3 ms·

What reason did gizmodo have to release the identity of the engineer that lost the phone? To "prove" that their story was more real? Did they even consider what

What reason did gizmodo have to release the identity of the engineer that lost the phone? To "prove" that their story was more real? Did they even consider what's going to happen to that guy? Every gawker website feels like it is just barely a half step above a tabloid, and in some cases, less than that (cf, Valleywag). Behaving this petulantly is not a very good way to discourage the popular perception of bloggers, it only solidifies it.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Apple knew whose phone it was, this story doesn't harm him there at all. It may even help prevent him from being fired or retaliated against, now that his name is public. It could help or hurt with future employers, but I'd guess on balance it helps. Probably won't be trusted with prototypes again, but that was going to be the case either way. Not to defend gizmodo, they seem pretty borderline in the whole thing.
- staunch 17y ago
  Just because they added a few sympathetic lines to their post doesn't mean they actually give a shit about what happens to the guy. They had no altruistic motivations in releasing his name. They did it for page views (i.e. money).
- BigZaphod 17y ago
  I don't see how this helps keep him from getting fired at all. Apple knew it was missing. They knew who lost it. They knew all this at least a week ago since Gizmodo claimed to have had it that long. If they were going to fire him, they already would have. (Maybe they already did?)
- ugh 17y ago
  I don’t think journalists should drag someone into the public unless it is absolutely necessary.
cmelbye 17y ago
Gizmodo isn't the reason that the owner of the phone will be caught. First of all, he lost it, so it's originally his fault. Second of all, it was remotely wiped, which implies that Apple knew what had happened to the device and they knew exactly which device it was so that they could wipe it. Third of all, there were clear shots of the backside of the phone which had several serial numbers, most likely linking it to its owner for Apple's purposes.
- cwilson 17y ago
  Came here to say this. If Gizmodo truly burned this guy then yes, they are way out of line, but in this case it seems pretty obvious to me that Apple knew who lost their phone a week ago when this all started. The proof is in the first paragraph of almost every article on every site covering this story. The phone was remote wiped the next morning. You can all put down your pitchforks now. Let's wait and see what actually happens before nailing someone to a cross.
jseifer 17y ago
It would appear they did this in order to get Apple to send them a formal letter getting them to admit the phone was Apple's. And for pageviews.
flyosity 17y ago
Gizmodo could have written nearly the same exact article without mentioning his name and without showing his photo. It would have gotten nearly the same amount of pageviews. It was very, very cruel of them to do such a thing when they gained so little by doing so.

waterlesscloud 17y ago

Apple knew whose phone it was, this story doesn't harm him there at all. It may even help prevent him from being fired or retaliated against, now that his name is public. It could help or hurt with future employers, but I'd guess on balance it helps. Probably won't be trusted with prototypes again, but that was going to be the case either way. Not to defend gizmodo, they seem pretty borderline in the whole thing.

staunch 17y ago
Just because they added a few sympathetic lines to their post doesn't mean they actually give a shit about what happens to the guy. They had no altruistic motivations in releasing his name. They did it for page views (i.e. money).
BigZaphod 17y ago
I don't see how this helps keep him from getting fired at all. Apple knew it was missing. They knew who lost it. They knew all this at least a week ago since Gizmodo claimed to have had it that long. If they were going to fire him, they already would have. (Maybe they already did?)
ugh 17y ago
I don’t think journalists should drag someone into the public unless it is absolutely necessary.

cmelbye 17y ago

Gizmodo isn't the reason that the owner of the phone will be caught. First of all, he lost it, so it's originally his fault. Second of all, it was remotely wiped, which implies that Apple knew what had happened to the device and they knew exactly which device it was so that they could wipe it. Third of all, there were clear shots of the backside of the phone which had several serial numbers, most likely linking it to its owner for Apple's purposes.

cwilson 17y ago
Came here to say this. If Gizmodo truly burned this guy then yes, they are way out of line, but in this case it seems pretty obvious to me that Apple knew who lost their phone a week ago when this all started. The proof is in the first paragraph of almost every article on every site covering this story. The phone was remote wiped the next morning. You can all put down your pitchforks now. Let's wait and see what actually happens before nailing someone to a cross.

jseifer 17y ago

It would appear they did this in order to get Apple to send them a formal letter getting them to admit the phone was Apple's. And for pageviews.

flyosity 17y ago

Gizmodo could have written nearly the same exact article without mentioning his name and without showing his photo. It would have gotten nearly the same amount of pageviews. It was very, very cruel of them to do such a thing when they gained so little by doing so.