if it was Apple somehow getting a MS prototype, they wouldn't be criticized in any way for this. The only reason that this guy is getting all this shit is because Apple is the "perfect" company and can't be criticized in any way.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Like Slashdot, you mean?
Well, yeah, but I was thinking more main stream No one who matters reads Slashdot.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Congrats on being a humorless prick - Phantom Limb must be so proud.
The only phantom limb around here is your penis.
They are increasingly taking the most evil policy choices they can. It's beyond good business.
And any in the Open Source community who keep backing them. Realize you are backing the most closed company in tech.
Paying for articles has a long history, much as cops and other law enforcement pay for confidential informants (either via "deals" to avoid prosecution or cash payments, or even protection) that in and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.. it was crossing over a line.
Much in the same way that paying someone an extreme amount of cash to lie to a judge is 'crossing the line' in terms of confidential informants, i mean lets face it the bulk of the gadget blogging world is being "paid" with favors and products to hopefully generate favorable reviews/press.. which is fine (buyer beware and all that jazz) That does not make it "ok" to buy stolen property, and attempt to extort or leverage your possession of that stolen property for a scoop.
If Giz had been a "real journalistic enterprise" such as a newspaper or tv news etc.. they would have met with the guy who had it.. taken as many pictures as possible and published the article without taking posession of the device, and then once that was done said "no we cannot reveal our sources, as we are a news organization".. and they would have been fully on the side of the light, and in fact could have gotten tons of mileage out of apple pressuring them for info, and perhaps even getting taken to court by apple to reveal those sources.
Instead they chose to take the low road in hopes of parlaying it into webhits and got burned. Given what we know about the case, it would not surprise me at all to find out that gizmodo never tried to get press credentials for WWDC but rather tried to play the wounded victim by implying that apple wouldn't let them in. (or waiting too long to ask so that they knew that there would be no more "room" making apples decision moot.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I thought Steve was the master of the authorities in that area of California.
Don't try to make it a crime? If you take something that doesn't belong to you then you have committed a crime. Full stop. If you purchase something knowing that it was probably stolen then you have also committed a crime, one we uncreatively call "receiving stolen property." Both of these apply in the Case of the Purloined Prototype.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your property, we aren't going to blame you for having inadequate security. That includes if "breaking in" means "walking in the front door that you left unlocked." We might think you're an idiot, but that doesn't shift the onus of the crime off the, er, criminals.
Elsewhere in the past on Slashdot, I've seen it argued that if you leave your house unlocked, and someone takes your things, it's you're own fault and your insurance company won't care.
It's somewhat like the difference between "joyriding" and "grand theft auto."
[How these oranges of statements and opinions apply to the Apples in this argument is left as an exercise for the reader.]
Kid-proof tablet..
--
As you wish! :D (anonymous because I have to)
The 90's called, they want their ""x" called, they want their "y" back" back.
(Enjoy the recursion.)
AKA, "libertarianism". The autism of politics.
I thank you for that, sir. It made me laugh out loud.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I will have to make sure and get my Apple news from Gizmodo in the future.
Paying for articles has a long history [...] and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.
While you're right that checkbook journalism does have a long history, it's none the less considered to be unethical by professional journalists, most of whom would say that paying for the iPhone story was indeed just as wrong as any other part of what Gizmodo did.
This ain't rocket surgery.
The 1990's called, the want their joke back. .. infinite loop?
While Gizmodo might be in the wrong i'm not so sure wtf to think about this. It seems like a screwed up thing to do to blame Gizmodo for Apple's mistake. Apple might have the right to ban Gizmodo, but I wouldn't blame Gizmodo for paying for a story. Even if you think they paid for the phone. Even though they said they paid for the phone. I firmly believe what they really were paying for was the story. If they had been prevented from writing about it then the phone would have been worthless to them. Proof that it was the story they were after and not the phone.
Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.
IANAL but these people are:
https://ssl.perfora.net/smartlegalforms.com/guide.asp?level=2&id=620
I found a wallet on a counter in a hardware store. Can I keep it?
No. The law requires you to give mislaid items to the person operating or employed by the hardware store. The wallet has been mislaid rather than lost, and the owner or operator of the premises is the rightful custodian until the wallet owner comes to claim it.
The "idiot employee" who lost it returned to the bar the next day and asked if anyone had reported finding a missing iPhone. The barkeeper said "no". Why? Because the guy who found it didn't tell anyone. Because the guy who took it home stole it instead of giving it to the bartender or at least notifying the bartender.
Hi! I think Apple could refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event.
And what do you think happens to things in the lost and found if no one claims them after a few days? Oh, that's right, the employees take them.
And
The wallet has been mislaid rather than lost
is the most bullshit excuse ever to try to blame someone when someone else is irresponsible with their property.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
If you take something that doesn't belong to you then you have committed a crime.
