13 ms·
Gizmodo and the Prototype iPhone
- anderzole 17y agoGizmodo knows Apple won't sue because it would be a public relations nightmare.
- Hagelin 17y agoConsidering their recent press coverage, I don't see why that would stop them. They probably wouldn't want it to interfere with the press coverage of the new phone launch, but after that is over I think they would be willing to take some bad press in order to make sure that there are repercussions to doing something like this.
- veemjeem 17y agoThe other possibility is that Gizmodo & Gawker would never receive invitations to future Apple product unveilings/announcements. I'm sure they got a decent bit of traffic during the iPhone OS 4.0 live blogging feed. Jobs likes to hold grudges and if you get on his bad side, you'll probably be blacklisted for a few years at least.
- Hagelin 17y agoI don't think it's going to happen, but if they wanted to hurt Gizmodo without going to court they could add Engadget to the short list of media outlets that get early review units.
- edd 17y agoI bet this will happen. Apple are known for alienating companies that go against the wall of silence. There are more than enough people who 'live blog' every Apple announcement. Cutting them out will make a point and not harm Apple.
- houseabsolute 17y agoFor this situation, I would hold a grudge too.
- raganwald 17y agoRemind me: Was it a PR nightmare when they sued various rumours sites for offering a bounty to anyone who would break their confidentiality agreements?
- jrockway 17y agoApple is one big PR nightmare. That company is so evil I wouldn't touch one of their products except to stick a defectivebydesign.org sticker on one. That said, did Apple even win these lawsuits, or were they just a baseless threat?
- raganwald 17y agoThe ones I recall were not baseless. The problem wasn't publishing trade secrets, it was offering a bounty for trade secrets. So... If an employee wants to spill the beans, that's fine. But bribing an employee to spill the beans is not fine. I think that's relevant to the flap about the iPhone given that Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the phone, giving the so-called finder of the phone a tremendous incentive to turn it over to them instead of returning it as seems to be their obligation under California law.
- jrockway 17y agoSure, they violated the law. Now what? (People ignore the law all the time. They eat plants that are illegal to eat. They cross the street against the light. They steal their work contacts for their next job. They post the internal documents about their employer's plan to kill small children to wikileaks. Selling a phone you found in a bar doesn't seem like much of a risk in this context -- best case, you get $10,000 and to stick it to Apple. Worst case, you get $10,000 and 20 hours of community service. If Gizmodo gets in legal trouble, the solution is simple -- next time, we'll just see this story in a non-US media outlet. People want interesting reading more than they want to follow the law.)
- raganwald 17y agoA guy breaking the law is one thing. Maybe he found it and did what he could then was tempted by money, Maybe he actually stole it from the engineer and then did the very the least he possibly could to try to cover his ass before selling it. Draw your own conclusions about his motives and what outcome is appropriate for him. But we have an entirely different situation with Gizmodo, and they may face an entirely different outcome. The possibility that crime will get outsourced because you enforce your laws should be irrelevant. You do what you can to enforce your laws in your jurisdiction. Here in Canada we happily arrest Canadian citizens who travel overseas to abuse under-aged sex workers.
- potatolicious 17y agoI don't know about you, but just about everyone I know who knows about this deeply dislikes Gizmodo right now. I would be happy if Apple sued Giz, and if criminal charges were brought - and I won't be the only one by a long shot.
- pavs 17y agoWhy is he personally offended by this? I can understand if someone (including me) not really agreeing the way Gizmodo handled this situation, but are you offended by this?
- raganwald 17y agoI just read about three bisexual men who were disqualified from playing in the Gay Softball World Series because they were not deemed to be "Gay enough." I was offended. Sometimes people are offended by what they perceive as injustice or impropriety even when it doesn't directly appear to harm them. You may not be such a person, but I am not surprised they exist. I'm astounded that they outed the engineer who they claim "lost" the phone. They appear to have taken the word of a law-breaker with a $5,000 incentive to lie that the phone was lost and not stolen, and on that basis they publicly humiliate the engineer. They are either exceedingly cruel or this is an act of misdirection intended to bolster their "defense" that the phone was actually lost and that neither the person who approached them or themselves were able to return the phone promptly. A very nasty bit of business indeed.
