2 ms·

From your own link: > Having failed to identify who leaked the information regarding "Asteroid", Apple requested the subpoenas in an effort to find the culprit

From your own link: > Having failed to identify who leaked the information regarding "Asteroid", Apple requested the subpoenas in an effort to find the culprit. In that case, they used the courts to compel publishers to divulge their source. In this case, Apple’s own methods of planting a false flag among their employees caught the source. This is what the author was referring to.

SoylentYellow 3y ago
Apple tried to use the courts but failed. The California Appeal's court granted the publishers a protection order against revealing their sources: https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does
CharlesW 3y ago
I recall reports that the leak Think Secret published was planted by Apple, but that was long ago, and most of the original reporting has disappeared. I can personally confirm that Apple wanted employees to know that planting leaks was something that Apple sometimes did, so it wasn't a huge surprise at the time.
giobox 3y ago
Is there any evidence the "Asteroid" device was fake for the purposes of finding a leaker? I've never heard that angle, and I'm pretty familiar with the case and followed the trial and Think Secret at the time. While it never launched, it clearly made sense as a device given Apple's recent launch of Garage Band. From what I've just searched, the only "evidence" it was a hoax appears to originate in this very speculative theory concocted on lowendmac.com that the entire thing was planned to take down the rumor industry, which seems possible but unlikely to me: > https://lowendmac.com/2006/sudden-impact-apples-great-asteroid-hoax/ https://lowendmac.com/2006/sudden-impact-apples-great-astero... The article also argues its odd for Apple not to release something that was planned, but hardware companies I imagine cancel unannounced devices all the time. Audio interfaces is a crowded space thats hard to stand out in too, even for someone like Apple. This claim alone makes me not trust the article: > "after over two years, Apple hasn’t released a breakout box for use with GarageBand... Sound suspicious? It should. If this was an important project, you’d think Apple would have gone ahead with it even after the “trade secret” of its existence was made known. You’d think they would have rushed to market to take advantage of the buzz." I can't agree with that statement at all! There are countless reasons it could have been cancelled, and it was never all that "important" to begin with. It's also written by "Anne Onymus" - believe what you will.

SoylentYellow 3y ago

Apple tried to use the courts but failed. The California Appeal's court granted the publishers a protection order against revealing their sources: https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does

CharlesW 3y ago

I recall reports that the leak Think Secret published was planted by Apple, but that was long ago, and most of the original reporting has disappeared. I can personally confirm that Apple wanted employees to know that planting leaks was something that Apple sometimes did, so it wasn't a huge surprise at the time.

giobox 3y ago

Is there any evidence the "Asteroid" device was fake for the purposes of finding a leaker? I've never heard that angle, and I'm pretty familiar with the case and followed the trial and Think Secret at the time. While it never launched, it clearly made sense as a device given Apple's recent launch of Garage Band. From what I've just searched, the only "evidence" it was a hoax appears to originate in this very speculative theory concocted on lowendmac.com that the entire thing was planned to take down the rumor industry, which seems possible but unlikely to me: > https://lowendmac.com/2006/sudden-impact-apples-great-asteroid-hoax/ https://lowendmac.com/2006/sudden-impact-apples-great-astero... The article also argues its odd for Apple not to release something that was planned, but hardware companies I imagine cancel unannounced devices all the time. Audio interfaces is a crowded space thats hard to stand out in too, even for someone like Apple. This claim alone makes me not trust the article: > "after over two years, Apple hasn’t released a breakout box for use with GarageBand... Sound suspicious? It should. If this was an important project, you’d think Apple would have gone ahead with it even after the “trade secret” of its existence was made known. You’d think they would have rushed to market to take advantage of the buzz." I can't agree with that statement at all! There are countless reasons it could have been cancelled, and it was never all that "important" to begin with. It's also written by "Anne Onymus" - believe what you will.