Taking from someone is entirely different from picking something up that is sitting there without an owner. If I leave a bottle of Coke on your door are you seriously going to claim it's theft if you drink it? Of course not. This is nothing but Apple fanboys who are pissed that the Lord Jobs isn't as good at keeping things secret as you want to believe he is.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your property, we aren't going to blame you for having inadequate security. That includes if "breaking in" means "walking in the front door that you left unlocked."
Actually the overwhelming majority of people WOULD blame you for being a moron and leaving the door unlocked. As another person stated, there's no guarantee that your insurance company will cover it if you leave the door unlocked. However, someone walking in to your house (even if the door is unlocked) isn't even close to picking up something that's left on a table or on the ground. You claiming that taking a phone left in a bar is theft is like the morons who try to claim downloading an mp3 is theft.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
And it's the trolls with mod-points like you who have taken slashdot from a place where intelligent people could have discussions to a site that's not much better than /b/.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
And what do you think happens to things in the lost and found if no one claims them after a few days? Oh, that's right, the employees take them.
So since employees after XXX days can legally take them, or if employees steal them before the legally mandated waiting period is up, it's ok for you or I to steal it? I'm sorry. I didn't realize "But officer if I didn't steal that unlocked car, someone else surely would have!" was a legally defensible position.
At the VERY LEAST the finder should have *notified* the bar owner that he had the phone and how to contact him.
As to "After a few days". In this case that's a moot point. The VERY NEXT DAY the owner of the iPhone returned to the bar and asked if anyone had found a mislaid iPhone. So unless the bartender stole the phone himself that very night the rightful owner, no matter how 'irresponsible' they were would have gotten their property back.
What's bullshit is saying that someone being forgetful means you can steal their property. I hope you set something down for a second turn around and it disappears. Should have kept it chained to your wrist!
Either way. Gizmodo purchased it knowing that either random guy at the bar or if it had been a employee that stole it... that it was stolen. So who stole it is irrelevant in this instance since Jason Chen purchased said stolen property.
I read the comment and I sense some crazy persons out here are almost ready to immolate the guy who reportedly "stole" the prototype in a bar.
Now just a little fictional tale I would like to share with you, it's kinda of a gamebook or a choose your own adventure book if you will.
You in a bar, with a friends drinking beers. You had a couple of pints and a couple of nerd arguments about [insert geeky topics] when all of a sudden you see the obnoxious guy with 2 chicks and 3 grammes of alcohol in each arm leaving the bar, forgetting something on the table. So you go over there to see and you SEE and Hold in your hand a prototype iPhone 4G.
Now tell me : what do you do ?
Shall you call upon the aforementioned drunk idiot to hand him over his prototype while both of you pray to steve ?
Or shall you keep it and intend to toy with it up until it is remotely locked ?
Quick think fast, the guy is moving away and it could get locked any time soon !
I hope at least some of you will think about it twice now before virtually sentencing the poor bastard to death.
Actually, it's trolls like you who are breaking Slashdot. Not that one person makes much difference. You're adding to the breakage because you're allowed to post more than people can down-mod you.
I mean, your post history is there for everyone to see, and it's not a pretty record - you obviously have morality and empathy issues.
It doesn't matter about the law here. It comes down to etiquette. Giz probably would have had a better deal for a scoop had they not torn it apart and posted the teardown online before they gave it back to Apple. You don't treat a company you want to be your friend that way. They should have known this was coming. Really they're just acting the victim because nothing since has brought them attention like this has.
I asked: "What makes you think that YOU have ANY right to touch it at all when it's not yours?" You give no answer. That's not unsurprising. I nearly didn't put the second question there it did cross my mind it would give you an opportunity to avoid the first.
You've noticed that people steal things. And you've noticed that in cases where things of value are planned to be left unattended they very often have locks on them. Given this is your only answer to my question about the car, one can conclude that it's perfectly OK if I take your car if you ever forget to lock it.
It's certainly a natural thing to blame yourself for being forgetful. But no one, even you, would not also place blame on the person that took your possessions as if they were his own. Surely you have the right to not have your property stolen from you?
Why, in your world, does the thief not also need to take responsibility for his actions?
It does have an owner. Unattended and ownerless in not the same thing. Well, not unless you have the morals of a thief.
The phone wasn't left on Hogan's door. He took it from a third party's premises. And the fact that you pick coke is just a matter of making the matter more petty. If you found a bottle of coke on your door, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a delivery, a gift, or deliberately discarded. And if it was none of those things, the value is so low that it'd be considered too petty to persue.
Again, the phone story doesn't match those circumstances in any way.
Which also doesn't match the circumstances in any way, not least because the act of copying a file doesn't deprive the original owner of that file.