- po 17y agoNot gay enough? Hell, the olympics have a hard time even telling if people are woman enough: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/OlympicGenderTesting.html http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/OlympicGenderTesti... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008...
- po 17y agooffend |əˈfend| verb 1 [ trans. ] (often be offended) cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful • be displeasing to
- po 17y agoI should add that I thought it was a strange way of stating how he felt too. That response is probably due to the popular usage of offend to mean more than just upset/resentful. Gruber is the type of guy who is more likely to go by the dictionary definition than popular usage.
- punchfire 17y agoi agree that gizmodo shouldn't have published the guy's name at all. though how it was reported etc is hardly surprising. this is exactly how journalism works. people are all hotheaded in this situation because it's an apple product that's been unveiled. i doubt gruber would be "offended" by a similar case for any other company's gadget.
- iambvk 17y agoConsidering the fact that, a guy did suicide recently for the nature of Apple's secrecy, i think publishing his name is actually a better step by Gizmodo. We really don't know what would have Apple security team done to this guy if this issue didn't become to public eye, don't you think?
- bad_user 17y ago> this is exactly how journalism works No, this is "industrial espionage" through illegal methods, and it's only OK-ish to do if it serves some public good (justice). And no, this is not journalism, unless by that you mean intentionally breaking the law for your own profit. I really hope the person that stole that phone and Gizmodo are prosecuted for theft. Because of dicks like these we ended up with the current patent system.
- punchfire 17y agoall i think is that everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill in this situation. this is blown way out of proportion.
- ynniv 17y agoExcept reactions to Gizmodo publishing the name and photo of an innocent employee, who they then proceed to mock. The only rationale for doing so is to deflect some of the heat that they were getting in classic dick fashion. "Dude! We screwed up, but... look at this guy! Man he likes BEER!" Thats professionalism right there.
- 17y ago
- iambvk 17y agoI don't understand why everybody is trying to quote the law and take strict meaning of it to prove Gizmodo did wrong. All are ignoring the fact that Gizmodo brought it to light, which everybody is really interested to know anyway! As per the strict letter of law, many of our day to day activities would be wrong too! Considering that there were no deaths or loss of money, and Gizmodo is willing to return it back to Apple, I would give Gizmodo a clear pass!
- davidmurphy 17y agoLogged in to say this: If many of your daily goings on would be wrong in the strickest sense, IMHO you're doing it wrong. Ethics matter. Rule of law matters. No, I'm sure not perfect myself. But we all should try our best and correct/learn from our mistakes and try to achieve the high road.
- iambvk 17y agoEthics matter, i agree. Rule of law matters? I am really not sure, it needs to be considered case by case: Things change over time, new laws come in that make old things illegal. Do i have to accept them blindly or not is a personal decision. Coming to the point, you did not mention what part of Gizmodo story you think is ethically wrong. Ethics matter, rule of law matters, try our best, learn from mistakes, etc. are kinda universal truths, everybody knows. Say something concrete to the point!
- MartinCron 17y agoRegardless of rule of law. What Gizmodo/Gawker did looks very unethical, at least to me. To hand-wave and say "people break laws all the time" and "the story was interesting, so it's worth it" are both ex-post-facto rationalizations for something that is, at best, pretty sleazy.
- houseabsolute 17y agoGood thing you're not the DA. This is not just the letter of the law that was broken. It's the spirit too, and ethics besides. This law is a good law, and its enforcement is good too. The laws we break unknowingly day to day are typically misdemeanor-level offenses that are good only under certain conditions (usually, but not always, the ones under which they are applied).
- mtibbals123 17y agoI'm Matthew Win Tibbals, pedophile. http://www.matthewtibbals.com http://www.matthewtibbals.com
- waffenklang 17y agosometimes and sometimes a bit more often there is a thought coming up my mind and (attention ironic) I dont know why, but always apple got to do with it: what if...? ... never heard of viral marketing?
