7 ms·
Gizmodo Banned from WWDC
- pope52 16y ago"Banned" is a strong word. "Not invited" might be more appropriate.
- masklinn 16y agoYep, as far as I see they could have bought tickets. It's not like that kind of "feedback" is unexpected after what they pulled.
- kgermino 16y agoWhy do you have an issue with saying banned? It's not like they were forgotton, or passed over due to space constraints, they were specifically not allowed to attend even after thy requested a pass because of the iPhone leak. That sounds like banned to me.
- pohl 16y agoTheir request for a press pass was not answered. We'll never know whether they could have gotten in like everybody else.
- cwp 16y agoExcept it's not true that they were "specifically not allowed to attend." In fact, they were specifically not given the special privileges offered to other journalists.
- kgermino 16y agoGood Point. My mistake.
- Anechoic 16y agoThis - Gizmodo wasn't banned, they just weren't given press credentials. They could have bought a ticket just like everyone else (well, at least be fore it was sold out) if they wanted to make sure they could have someone there.
- BonoboBoner 16y agoI guess this is why Apple PR has been'cold lately'
- pohl 16y agoThis article reads way too much into the Jobs quote from D8. He could have been using the word "stolen" according to the oft-mentioned California law about the responsibilities of the finder of lost property.
- techiferous 16y ago"featuring the blogger walking through the CES floor using a TV-B-Gone kind of device to shut off television displays throughout the convention." Wow, that's low. Really low. Gizmodo definitely shows its true colors: make money/traffic at any cost, even if it means sabotaging the hard work of others. (They were cutting off TVs during people's presentations.)
- wallflower 16y agoI met the Tv-b-gone inventor, Mitch, and he said he sold $20,000 more product as a direct result of that incident. He said he did't like what they did with the Tv-b-gone at CES.
- aw3c2 16y agoOf course he said that. Still I am certain he enjoyed selling that much as a direct result.
- andreyf 16y agoTech is not a zero-sum-game. Creating wealth while destroying other's hard work is not very nice, especially in tech industry, where opportunities at simply creating without destroying are so readily available.
- gcheong 16y agoOff-topic, but apparently he also runs a Circuit Hacking Monday group at the Noisebridge hackerspace in San Francisco: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Circuit_Hacking_Mondays https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Circuit_Hacking_Mondays
- slowpoison 16y agoSteve Jobs may be acting like a 5-year old here, but the thing I like about him is at least he's direct. It's the two-faced liars that I really despise.
- bonzoesc 16y agoHe actually might be following advice from company lawyers; when somebody is being investigated for a criminal case against you for theft and extortion, you tend to not do business with them.
- tvon 16y agoI really don't see how not inviting Gizmodo to WWDC equates to acting like a 5 year old.
- joezydeco 16y agoGreat tweet I found from Cabel Sasser (via @davehayden) "Gizmodo not invited to the WWDC keynote, and wants liveblogging help? What, they can't just "find" a WWDC badge in a bar?"
- andreyf 16y agoDear Jason Chen, I was just hanging out at this bar in San Francisco and found these WWDC press passes someone left behind... Cheers, Andrey
- verisimilitude 16y agoLet's give Cabel Sasser of Panic Software credit for that joke: http://twitter.com/cabel/status/15436511209 http://twitter.com/cabel/status/15436511209
- jamesbressi 16y agoI don't know if I would call a "master" a 3rd party in the legal system. They are part of the court and used--for the most part--to either mediate in hopes a case doesn't have to go to the judge or examine something that would take up too more of the court and judges time. If you be been through a custody/support case, you probably know "masters" all too well. I'm sure PC Mag meant a third party within the judicial system, but some may be scratching their heads as to why thar happened. Disclaimer: I may not be 100% accurate as I a, not a lawyer and only going on what I know or experienced firt-hand
- halostatue 16y agoCNET has a decent article on this. The special master is an unpaid agent of the court (usually a retired judge or law professor) who are not related to the case at hand. In this case, the special master will examine Chen's possessions for evidence related to the stolen iPhone and forward only that information to the presiding judge. Chen gets an opportunity to object to the gathered materials. Only whe that is done will the judge decide what the DA gets to have for his or her case. (paraphrased from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20006876-37.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20006876-37.html)
- jacobian 16y agoGizmodo doesn't get to have it both ways. If they want the perqs afforded to journalists - things like press passes - they need to follow the established ethics of that profession. If they want to be outsiders and invent their own ethics, they need to be willing to forgo the perqs.
- briansmith 16y ago> the established ethics of that profession a.k.a. access journalism.
- younata 16y agobut not known as "theft".
- gojomo 16y agoThe established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of. It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate in a domain where they have control -- their own conferences. But it's not like Apple is defending the honor of all 'journalists' with this move.
- pkulak 16y agoApple isn't banning them because they didn't suck up. In fact, they seemed to speak very highly of the stolen phone they illegally bought!
- masklinn 16y ago> The established ethic of "cover people artificially warmly so they give you access" isn't necessarily something to be proud of. Uh no the ethical issue is that they broke the law themselves by buying stolen property. And they acted like dicks. Not sucking up is irrelevant and fine, buying stolen shit and flouting that fact isn't.
- jacobian 16y agoWow, you could teach a class on rhetorical fallacies from your comment alone. Let's try to unpack it here. First, you've tried to claim access journalism as part of accepted journalistic ethics. In fact, access journalism is not part of any accepted journalistic ethic, and is in fact the subject of great consternation among journalists themselves. Second, you've implied that I'm somehow proud of the practice of access journalism. Once again, the fact is that I, like you, find the practice repugnant. Third, you've tried to use this supposed anti-ethic to thus dismiss the entire ethical foundation of journalism via some sort of guilt by association. Of course, even if some aspect of journalistic ethics were to be found suspect, that still wouldn't negate the rest of the practice. In fact, like all ethical pursuits, the whole is greater than the parts: journalists, like lawyers and doctors, bind themselves to ethical practice. There are always those willing to violate those ethics, but an access journalist no more discredits his entire profession than a negligent doctor. Fourth, you've made a false appeal to common ground ("It's fine if Apple wants to retaliate") which mischaracterizes my argument -- you'll note I didn't once mention "Apple" in my comment -- and sets up a false equivalency where Apple's behavior somehow excuses Gizmodo's. In fact, I think Apple's actions are clearly retaliatory, but that wasn't the argument I made, and is still unrelated to Gizmodo's unethical behavior. Fifth, you've argued against the claim that Apple "is defending the honor of all journalists." That's indeed a specious claim, and one worth arguing against. Except that I didn't make it. In fact, you've again mischaracterized my argument which, for the record, was simply that Gizmodo needs to choose which side of the fence they sit on. Finally, you've enclosed the word "journalists" in air quotes as a sort of argument-by-ridicule: you've tried to assert stylistically that journalism is something to scoff at, and thus that anyone -- like me -- who defends journalism is similarly subject to ridicule. In fact, journalism is generally accepted as being a requirement for democracy -- see, for example, the Bill of Rights.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jonursenbach 16y agoThankfully Apple didn't decide to go for the nuclear option and ban all gadget blogs, so we'll still be there live tomorrow. http://live.gdgt.com http://live.gdgt.com
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ryanbigg 16y agoI would like to be one of the many to go: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You deserve it. Fools.
- krav 16y agoI laughed out loud when I saw the headline - duh, what'd Gizmodo expect?
- _pius 16y agoI am so surprised.