Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC 395
recoiledsnake writes "Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has refused to answer its request to attend the company's big Worldwide Developers Conference keynote this Monday. Apple's move to ban Gizmodo seems a direct repercussion of Apple's prototype leak by Gizmodo and subsequent actions of Apple to get the prototype back. Meanwhile, Gizmodo said that it would resort to a live blog to cover the event in case of the ban. This comes a few days after San Mateo County authorities announced that a 'special master' had been appointed to assist in the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's belongings: goods seized as part of a police investigation into the disappearance (and Gizmodo acquisition) of one of Apple's prototype iPhones. It's the very device that's rumored to be announced at the Monday keynote."
Um, and this is surprising, how ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it.
Good idea but, unfortunately for Gizmodo, tickets to the WWDC were sold out long before the iPhone prototype fiasco hit the Intertubes.
Nothing Apple could do about that...
I don't know this for sure but I suspect that admission to the WWDC involves the standard contract that's put on most event tickets. That usually includes a section stating that the event sponsor (Apple in this case) maintains the right to exclude anybody they choose after they refund the ticket price.
Re:Um, and this is surprising, how ? (Score:4, Funny)
Assuming Gizomod is willing to pay enough, there's sure to be some WWDC attendee willing to give up their tickets, for some price.
according to themselves, they paid $5000 for the story of somebody finding what likely was just a Chinese knockoff. They should pay at least $20k for a genuine WWDC ticket.
Re:Um, and this is surprising, how ? (Score:5, Informative)
If Giz really wanted to get in, they could pay for a ticket like everyone else, if necessary getting someone not-so-in-the-news to buy it. Nothing Apple could do about that...
Apple could simply refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event. By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could simply refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event. By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
That's all hypothetical. Giz didn't buy a ticket, so we aren't talking about them being refused at the door, 7 thousand dollar ticket in hand. And generally, shouldn't we WANT press orgs. to pay for shit themselves instead of being given it?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely! They were fine with paying $10,000 for a stolen iPhone, so I don't see why they would have an issue with paying $1600 for a WWDC ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could simply refuse to sell Giz the tickets. Even if Giz bought the tickets from someone else Apple could still deny them entrance to the event. By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
Or they just pay someone going to the show to do their reporting as an independent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obviously bad press, but just like being singled out for the Foxconn suicides there's nothing Apple can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, you can refuse service (as a business) to a customer for almost any reason, including no reason, excluding things like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
(Of course, that means that if someone wants to refuse service to blacks, they can say that "I just don't like that guy," and it's legal. Such is life.)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said in a previous Article, Steve Never Forgets. Especially when you Ruin Steve's party.
Considering that WWDC is the Party I was referring to, why would it be a surprise they're banned from it. Hell they better get really close to Microsoft now, because they'll probably never set foot inside another Apple Event ever again.
Right now, I'm more curious to know what level of Living Hell the Apple Employee that Gizmodo outed is going through.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I'm completely unsurprised that Gizmondo got snubbed this year simple because they 'scooped' some Apple proprietary information. Whether or not they did anything illegal, or unethical, or how much is of no regards to Apple not inviting Gizmondo. They have a history of being unfriendly to anyone who 'scoops' them by any means, though their responses have varied
Re:The coverup is always worse than the crime. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The coverup is always worse than the crime. (Score:4, Insightful)
Denying press credentials to any legitimate news organization, which is Gizmodo sure as hell is, is rotten PR at the very least.
I think that under the circumstances, the only bad PR Apple is going to receive over excluding Gizmodo is going to come from those sources that are always looking for bad things to say about the company no matter what. More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.
As for Gizmodo being a legitimate news organization, well, that's debatable, isn't it? IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property. And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen. I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.
Re:The coverup is always worse than the crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.
Sure they do. They even pay worse criminals and occasionally keep their identities secret from the authorities, preventing justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The coverup is always worse than the crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when some tool from Gizmodo went around CES turning off all the TVs and displays with a master IR remote? Legit news organization my ass. I wouldn't want them around my event either. They're the sort of immature douchebags that would set off a fire alarm in the middle of the presentation just so they could get some hits by posting about it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, fuck PR. If Obama refused to "talk to Fox" I guess many people would approve.
Re: (Score:2)
Well to begin with this is a public event and Gizmodo was not denied the ability to buy a pass. Do you really think Apple should support an organization that knowingly stole from them and then laughed about it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This stuff happens when you leave things like secret prototypes lying around Starbucks; it's not the news media's fault that they write about it. It is by way of being their job.
It's their fault they do not immediately return it or hand it over to authorities. Instead they chose to illegally dissect and did not return it. Their holding onto someone else's property for their own purposes is obviously criminal conversion, if they actually did that.
