• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Gizmodo gets its hands on the new iPhone prototype

Status
Not open for further replies.
Majik said:
Gizmodo claimed they'd had the device for a whole week, but Engadget were offered access to it 2 days before Gizmodo's story?

So... Gizmodo offered access to Engadget? Or Gizmodo lied and rushed the story to press as soon as they'd received the phone?
Click to expand...
they were offered access at the same time.
 
AstroLad said:
Sure, but once you set up that sort of hostile relationship (I know, I know, it's not necessarily hostile if you just always agree to play by Apple's rules, i.e. it is hostile) don't go crying or running to the courthouse when you find out that works both ways.
Click to expand...

But there's a big difference here. There's no law being broken by how Apple deals with the media.

There is, however, potentially a law being broken here about how Giz came into possession of the phone. But ultimately, it's up to Apple to decide whether they want to go down the legal route.

Since they didn't immediately send Gawker one of the biggest C&D's around, it looks like their main goal is to get the unit back, not press charges (and to Gawker's credit, it looks like they want to get it back to Apple - no sense burning a bridge that's already likely soaked with gasoline with someone losing his or her's grip on the match). To me, that's hardly "crying or running to the courthouse" in Apple's case.
 
Majik said:
Gizmodo claimed they'd had the device for a whole week, but Engadget were offered access to it 2 days before Gizmodo's story?

So... Gizmodo offered access to Engadget? Or Gizmodo lied and rushed the story to press as soon as they'd received the phone?
Click to expand...
Oh shiiiii--
 
Dreams-Visions said:
they were offered access at the same time.
Click to expand...
They were offered it at the same time? Today is the 20th. That says they were offered it on the 17th, THREE days ago. Gizmodo's articles claim they've had it for over a week. A week is 7 days, not 3.
 
I loved the exposé on the new iPhone.

But, outing the guy who lost it was 100% inappropriate. I've removed Gizmodo from my bookmarks, and I'm not visiting them again.

Hey, to be fair, why not expose the guy who sold it to you as well? Dicks.
 
mightynine said:
Since they didn't immediately send Gawker one of the biggest C&D's around, it looks like their main goal is to get the unit back, not press charges (and to Gawker's credit, it looks like they want to get it back to Apple - no sense burning a bridge that's already likely soaked with gasoline with someone losing his or her's grip on the match). To me, that's hardly "crying or running to the courthouse" in Apple's case.
Click to expand...

I would be shocked, if Gizmodo were ever invited to any Apple event again.

They better get used to live-blogging Engadget's live-blogs.
 
They were offered it at the same time? Today is the 20th. That says they were offered it on the 17th, THREE days ago. Gizmodo's articles claim they've had it for over a week. A week is 7 days, not 3.
Click to expand...

This.
 
why is this such a big deal? You get phone leaks all the time. Is it just because its 'oh so secret' Apple?

surely all this hype is just playing into their hands? I can understand the spooging maybe for the first iphone, but this is just another iphone that looks a bit different. They couldn't really run anything on it or get anything meaningful from it.
 
mrklaw said:
why is this such a big deal? You get phone leaks all the time. Is it just because its 'oh so secret' Apple?

surely all this hype is just playing into their hands? I can understand the spooging maybe for the first iphone, but this is just another iphone that looks a bit different. They couldn't really run anything on it or get anything meaningful from it.
Click to expand...
Its not about the actual leak but how it was leaked.
 
forgive me for sounding cynical at this point, GAF,,,

but there's too much "fuck Giz" going on and not enough "fuck Engadget" or "fuck the entire blog/fast news cycle/tabloid culture".

in everything we've read so far, we know pretty damn well that the only reason Engadget didn't run the story is because THEIR LAWYERS told them not to. not because they're a moral panacea amongst a sea of scum and villany. but because their lawyers said it might not work out too well. not because they believe in some "better journalism" approach. because of lawyers.

does anyone honestly think some of these other sites--now GAF's favorite bookmarks--WOULDN'T have run run the article if given the chance (and their lawyer's go-ahead)? I beg to fucking differ. too many greenbacks staring them back in the face. hell, half of you guys--if given the opportunity (say, by a guy leaving his new awesomeness at a bar)--would have had your smarphone's out trying to snap pictures to post on interwebz later that night.

would I like to think otherwise? sure. but I passed the stage of gullibility some years ago.

