3 ms·
The point is that if you read the public comments Steve's made about the Gizmodo affair, it's very clear that he took the entire thing very personally. For Stev
by commandar 16y ago
The point is that if you read the public comments Steve's made about the Gizmodo affair, it's very clear that he took the entire thing very personally. For Steve, it became personal, whereas it was simply business for Gawker.
A customer angry about a flawed product isn't upset because it's a phone; they're upset because it's their phone. It's personal for them.
I'm not saying that the two situations are perfectly analogous (though, as a disclaimer, I do think Apple handled the Gizmodo thing poorly): what I am saying is that it's much easier to tell somebody else to not take things so seriously when you're not the one that's internalized the problem.
- stcredzero 16y agoFor Steve, it became personal, whereas it was simply business for Gawker. In general, this is how it works for public figures and the press.
- commandar 16y agoWell, and there you have Gawker's great miscalculation in the whole ordeal - they expected Apple to react as a business entity rather than as a proxy for Steve Jobs himself.
- brown9-2 16y agoThese are really not the same things at all 1) stealing business secrets (and paying for stolen goods) 2) being unhappy with a $199 purchase
- jrockway 16y agoIn the first case, a single Apple employee was being careless. In the second case, the entire company was being careless. Sounds like Apple is following Jobs' advice, actually...
- amalcon 16y agoYou need to include the number of instances of harm in this sort of calculation. Is someone who steals $1000 from one person a worse criminal than someone who steals $1 from a million? Many people purchased defective goods, but only one corporation had its secrets stolen.