Support NeoGAF

[Jex]

$5k is ridiculous, which is why you know the whole story about gizmodo paying for it is a red herring.

hell i woulda paid $5.5k for it just to mess around with applefans

"The person who found the phone peddled it to Gizmodo, which bought it for $5,000, Nick Denton, chief executive of Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, said by instant message." - New York Times

So it gets lost at a bar and quickly gets picked up by Gizmodo who disassembles it despite Apple reporting it missing?

Right.

The leak was obviously intentional.

If it wasn't leaked Gizmodo would be guilty of conversion and Apple could have the posts removed via a temporary restraining order.

there was an interview a few months ago about the guy who was masterminding the promotions for apple from 2004 to very recently, and he was mentioning verbatim that they would release 'leaks' themselves to selected sites. Any 'leak' that didnt end up in an immediate massive legal strike was an uncontrolled one.

Why are you guys still discussing if its a legit leak or what?

The fact that a working hardware prototype (!!!) of Apple Hardware was somehow managed to be carried outside, especially with Apple's paranoid monitoring and security teams.. is LOL. This was just a controlled leak, as described in the link

I guess it was all a conspiracy, right?

 

[Joel Was Right]

If I were Jobs, I would blacklist Gizmodo for their subsequent treatment of the named individual and rally around him. If Gizmodo was a GAF member here, he would be banned before the hour was done and left in no doubt that his attitude stank like shit. Someone can't have their life ruined by something like this and I hope there is a level of sympathy shown for him.

The thing that annoys me the most is the response to the Apple letter in where Law said:

P.S. I hope you take it easy on the kid who lost it. I don't think he loves anything more than Apple.

Unfucking believable

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I hadn't been following this thread at all, but wow, fuck Gizmodo. I used to visit their site on occasion, but their revealing of the guy who lost it, complete with pictures and facebook shots, is simply unacceptable. What an insufferable organization. I didn't know they were part of the same media group as Kotaku, but I guess that makes sense now.

 

[Gary Whitta]

It's kinda annoying they have comments turned off, I'm sure it would be flooded with "fuck you" posts by now. I wonder how many readers they'll actually lose over this.

 

[mattiewheels]

Unfortunately this is the Nick Denton/Gawker mentality in full effect.

Snark for the sake of it, and a creepy lack of humanity because 'it's the internet, deal with it'.

That guy grosses me out, I guess all his sites are peas in a pod.

 

[skybaby]

It's kinda annoying they have comments turned off, I'm sure it would be flooded with "fuck you" posts by now. I wonder how many readers they'll actually lose over this.

Lose? Their name is splattered all over the conventional news

 

[StopMakingSense]

If I were Jobs, I would blacklist Gizmodo for their subsequent treatment of the named individual and rally around him.

Oh I am sure Gizmodo is banned for life from Apple PR.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Lose? Their name is splattered all over the conventional news

indeed.

but I do understand the anger better now.

 

[DrFunk]

Unfortunately this is the Nick Denton/Gawker mentality in full effect.

Snark for the sake of it, and a creepy lack of humanity because 'it's the internet, deal with it'.

That guy grosses me out, I guess all his sites are peas in a pod.

Lifehacker is rather decent

 

[Rentahamster]

I have Gizmodo in my bookmarks bar and check it every day but after this, fuck 'em. What are the other good tech blogs to hit aside from Engadget?

I usually check out fudzilla.com and anandtech.com, but those are more computer tech based than general interest gadget info.

 

[numble]

Oh I am sure Gizmodo is banned for life from Apple PR.

I was wondering how many views they'd lose from being unable to liveblog the 4-5 Apple events per year. But knowing them, they'll probably still be able "liveblog" by just repeating what Engadget and other sites post 5 seconds later.

 

[Sleeper901]

It's kinda annoying they have comments turned off, I'm sure it would be flooded with "fuck you" posts by now. I wonder how many readers they'll actually lose over this.

they will actually gain readers from the 3 million people that came to their website yesterday

 

[Apocryphon]

Nope. Google employees beta hardware too, especially since some of these hardware revisions come with their own OS release. I know for certain they betad the Droid as well as the N1. Not sure about other phones, but by the time the N1 was leaked, Google employees had already moved on to some other handet(s). PEACE.

HTC was the OEM for Google's Nexus One, but since it was Google's phone - that ones a given. I can also understand the Droid to seeing as it was the first device to ship with 2.0. Dev Phone's One and Two are also a given, but why would Google be trialing the EVO? It'll ship with 2.1 and isn't a Google branded phone.