C.R.E.A.M. > allegiance to Apple; your morals.

sigh.

WordAssassin said:
They were offered it at the same time? Today is the 20th. That says they were offered it on the 17th, THREE days ago. Gizmodo's articles claim they've had it for over a week. A week is 7 days, not 3.
Click to expand...
last thing I read said it was offered to them and engadget around the same time. maybe the report was wrong. just regurgitating info propagating yesterday. I'm sure the details will change a few more times before the end of the week.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
forgive me for sounding cynical at this point, GAF,,,

but there's too much "fuck Giz" going on and not enough "fuck Engadget" or "fuck the entire blog/fast news cycle/tabloid culture".

in everything we've read so far, we know pretty damn well that the only reason Engadget didn't run the story is because THEIR LAWYERS told them not to. not because they're a moral panacea amongst a sea of scum and villany. but because their lawyers said it might not work out too well. not because they believe in some "better journalism" approach. because of lawyers.

does anyone honestly think some of these other sites--now GAF's favorite bookmarks--WOULDN'T have run run the article if given the chance (and their lawyer's go-ahead)? I beg to fucking differ. too many greenbacks staring them back in the face. hell, half of you guys--if given the opportunity (say, by a guy leaving his new awesomeness at a bar)--would have had your smarphone's out trying to snap pictures to post on interwebz later that night.

would I like to think otherwise? sure. but I passed the stage of gullibility some years ago.

C.R.E.A.M. > allegiance to Apple

sigh.
Click to expand...

I can't claim to know the motivations of the GAF, but I feel as if the "Fuck Gizmodo" sentiments are stemming from Giz's dickish outing of the poor sap that lost the phone.
 
I have a Google phone but might switch over if it looks like that! Utilitarian look is my thing. Or maybe adjust my budget to have both?!
 
Majik said:
http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back?skyline=true&s=i
Click to expand...

OK so the day after they say in a separate story that they paid for it. Still, that's not being transparent or up front about it on the day the story was published.

The interesting thing is that in this article, they're starting to try and turn it around to "we did this to teach Apple a lesson." That access journalism is a bad practice and that anyone who tries to keep secrets should expect things like this. IMO I don't think that works on a company like Apple, much less any company who's trying to keep their intellectual property a secret until they're ready to make it public.
 
aesop said:
I can't claim to know the motivations of the GAF, but I feel as if the "Fuck Gizmodo" sentiments are stemming from Giz's dickish outing of the poor sap that lost the phone.
Click to expand...
My dad worked for SonyEricsson for about 10 years. I always had the latest phone prototypes and was told very clearly that if I ever lost one, I would be grounded until I was kicked out of the house at 18. :lol

While they were in no place to oust the guy, having his name out there will actually help his chances of keeping his job. The possibility of him working anywhere else in that field is zero, however.
 
Dreams-Visions' comments
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone denies that ANY tech blog would have loved to have this thing land in their lap.

I'm not upset with Giz about the story, or how they got it in the first place. I'm upset with their rather tasteless spin control to try and save their ass and throw someone who made a mistake under the bus, rather than accept the fact that what they're buying could be a stolen item, and could be a legal headache down the line. You want the story, you realize the consequences.

In other words, you're focusing on the wrong part of this mess to make your argument.

Also, I think Giz is thinking now "Did what we get end up being worth it?" They got no exciting hands on iPhone OS 4.0 action. No shots of a front-facing camera in action. Just a bricked iPhone in a possibly prototype case. Was that worth it?
 
Just to be clear, the reason why we are saying F Giz is that they called out the guy who did the biggest fuck up possible.

Sure it isn't a nice thing to do.

But it is because of everybody else saying 'explain in detail what happened'.
 
Gizmodo could of ran with the story without airing out who lost it. They would of had their millions of hits, the readers would of had their juicy Monday morning read and Apple could of decided their employees fate as they see fit.