- mtibbals1234 17y agoI'm Matthew Win Tibbals, pedophile. http://www.matthewtibbals.com http://www.matthewtibbals.com
- mtibbals543 17y agoI'm Matthew Win Tibbals, pedophile. http://www.matthewtibbals.com http://www.matthewtibbals.com
- InclinedPlane 17y agoGizmodo's actions were equivalent to a tabloid posting topless photos of a "hot" celebrity they obtained via some sleezy paparazzi hiding in the bushes with a telephoto lens. For people who are too obsessed with the idea of celebrity to gauge the morality of their actions, or even the health of and nature of their relationship to those celebrities, this sort of thing can be exciting and can certainly cause a spike in readership. But simultaneously it represents the self-destruction and denigration of gizmodo's brand. Personally I'm not a fan of the slightly-warmed-over-PR-release and tabloidesque tech journalism that is so common these days. I'd rather have honest personal reviews and hard-hitting technical critiques than gadget porn, gossip, and rumor mongering.
- fab13n 17y ago> equivalent to [...] photos of a "hot" celebrity they obtained via some sleezy paparazzi hiding in the bushes Not hiding in the bushes: detaining the photographed subject illegally for weeks. It would have been equivalent if pictures had been taken while the Apple engineer was playing with the phone, thinking he was alone.
- betageek 17y agoMy problem with this post is that Gruber acts like he isn't involved in this whole circus - he's just as much to blame as Gizmodo. I'd suggest one of the main reasons that Gizmodo published the guys name is that Gruber implied immediately that they stole the prototype (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/19/gizmodo-rumors http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/19/gizmodo-rumors) without giving any evidence - not really the act of a 'ethical' journalist. It's fine to decide that you think it's theft if you go by the letter of the law (AFAIK Gruber isn't a lawyer, so it's just an uneducated opinion) but to stoke the flames and then be 'offended' is pure hypocrisy.
- allwein 17y agoYou're being disingenuous. Gruber didn't imply that they stole the prototype. He reported from his contacts at Apple that Apple considered the phone stolen rather than lost. Also, just because Gruber isn't a lawyer doesn't make his opinion uneducated.
- betageek 17y agoHow is that not implying it was stolen??? I thought a legal education was a pretty lengthy process - I stand corrected.
- Hagelin 17y agoSo is a degree in journalism, and yet here we are.
- stcredzero 17y agoI ended up teaching lots of journalism majors Comp Sci 101/102 when I was in grad school. They took my course in droves because they thought it was the easiest way to get through the math requirement, which tells me that a lot of those students hadn't yet acquired a fact-checking habit! Given what I saw, I should not be surprised that there is a lot of bad science journalism out there.
- sunchild 17y agoAny suggestions of ethical gadget bloggers would be appreciated. I don't give Gizmodo pageviews because of this incident. I don't give Engadget pageviews because it feeds Calacanis' troll ego.
- jonknee 17y agoI wonder what he feels about Wikileaks?
- Estragon 17y agoThis was primarily a legal analysis. What laws are wikileaks breaking?
- jonknee 17y agoClassified US military documents and videos are a whole lot more secret and illegal to publish than an iPhone prototype (and have a lot bigger consequences--there won't be any retaliation suicide bombings from HTC). I think it's illogical to call for Gizmodo to be prosecuted without also saying the same for Wikileaks.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoI'm a bit confused by this. Gizmodo's behaviour seems skanky, but only different by degree from Gruber, in this very post, confirming that the recent photos were of a late stage prototype, or in recent posts confirming tech specs. People are throwing terms like "industrial espionage" around. Why is publishing such details of unreleased products from internal sources, as Gruber seems to take great delight in doing, not the same thing. If one of his moles gets fed tagged information and the release gets traced back to him, resulting in a firing are we supposed to all gang up on Gruber too?
- ugh 17y agoI don’t know where you get the impression that Gruber thinks this is industrial espionage.
- ab9 17y agoI think the distinction, from Gruber's point of view, is simply that Gruber is not violating any laws or contracts, while Gawker is. Presumably, Gruber has never stolen any of Apple's property and is not under any contractual obligation to keep silent about Apple. His sources, on the other hand, are probably violating NDAs when they talk to him. Perhaps under your system of morality, Gruber is at fault here: if he receives information from someone who he knows is violating an NDA, then he should immediately cover his ears, avoid publishing what he learned, and report the person to Apple's legal department. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's the position of US and California law. Under them, Gruber's sources are being naughty, while Gruber himself is not.