 

[123rl]

I can't believe the way Gizmodo have handled this whole shitstorm. Fuck Gizmodo

 

[SuperPac]

Nor am I saying the guy shouldn't lose his job. He was trusted with an important item, he lost it (the setting could mean nothing - who says he was drinking?), but why drag it all out in the limelight? Why isn't Giz throwing the name of the person who they cut the check to out as well? Why protect one and not the other?

And in the end, it's Giz's own snarkiness that is making me say, "So long." They were handed a golden opportunity - a true exclusive, rare in these days - and they took it, but now can't wait to throw someone else under the bus to protect their own ass. They wanted this, they should've known what can of worms they were opening, and instead, they're trying to have their cake, eat it too, and blame it on the baker who lost it.

That's what's got me as well. They're perfectly willing to disclose the name of the guy that lost the phone and continue to drag him through the mud. Yet they won't say who they bought it from or go into detail on the events between the time the phone was left at the bar and the time Giz printed their story - a month later. And, they're not about transparency. While the Gawker guy is telling other outlets they paid $5k for the story, that's not disclosed on Giz itself. What else have they paid for in the past?

The story itself, the pictures and hands-on and whatnot - that's the true story. The snark about the letter they wanted Apple to give them before they would give it up (the whole "we asked them to put it in writing thing is cocky") and dragging the engineer through the mud including transcribing their call to him (when it really adds no information)... that's what really irks me about the whole thing.

 

[aesop]

I love the way that Giz pretends to care about the kid by calling it a human error and that lovely little postscript at the end of their email. Yet, they out this kid almost as fast as the Cubs baseball kid was outed.

ronburgandyclassy.gif

 

[Gary Whitta]

they will actually gain readers from the 3 million people that came to their website yesterday

And they only had to destroy one real person to do it!

 

[RyanDG]

Nevermind - I am dense!

 

[Jeff-DSA]

It's kinda annoying they have comments turned off, I'm sure it would be flooded with "fuck you" posts by now. I wonder how many readers they'll actually lose over this.

I stopped reading them about a year ago and unsubscribed from their RSS feed because it became apparent that they were nowhere near as professional or accurate as Engadget. I did the same thing concerning Kotaku.

@blam: they'll fire him whether or not we write the story. also, fuck, you lose a iphone like that, you deserve whatever comes.

What a dick.

 

[RyanDG]

Sacrificing Gray Powell

While the outing of Apple engineer Gray Powell was inevitable—his name was going to come out anyway, and there is a real if slight chance that foisting him into the public eye might help him keep his job at Apple—I think the way we did it was incredibly tacky. I've said my piece to my co-workers, but I bring it up here because it's important for another reason.

Do you really think Apple would hang one of its engineers out to dry like this? Gray Powell is a real person—hell, he's just a kid—who will now spend the rest of his life or at least the foreseeable future of his career living down one of the biggest gaffes in tech history. Apple may be cruel, but I don't think they're that evil. -- http://gizmodo.com/5520746/apple-didnt-leak-the-iphoneand-why-that-matters


At least the guy admits the way they did it was incredibly tacky at the very least. But to argue that the guy's name was going to come out anyway AND that they were doing it semi-altruistically (as a way to help the guy keep his job at apple) is a bit much. Then to downplay the inevitable response (ie, apple hanging him out to try as being a questionable reaction) -- really does go to show that they really don't get it...

 

[aesop]

Nevermind - I am dense!

It's under the section called "how we got the iPhone," or whatever. I don't really buy that he called Apple first. The whole story seems off to me.

Finder calls to report that he found the phone and is brushed off? My ass. Apple would have been all over that guy within an hour.

Giz, expose the seller and get it over with.

Edit: too fast.

 

[AstroLad]

also, fuck, you lose a iphone like that, you deserve whatever comes.

Words to live by.

 

[RyanDG]

It's under the section called "how we got the iPhone," or whatever. I don't really buy that he called Apple first. The whole story seems off to me.

Finder calls to report that he found the phone and is brushed off? My ass. Apple would have been all over that guy within an hour.

Giz, expose the seller and get it over with.

I don't think that section was there the whole time -- or at least not the part about the support ticket. I really do think it was part of an update after the initial article - because I honestly don't remember it there last night.

 

[Apocryphon]

That's what's got me as well. They're perfectly willing to disclose the name of the guy that lost the phone and continue to drag him through the mud. Yet they won't say who they bought it from or go into detail on the events between the time the phone was left at the bar and the time Giz printed their story - a month later. And, they're not about transparency. While the Gawker guy is telling other outlets they paid $5k for the story, that's not disclosed on Giz itself. What else have they paid for in the past?