Didn't take so long for you to give away the real reason for your support of the thief over the victim did it. The victim is someone/company you hate, therefore anything that hurts them is OK by you. And you'll twist your stated morality to accommodate. What a pathetic wretch of a human being you are.
My heart bleeds purple piss for them.
It's funny how Gizmodo are thrashing about looking for another dick to suck - since the whole stolen iPhone fiasco, their articles are noticeable more anti-Apple and more pro-Microsoft and pro-Google. It's funny/painful to watch.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
ehh I think alot of "professional journalists" pay for stories, the thing is this case crosses a line that most people calling themselves journalists would not cross...
/create the story by the fact that the items of value change hands OR incite illegal activity.
But buttering up a source with dinner, etc is not unethical or unheard of even among "professional journalists". IMO its all about scale.. oddly enough thats how the law on the subject falls as well.. (i speak specifically about enticing someone to commit a crime via offering rewards/incentives). Its ok to discuss wanting something that someone else has.. its another entirely to do so with a known catburglar and imply/state that if it happens to come into the cat-burglar's possession that you would be happy to buy it from him.
Paying for stories follows a similar set of unwritten rules.. offering octomom a million dollars for the rights to her story.. is not unethical or illegal or even frowned upon EVEN by "serious journalists" every "exclusive" you see anywhere had some sort of quid pro quo exchange or understanding happen.. This is not just TMZ or "the insider", but the grey lady, the washington post, LA times, the major news networks etc.. they all do it.. and its fine.. As long as it doesn't color
Putting this all on "tabloids" and the sort of "celebrity gossip" shows like TMZ etc as "not real journalists" is not fair, or even true (outside of idealistic journalism students still in college)
No, the issue is that I have morality as opposed to your view where you think that you should be all powerful and control everyone's actions. A for empathy? Empathy plays no part in right or wrong and has no place in a serious discussion. It is a means of conning people into making the wrong decisions because "you're a bad person if you don't cry at this sob story that has no facts to support why you should do this". Using sob stories is the means of a person who has no ground to stand on.
I also find it amusing that, because I'm not a socialist moron, you try to claim I'm a "troll". Who's the one here who's had excellent karma for years? Right, that would be me - obviously not a troll. You on the other hand have an older account than mine, yet you still don't even rank a "good" karma - meaning that you have few, if any, posts that people have found worthwhile. The fact that I've had enough indisputably good points to earn excellent karma while refusing to submit to the socialist / communist hive-mind that is slashdot speaks volumes for the points I've made.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Now that Apple is the worlds largest tech company they probably will need to cut down a lot of secrete stuff nonsense. We all know there will be an other iPhone model. Or a new laptop even a new iPod... I think their last surprise was the Intel switch, other then that it was just normal upgrades. Even if apple says we are going to release a new iPhone at WWDC that will have a faster CPU and give some tech specs... It probably wont hurt Apple in the least. Even if it means selling the older models at a discount. Because right now Apple fans are waiting for the next upgrade to get a new version anyways.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The phone wasn't stolen until he sold it.
That's been covered a thousand times before.
Maybe you should think about it twice before assuming people don't know what they're talking about.
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously.
I am guessing Apple might like to make an example of the gizmo folks, and may have asked or applied some of its influence to the DA
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings, it would not be surprising at all, if Apple chooses to lob a ton of litigation at them, assuming they deem the expense worth it.
I assume the liability incurred by stealing a company's prototype, publishing trade secret information about it (illegally obtained trade secrets), and thereby seriously damaging the market for their existing product, resulting in tens or hundreds of millions in lost profits, may be huge.
For some reason I think Gizmo would have a hard time paying a $20 or $30 million judgement in Apple's favor
Many journalists were NOT invited.
Even Leo Laporte was not invitet.
it's only a gizmodo attempt at another "ME ME LOOK AT ME!!!!"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Really? Can I buy that yet?
Remember, the world is full of scumbags that think a lost item is free for them to steal.
I'm not surprised by the guys response, it's a typical human scum-baggy though pattern.
My wife did a experiment for her Phyc classes in college...
They left wallets that looked real with a few dollars in cash and some fake ID info faked Credit cards and photos in public places and watched people. near 75% would open the wallet and take the cash from inside and put the wallet back or throw it on the floor. Less than 20% would take the wallet to the lost and found. the rest stole the wallets outright.
She lost a lot of respect for humanity with that project.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What about the daily Apple stories that go to other categories (Mobile, etc)?
Ever watch FoxNews?
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
California law is pretty straightforward about the fact that they don't play by "finders keepers, losers weepers" on the West Coast. Specifically, if you find someone's property, you're supposed to return it to them or turn it over to the police[1], you can't just do whatever you want with it. At the point at which the finder decided to sell it to the highest bidder, it becomes theft.