Gizmodo is in the wrong for publicizing the employees name. It's really tasteless and kind of makes this story feel cheap and dirty.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
forgive me for sounding cynical at this point, GAF,,,

but there's too much "fuck Giz" going on and not enough "fuck Engadget" or "fuck the entire blog/fast news cycle/tabloid culture".

in everything we've read so far, we know pretty damn well that the only reason Engadget didn't run the story is because THEIR LAWYERS told them not to. not because they're a moral panacea amongst a sea of scum and villany. but because their lawyers said it might not work out too well. not because they believe in some "better journalism" approach. because of lawyers.

does anyone honestly think some of these other sites--now GAF's favorite bookmarks--WOULDN'T have run run the article if given the chance (and their lawyer's go-ahead)? I beg to fucking differ. too many greenbacks staring them back in the face. hell, half of you guys--if given the opportunity (say, by a guy leaving his new awesomeness at a bar)--would have had your smarphone's out trying to snap pictures to post on interwebz later that night.
Click to expand...

I don't fault Gizmodo for running the story at all. Hell, it's a HUGE scoop. Huge. What they're being dicks about is revealing the name of the engineer in the manner they did, the flippant response to Apple's letter requesting the phone back ("it's burning a hole in our pockets"), transcribing their "phone call" with Gray Powell and the "Keep Your Head Up Gray Powell" story from last night which really was unnecessary.

The scoop itself is amazing and bravo. Seriously amazing. The rest was unnecessary, mean-spirited and incredibly dickish (take your pick).
 
mrklaw said:
why is this such a big deal? You get phone leaks all the time. Is it just because its 'oh so secret' Apple?
Click to expand...

Yes. Apple always brings drama around their leaks - their lawsuits against the Cube leak, the guy who committed suicide, etc.
 
SuperPac said:
OK so the day after they say in a separate story that they paid for it. Still, that's not being transparent or up front about it on the day the story was published.

The interesting thing is that in this article, they're starting to try and turn it around to "we did this to teach Apple a lesson." That access journalism is a bad practice and that anyone who tries to keep secrets should expect things like this. IMO I don't think that works on a company like Apple, much less any company who's trying to keep their intellectual property a secret until they're ready to make it public.
Click to expand...

What's even more interesting is that Engadget told WSJ that both sites were offered access to the phone for a fee on the 17th (Saturday) and yet Gizmodo have claimed that they've had it for over a week.

If Engadget is to be believed, and Gizmodo are talking shit, then how do we even know if this Gray guy that they've "outed" even exists? The Facebook they took his images from is apparently fake... and they have detailed the story behind the whole saga in hindsight... initially claiming it was coming and would be a "corker". 6+ rushed posts with tonnes of details that don't quite add up...

Is there a different (credible) source behind the Gray Pownell story or are we taking Gizmodo's word for it?
 
The more I think about it, the more the whole thing stinks of bullshit.

Good on you Giz for getting a scoop. It's not the first or last time a media outlet pays for hot scoops.

Here's my problem. According to Giz's ever-so-detailed account of how this whole thing went down, the phone's OS was bricked within hours of it being lost. This was about a month ago. They've also said that the person who found it poked around in the software and found the engineer's facebook info. So, this supposed white knight tried to call Apple to return it, but couldn't be bothered with sending a facebook message to the guy who lost it? And this gadget crusader also retained this info to pass along to Giz after he sold it to them? For what reason, exactly?

Also, the finder obviously didn't hang around the bar waiting for the loser to come claim his property. Unless you're pass out drunk, you're back in the bar in 30 minutes or less looking for your phone.

Everything other than the iPhone info is unnecessary and is an obvious attempt to cover up the fact that Giz purchased stolen property.
 
Zabka said:
$5,000 to be mentioned/interviewed on every news channel in the US is a hell of a deal for a website.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. But that's fleeting, things return to normal...how much of your base did you piss off? Did you lose face with one of the biggest companies that you cover? What happens moving forward? Did you cut off your nose to spite your face?

Giz may have gained more than they lost, sure. There is no measuring stick for these things. It's something we may never know. But it's something to consider moving forward, and what you do the next time a "scoop" like this ends in your lap.
 
aesop said:
an obvious attempt to cover up the fact that Giz purchased stolen property.
Click to expand...