The story itself, the pictures and hands-on and whatnot - that's the true story. The snark about the letter they wanted Apple to give them before they would give it up (the whole "we asked them to put it in writing thing is cocky") and dragging the engineer through the mud including transcribing their call to him (when it really adds no information)... that's what really irks me about the whole thing.

http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back?skyline=true&s=i

 

[Opus Angelorum]

...also, fuck, you lose a iphone like that, you deserve whatever comes.

You get hold off a prototype iphone like that, you deserve whatever comes.

 

[Bernbaum]

The story surrounding the iPhone itself was newsworthy if you can get past how they acquired it. But multiple stories that have nothing to do with the phone itself but are just about embarrassing the guy? Posting his facebook profile, personal photographs and now making a joke out of the fact that it was his birthday when he lost the phone? That's just juvenile, it's humiliating someone for frat boy laughs and could well cause this guy real material harm in terms of present and future employment and reputation. It's beneath the piss-poor standards already set by what passes for journalism in the blogosphere these days.

Fuck Gizmodo.

Wow. Poor form Gizmodo. None of that shit was necessary.

 

[Apocryphon]

They are milking this for all it's worth http://gizmodo.com/5520746/apple-didnt-leak-the-iphoneand-why-that-matters

 

[Davidion]

They are milking this for all it's worth http://gizmodo.com/5520746/apple-didnt-leak-the-iphoneand-why-that-matters

It's beginning to smell a bit like damage control.

 

[tokkun]

They are milking this for all it's worth http://gizmodo.com/5520746/apple-didnt-leak-the-iphoneand-why-that-matters

Linking to their article will teach them.

 

[Vox-Pop]

some of you can't be serious?

techs blogs are just working like tabloids. No big deal.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

A friend of mine tweeted earlier that not only should Apple not fire they guy, Jobs should have him up on stage at WWDC in June for the official reveal :lol

Spoiler

I fully support this idea

That would be terrific.

They should also name him Gawker Media's personal PR liaison. Make them go through him every time they beg for a sliver of info, a quote, or a device to test.

 

[El Sloth]

Damn, this thing is everywhere. I was watching the South American based CNN and all of sudden they were having a huge discussion about this whole thing. It was really surreal for some reason.

 

[numble]

some of you can't be serious?

techs blogs are just working like tabloids. No big deal.

Not all are the same:
http://www.suntimes.com/technology/ihnatko/2178822,ihnatko-apple-iphone-engadget-gizmodo.article

Engadget’s editor-in-chief Joshua Topolsky spoke with the Wall Street Journal this morning and said that their site was contacted on April 17 and was offered access to the device in exchange for a fee; Topolsky said that he declined the offer after consulting with attorneys.

 

[mightynine]

It's beginning to smell a bit like damage control.

This could end up as a great teaching example for online journalism.

It also shows Giz needs a better spin doctor, because I don't think they expected the backlash they're getting.

 

[AstroLad]

This is probably the most publically embarassed a tech company has been in a long, long time. That last Gawker article made a great point about Apple being super-secretive and basically assholes to the media, controlling every little piece of information and every major media outlet with a suffocating grip. And now this.

Reminds me a lot of what happened with Tiger Woods actually. Playing puppetmaster with the media and information on yourself works great until that first breach in the dam. Then...whoosh. Payback's a bitch.

 

[Jugendstil]

Okay, I didn't feel that sorry for the guy who lost the phone because that's a pretty dumb ass thing to do, but that was before Gizmodo totally lost their damn minds and humiliated that guy just to be snarky and get more attention. The latest article about how the phone wasn't leaked and how they have beat Apple at their own game, etc. etc. is way over the top. I don't expect much from internet tech nerd pseudo-journalists, but this defies even my lowest expectations.

 

[Zombie James]

They are milking this for all it's worth http://gizmodo.com/5520746/apple-didnt-leak-the-iphoneand-why-that-matters

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Engadget might have lost the scoop but they can claim a credibility win. Given the story’s negligible benefit to readers, I think Engadget made the better call. These two competing sites might emerge from this with Engadget established as “a tech breaking-news site” and Gizmodo as a far less ambitious rumor and gossip site.

.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Meanwhile...