[1] - While not technically legit, nobody's gonna bust your chops if you just hand it over to the bartender or hostess and have the business hang onto it instead.
Nobody mailed the wallets back to their supposed owners or tried to contact them via the info on the fake ID?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It's odd how they are banned from the event despite the fact that gizmodo is such an apple-lover-hugger. They should reconsider the god they pray to.
You're an idiot. Gizmodo paid for a stolen phone. Not just that, but a prototype phone full of trade secrets. They dismantled the phone, breaking it in the process. They then attempted to extort Apple before giving the phone back. These are all facts of public record, even fully admitted to by Gizmodo on their website.
And Apple can then add libel to the Gizmodo editors' rap sheet, and seek injunctions to take down gizmodo.com, in addition to the criminal charges?
The average person has to believe it could be true to be libel. Just ask Jerry Falwell.
Seriously, does anyone believe that a naked Steve Jobs coming out at WWDC as some promo for the iWall is in some way credible?
Steve Ballmer, on the other hand... ...nah, that's over the top even for him.
Apple really is a joke this days.
But, we will look the other way because they brought us the iPad.
I thought it isn't libel if it's hilarious.
Then my work here is done!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
The 90's called, they want their "'x' called, they want their 'y' back" back.
(Enjoy the recursion.)
The recursion is broken. You didn't properly nest the quotes. :p
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
If a major news source, like the NY Times (you know, a place where they actually care about journalistic integrity), the reporter who found it would have had to turn it in to Legal, who then would have turned it back over to Apple.
Its not like they denied credentials to the NYTimes.... there will be plenty of coverage of this event in the MSM, and I'm pretty sure Gawker/Gizmodo realized that it would be burning a very large bridge as the went ahead with the iphone story. The checkbook journalism is another strike against them, and doubly so for buying stolen property.
In general, Gizmodo has lost a lot of face, and they pretty much deserve it. This is going to be a good lesson to the up and coming journalism students/ soon-to-be-homeless
*sniff* I don't matter
This is the sig that says NI (again)
*sniff* I don't matter
There, there, don't feel so bad. I don't matter either--and I'm the one who posted the comment in the first place.
This ain't rocket surgery.
*dries tears* Thanks man, that makes me feel a lot better ;)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Hey, you're welcome. I'll buy you a beer next time you're in town.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Drinking a nice Belgian beer here right now called La Chouffe, really good herb beer :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Sounds good to me.
You know, fifteen years ago I would have been embarrassed to offer someone from the Netherlands an American beer. Not any more. There are some outstanding beers brewed here now and my town, San Diego, hosts a number of very good craft breweries. Seriously, if you ever find yourself here, I will buy you a beer.
This ain't rocket surgery.
You know what, if I ever visit San Diego (or the USA for that matter) and I remember this, I will let you buy me a beer and I will bring this beer I just finished :)
(new bottles of course)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Deal. Best time to come in during the winter. The weather is great and all the people from Arizona who come here to escape the summer heat have gone home.
This ain't rocket surgery.
It doesn't sound that farfetched to me...
If Slashdot posted it, along with a video of it, i'd probably believe it.
Now, if Gizmodo posted it, along with a video of it, I (1) would probably never see it, and (2) would doubt it, if I heard about it being a Gimodo posting.
But that's not because it's not a believable concept, it's just that I would only believe it from a news source I consider trustworthy.
The average person may consider Gizmodo trustworthy (not knowing about past fiascos)
I hate Steve Jobs and Apple as much as the next rational human being, but I think you'll find that if you left your phone in a bar and I walked off with it, it would count as theft if I kept it.
"Finders keepers" is not how the law works, at least in the UK, and I would assume in the US too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So if you happen to leave your car unlocked one day while you pop into a shop to buy a newspaper, and I steal your car, that's OK?
If you ;eave your back door on the latch while you mow the lawn, it's OK for me to sneak into your house and steal your TV?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
But it would be priceless to see Steve Jobs' face if they did it in the middle of his presentation.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I've got a modest proposal :
All Apple product release posts should focus primarily upon the latest tween toy trends like silly bandz.
For example, vajazzling discussion would have been the perfect accompaniment to the iPad release article here on slashdot.
I've observe this merger of topics keep discussions organized and focussed upon what matters most, and encourage slashdot users to submit and discuss accordingly.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Under California law, if you come into the possession of lost or stolen property, you have a legal duty to make reasonable efforts to return that property. If the phone was not stolen when it came into Brian Hogan's possession, then it became stolen when he refused to meet his obligations under the law, and attempted to sell it. Even if Brian Hogan had not succeeded in selling the phone, it would have still been stolen, as it was not his property to advertise for sale.