Pretty much. The whole story they spun about the guy who "happened to be sitting next to the guy at the bar" is such a load of hogwash.

Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen corporate secrets in the state of California. AKA they and they're saintly soul who happened across the phone at the bar are completely fucked if Apple decides to sue.
 
SuperPac said:
The interesting thing is that in this article, they're starting to try and turn it around to "we did this to teach Apple a lesson." That access journalism is a bad practice and that anyone who tries to keep secrets should expect things like this. IMO I don't think that works on a company like Apple, much less any company who's trying to keep their intellectual property a secret until they're ready to make it public.
Click to expand...
See? Taking my lead. Chickens coming home to roost and all that.
 
dojokun said:
I have a Google phone but might switch over if it looks like that! Utilitarian look is my thing. Or maybe adjust my budget to have both?!
Click to expand...

You can probably budget for both, but you SIM card can't since the iPhone requires a mini version instead of the normal larger version
 
So the engineer did a huge "fuck up"... but why would someone grab a lost phone, and then proceed to take it out of it's protective covering? That definitely sounds like some sort of theft, and Giz is a bunch of bitches for outing the guy because they paid for stolen goods.
 
Hey, if the new iPhone uses a micro sim, and the iPad 3G uses a micro sim, does this mean we'll be bake to just swap sims from the phone to the iPad and get 3G data? Or do you still have to manually turn on the 3G on the iPad, charging your account again anyways?
 
DrFunk said:
You can probably budget for both, but you SIM card can't since the iPhone requires a mini version instead of the normal larger version
Click to expand...

well you can just cut the larger sim card to fit in micro slot
 
lawblob said:
The number of clicks on the main story yesterday is so massive, im' guessing they are quite pleased with themselves right now.
Click to expand...

I think engadget should be more pleased, because I foresee gizmodo not getting as many privileges at mac pressers.
 
Ashhong said:
apple banning giz will only create controversy, i dont see it happening
Click to expand...


it’s the least hostile action they could take, honestly. (from their POV)

banning Giz from their live events won’t cost them much, if any, publicity and any negative press they might get will be forgotten about quickly.

Hell, Apple received TONS of negative press for suing HTC and, by proxy, Google for patent infringement but they still did that.

Banning Giz from invite-only press events is nothing compared to that.
 
while all valid points...i dont think it will happen. alot of people will still see it as unfair and uncalled for...but we'll see
 
Ashhong said:
while all valid points...i dont think it will happen. alot of people will still see it as unfair and uncalled for...but we'll see
Click to expand...
CES has banned Gizmodo, and that's a more open venue than invite-only Apple events.
 
Ashhong said:
while all valid points...i dont think it will happen. alot of people will still see it as unfair and uncalled for...but we'll see
Click to expand...


keep in mind that there have been previous events where not all sites were invited. Sites like Macrumors.

so it’s not unheard of.
 
numble said:
CES has banned Gizmodo, and that's a more open venue than invite-only Apple events.
Click to expand...

There has to be some sort of retributive action. Otherwise, a bad precedent is being established - steal from apple employees, and get paid by tech blogs to do it.
 
Bah I just got an iPhone 3GS as a late Christmas gift (December 31st)...so more like a New Year's gift.

Two cameras (one with video chat!) and a flasher for the camera...I am cry ;-;

I really don't know what apps I should get for my iPhone. I only own two paid apps Colloqy IRC and AAAA Pokédex =s
 
Joe said:
definitely not stolen, just really bad luck all around.
Click to expand...


California law says different than you.

finder has 90 days to hang on to something and make reasonable effort to find owner. the guy who got this iPhone sold it within 2 weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple posts a very cringe ad for new iPhone - A ferret gets triggered
48
749
PonyStation4 replied
Foldable iPhone renders
2
79
1K
Trilobit replied
No, you´re not getting old: iPhone keyboard is broken
15
647
TheUnicornGuy replied
Robotic Hands
13
577
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Ultra clear look for the iPhone is wild. Here's how to get it.
48
2K
ShirAhava replied
Top Bottom