Apple has another record quarter, posts $3.07b profit
Apple might not be too happy about having a fourth-gen iPhone prototype be stolen, but there's nothing like cold, hard cash to turn a frown upside-down -- and the company certainly made plenty of it in the second quarter of 2010, posting a $3.07b profit on $13.5b in revenue. That's the Apple's best non-holiday quarter ever -- profits were up 90 percent while revenue was up 49 percent -- and yet another record quarter for Steve and the gang. Mac sales were up 33 percent from a year ago with 2.94m units sold, iPhone sales were up 131 percent with 8.75m units sold, and iPod sales were down one point with 10.89m units sold. We're just about to jump on the analyst conference call, we'll let you know if we hear anything good -- we wonder what people might be asking about?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/20/apple-has-another-record-quarter-posts-3-07b-profit/

 

[mightynine]

This is probably the most publically embarassed a tech company has been in a long, long time. That last Gawker article made a great point about Apple being super-secretive and basically assholes to the media, controlling every little piece of information and every major media outlet with a suffocating grip. And now this.

You know, I've yet to be convinced that Apple is in the wrong by acting like this. I don't believe they are under any obligation to satisfy anyone's curiosity until they are damned good and ready. This isn't the federal government, it's a consumer electronics company, competing with other consumer electronics companies who can't wait to one-up them in some way.

In other words, Apple doesn't owe any media outlet one damned thing.

 

[Vox-Pop]

.

rumors sites sometimes get the most attention and break a major story once in a while. It's a money blog too, so I doubt they care.

And I'm sure we'll all visit gizmodo again.

 

[mj1108]

They are milking this for all it's worth http://gizmodo.com/5520746/apple-didnt-leak-the-iphoneand-why-that-matters

Don't link to their articles. Just copy/paste here. Don't give them anymore pageviews.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

And I'm sure we'll all visit gizmodo again.

That's not the issue, visiting gizmodo with this event in mind is what has changed.

 

[Darko]

Engadget's lawyers told Engadget to not buy it, according to Andy Ihnatko.

 

[Vox-Pop]

That's not the issue, visiting gizmodo with this event in mind is what has changed.

I don't get it, slow it down for me?

So you dislike gizmodo because they sold out the kid and how they got the phone?

 

[Apocryphon]

Engadget’s editor-in-chief Joshua Topolsky spoke with the Wall Street Journal this morning and said that their site was contacted on April 17 and was offered access to the device in exchange for a fee; Topolsky said that he declined the offer after consulting with attorneys.

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?

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I don't get it, slow it down for me?

So you dislike gizmodo because they sold out the kid and how they got the phone?

I dislike what methods they were willing to go to for 'the benefit of their readers', not the specifics.

 

[AstroLad]

You know, I've yet to be convinced that Apple is in the wrong by acting like this. I don't believe they are under any obligation to satisfy anyone's curiosity until they are damned good and ready. This isn't the federal government, it's a consumer electronics company, competing with other consumer electronics companies who can't wait to one-up them in some way.

In other words, Apple doesn't owe any media outlet one damned thing.

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.

 

[ocadman]

they will actually gain readers from the 3 million people that came to their website yesterday

And for all they've gained, they have also lost a fair share of these readers.

 

[mightynine]

I don't get it, slow it down for me?

So you dislike gizmodo because they sold out the kid and how they got the phone?

I like the way Ihnatko puts it in the Sun-Times article linked above:

Gizmodo has a legitimate and spectacular scoop on their hands. They’ve done something that’s unprecedented in the Steve Jobs era: they have published substantive, first-person, hands-on information about an unannounced Apple product. The actual information they gleaned is pretty thin, but let’s not begrudge them their due. Denton says that the site did it for the benefit of their readers. That also happens to be the only motivation that ever matters to a journalist.

Let’s also not gloss over the means by which they got that scoop. Not through legwork and developing sources, but by buying something that was offered to them.

“Checkbook journalism” isn’t universally a bad practice — the recent Expenses Scandal that knocked the UK parliament on its butt was kickstarted after the Daily Telegraph paid for a hard drive containing two million records of expense claims filed by government officials. But the price of checkbook journalism is the potential loss of credibility.

Engadget might have lost the scoop but they can claim a credibility win. Given the story’s negligible benefit to readers, I think Engadget made the better call. These two competing sites might emerge from this with Engadget established as “a tech breaking-news site” and Gizmodo as a far less ambitious rumor and gossip site.

Any of Gizmodo’s possible problems have been created by their mishandling of the story. A news publication that’s paid for source material needs be so open that they become borderline annoying about it. They can’t afford to be coy or evasive, as Gizmodo has been. Every gap in the story invites more questions; every element that doesn’t appear to make sense becomes the new focus.