I'm getting really angry with people about this whole thing: It's called a free press people. While they skirted the law, I doubt any DA would touch this affair

I'm getting really angry with people about this whole thing: It's called a free press people. While they skirted the law, I doubt any DA would touch this affair (prosecuting the press when no one is physically harmed is a generally losing proposition; ditto for the sources of the press when they're not government employees). If Apple doesn't release the phone due to the leak itself, they're silly. And you don't become one of the biggest companies in the world via silliness. I don't hate or love Apple. I'm a realist. Guess what: Apple is made up of realists too! They're going to release the phone still Sure, some of you actually have talked yourself into liking the ultra-secret nature of Apple's product cycle. Good for you. A huge other portion of reality hates it. It makes that group of people make poor buying decisions (such as people who don't realize you never ever give Apple items for Christmas, because they're likely going to be superseded by the next thing in a release in a month). Even if everyone DID like the secrecy and theater: Guess what, Gawker is a for-profit company, just like Apple. They do things for money, just like Apple (section 3.3.1 people? Is your memory that short?). Gizmodo was presented with a prototype. They'd be remiss to not run with it, after finding out it wasn't stolen (in the common understanding of the word, not the quibbling "but by California code 2309482 it is stolen" sort of manner). Gizmodo is a company that makes money by selling the eyeballs of people looking at interesting information. This is exactly what they SHOULD do when presented with this. Apple took a business risk in field testing phones. Guess what, sometimes the bad thing happens. That's why they call it risk. In this case: the bad thing did happen. Honestly, the fact people were still talking about 3.3.1 even after the iAd and other 4.0 items being unveiled makes me wonder if this was an intentional leak to regain the control of the news cycle for Apple. And as to the guy who got outed: Honestly, I think Giz was doing two legitimate things (but likely hurting a random person in the process). 1> They were establishing the authenticity of the phone. By pointing out 'hey, it is from someone at Apple' they dispelled the rumors of this being a faked up phone. 2> They were revealing how they came to get it, dissuading the police and Apple from finding out through legal discovery processes. Apple could have argued industrial espionage if more details weren't out there, but by publishing it all, Gizmodo likely pulled the legs out of any legal proceeding. Do I think the self serving saving their own ass was a good thing? Not the nicest thing, but I think it was a realistic business decision which was good for the business, just like 3.3.1 was for Apple, and just like publishing this whole story in the first place was for Gizmodo.