3 ms·

... we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out. These people weren't exposing government secrets or trying to figure out the actual flow r

by _pius 16y ago

... we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out. These people weren't exposing government secrets or trying to figure out the actual flow rate of the Deepwater Horizon oil gusher; they were trying to get exclusive pictures of an iPhone for their gadget blog.

gojomo 16y ago
Totally agreed there's a difference in significance... but that's Gizmodo's beat and there's a giant audience for that info. The entire industry gets reshaped by Apple's product moves. So Gizmodo being as aggressive as the law allows for scoops is to be expected. Also, the argument that the news was ultimately a social triviality works both ways. No one's reputation was besmirched. The alleged-stolen property was returned to its owner fairly quickly. Gizmodo's peek confirmed a few things and refuted a few others already rumored about the 2010 iPhone. While that info wasn't released exactly as Apple may have preferred, whether there was any net economic damage to Apple is debatable. Apple lost some surprise value around next week's announcements, but they also got tons of free publicity and hype about their flagship product. So indignation about Gizmodo's actions should also be scaled to match your observation: it's just some exclusive pictures for a gadget blog. No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.
- _pius 16y ago
  You make fair points, though I think the central one is flawed: No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple. Exposing a trade secret the way Gizmodo did probably did hard-to-calculate damage to iPhone sales for the past several months. After all, there is a reason they stovepipe these announcements. I think it'd be hard to argue that this is a net win for Apple.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    But: the 'secrets' about this model were pretty much as expected. Improved iPhone models are released like clockwork each summer. And the meme "your Apple product will be replaced by a better one in 6 months" is so strong it's a recurring joke on talk shows and late-night TV. So I think your 'hard-to-quantify' on buyers is in fact 'negligible' -- or failing that, 'outweighed by knocking news of all competitors off the front-pages for a couple weeks'.

by _pius 16y ago

gojomo 16y ago

Totally agreed there's a difference in significance... but that's Gizmodo's beat and there's a giant audience for that info. The entire industry gets reshaped by Apple's product moves. So Gizmodo being as aggressive as the law allows for scoops is to be expected. Also, the argument that the news was ultimately a social triviality works both ways. No one's reputation was besmirched. The alleged-stolen property was returned to its owner fairly quickly. Gizmodo's peek confirmed a few things and refuted a few others already rumored about the 2010 iPhone. While that info wasn't released exactly as Apple may have preferred, whether there was any net economic damage to Apple is debatable. Apple lost some surprise value around next week's announcements, but they also got tons of free publicity and hype about their flagship product. So indignation about Gizmodo's actions should also be scaled to match your observation: it's just some exclusive pictures for a gadget blog. No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.

_pius 16y ago
You make fair points, though I think the central one is flawed: No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple. Exposing a trade secret the way Gizmodo did probably did hard-to-calculate damage to iPhone sales for the past several months. After all, there is a reason they stovepipe these announcements. I think it'd be hard to argue that this is a net win for Apple.
- gojomo 16y ago
  But: the 'secrets' about this model were pretty much as expected. Improved iPhone models are released like clockwork each summer. And the meme "your Apple product will be replaced by a better one in 6 months" is so strong it's a recurring joke on talk shows and late-night TV. So I think your 'hard-to-quantify' on buyers is in fact 'negligible' -- or failing that, 'outweighed by knocking news of all competitors off the front-pages for a couple weeks'.