- bbb 17y agoI do not perceive a double standard here. Gruber: I’m not offended by their decision to obtain this unit and publish everything they were able to ascertain regarding it. [...] Second, publishing the name, photographs, and personal information of the Apple engineer who lost the phone is irrelevant to the story. It was the dick move to end all dick moves. It seems to me that he made it pretty clear that he does not take offense with reporting about the prototype per se. Rather, he condemns the way that Gizmodo chose to handle the whole affair.
- 17y ago
- c00p3r 17y agoSuch publicity is good for AAPL, even if that was an accident. =)
- Hagelin 17y agoAccording to Gizmodo the phone was lost March 18. On March 29 Gruber publishes a short comment that casually includes some of the specs (A4-family CPU, 960x640 display, front-facing camera). Kinda makes me wonder if there was an authorized leak of the hardware specs in order to steal some thunder from any upcoming stories. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/29/wsj http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/29/wsj
- jrockway 17y agoOr the specs were just obvious. Apple already released a next-gen device running iPhoneOS with the A4 processor. And their competitors are all hyping massive-res screens and front-facing cameras. Apple would be insane not to do exactly what Gruber predicted.
- necubi 17y agoGruber gave the exact screen resolution, which was far from obvious (as, to my knowledge, no other phone has been released with that resolution).
- jonknee 17y agoHe gave the exact rumored screen resolution, Gizmodo was never able to verify it other than it appeared higher res.
- ajg1977 17y agoGiven that it was a fairly safe bet the new phone would have a higher-res, 960x640 was a fairly obvious candidate for the resolution. Anything else would have made resulted in a noticeable drop in quality when running existing apps. Because 960x640 is exactly 2x the existing iPhone resolution in each dimension existing apps and their artwork can be doubled. Since the screen is approx the same size (unlike the iPad) this results in an image that's entirely indistinguishable from previous models, and may even be better if things like font and path rendering are "aware" of the higher res. If they had chosen any other resolution then existing apps would need filtering when rendered fullscreen which in many cases would almost certainly resulted in a worse, or at least oddly different, look than the original. I'm sure Apple would have preferred not to go with 960x640 for cost reasons, but they couldn't very well release a phone where 160,000 apps look worse than when running on the previous model.
- jrockway 17y agoOh goody, a legal analysis by a non-lawyer. Great reading...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- kraemate 17y agoI dont understand why people are blaming gizmodo and siding with the guy who lost his phone. He works for a corporation notorious for secrecy and 'leaking' product info through such underhand means for generating hype. Employees of 3-letter Govt. agencies know the risk when signing up, that their life may be in danger because they know stuff which is worth killing. Well, same with apple i guess. They have lowered(raised?) the bar on this whole secrecy nonsense that punishing them by publicly disclosing and humiliating their secret-bearing employees is the only way out. Let's keep in mind that it is apple which has cultivated this ring of secrecy, and now their employee is whining because gizmodo does what apple exactly expects them to?
- aero142 17y agoI'm slightly torn about this. This does appear to be theft, however, but Gruber also seems to imply that Apple is a bit of a victim. This reminds me of the relationship between celebrities and the paparazzi. Celebrities hate the downside when they are stalked trying to live their normal lives, but need all of the attention to continue making the ridiculous amounts of money they do. Similarly, Apple lives by creating the obscene levels of hype around their product launches. I can't help but think Apple has created this environment where people would freak out about a prototype leak and do anything to get early details about it.
- jsean 17y agoThis whole episode is probably staged and directed by Apple. Great way to call attention to an upcoming release. Oh and also to get people like me, who otherwise never would've read an iPhone spec/review, to actually read an iPhone spec/review. You got me there Apple! Well played.
- MartinCron 17y agoBecause Apple has a really hard time getting attention for upcoming releases, right? If only they could generate buzz and media coverage in some other way, they wouldn't have to resort to these transparent and desperate gimmicks.