Losing press credentials should be the worst of their wo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not just dissect. According to the affidavit, they also broke it in their half-assed attempt to put it back together. It mentions ground shorts among the damage, so it's likely that they effectively destroyed critical parts the phone.
Not Apple! It looks like the DA is going after this, carefully but vigorously. Any civil suit will likely come after the criminal charges, which Apple has no part in.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, your definition of legit differs from mine. My definition excludes those who pay others to steal, misappropriate trade secrets and remove vowels from any comment on gizmodo that is critical of gizmodo.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From the article:
Gizmodo needs to grow up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Disabling TVs during the unveiling demonstration in front of hundreds of reporters on the other hand...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh yeah, journalists are supposed to find facts and write about them. Not go to a venue to disrupt it. I think these guys are going to have a hard time proving they are journalists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.
It is also funny that people are treated based upon the way the act. Gizmodo, as you agree, acted poorly in the past, and has shown little evidence that they would be able to act maturely in the future.
I sure as hell would lash out if I was the victim of segregation.
There are mature ways to "lash out", and there are immature ways to "lash out". Gizmodo not only chose the latter, but also v
Re: (Score:2)
How is that possible? I've spent a good deal of time in the press lounge and work areas at Consumer Electronic Shows past and they were far from luxurious. But that was well before the era of blogs so maybe things were different.
Milk that bull (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Milk that bull (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a Gizmodo article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ll, Gz dtrs r *ctlly* dtng th vwls t f th psts f nyn wh dsgrs wth thm, hw xcdngly prfssnl nd mtr y gys! Wt, lmm tk cr f yr jb fr y snc y wll nvtbly hv t cnsr my pnn: ll, Gz dtrs r *ctll* dtng th vwls t f th psts f nn wh dsgrs wth thm, hw xcdngl prfssnl nd mtr y gs!
Edited by Jason Chen at 06/04/10 6:44 PM
Whps myb t kp t ll prfssnl y nd t kp t ll lgl.
xsbs promoted this comment
Edited by Jason Chen at 06/04/10 4:53 PM
I particullarly like this one:
@Jàs0n Chên: St0p Éd1t1ng pê0plê's c0mmênts. Thàt's n0t màtürê, ànd 1t sh0ws thàt ¥0ü fêêl shàmêfül àb0üt whàt ¥0ü d1d. (¥0ü sh0üldn't fêêl shàmêfül) ... L1vê üp t0 ¥0ür rêsp0ns1b1l1t1ês. Bê à màn, dàmn 1t !!!
MIKERIOSISAWHORE.COM promoted this comment
Edited by Joseph Lau at 06/05/10 6:40 AM
I was kind of on Gizmodo's side about this initially, but as more facts came out and they outed the guy who lost the phone (NOT their source, BTW) I lost what little respect I had left for them. The fact that they are censoring c
Re: (Score:2)
We're hoping if we feed this enough, gizmodo will actually eat itself.
Let's bear in mind that this is Gizmodo (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same outfit that thought it would be an amusing prank to show up at CES with a universal TV power-off remote, which they used to interrupt demonstrations, presentations and meetings. I wouldn't blame anyone for banning them from a trade show. Apple just has more specific reasons than most for barring them.
Re:Let's bear in mind that this is Gizmodo (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because the way I act at parties is different from the way I act at industry trade shows.
Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple and Gizmodo really are playing this publicity stunt to the hilt. It's almost like notoriously anal-retentive Apple really was stupid enough to allow a top-secret prototype to be taken to a bar by some junior employee, and almost like Gizmodo really was stupid enough to purchase stolen property, report on it, and then tell everyone exactly how they got it. But everyone knows that could never have actually happened.
Right?
Rob
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's no was Apple could do something like this [macobserver.com]...
There's a reason I stopped reading Gawker Media (Score:5, Interesting)
There seems to be a real lack of editorial power at Gawker Media. Gawker itself is factually wrong rather often. Gizmodo has a real bad habit of doing things they just shouldn't be doing. Paying for play with the iPhone prototype was really disgraceful, then hiding behind being "journalists" as an excuse. The remote incident. Then there's Kotaku, which seems to be run by immature 18 year olds who have yet to touch a boob in their life before. Jalopnik can't keep their mouth shut about Top Gear spoilers. It's frustrating.
I'm through with the entire Gawker Media network. Engadget and Destructoid are much better blogs than Giz and Kotaku. Really haven't had a need for celeb gossip or car news, but when I do, it's not going to be Gawker.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Steve's party... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Gizmodo pissed in my Cherios - I wouldn't invite them to my party either.
Like taking candy from a cripple... (Score:5, Funny)
Heck, I'll start:
Steve Jobs left the keys in his Mercedes SL55 AMG [cultofmac.com] after parking it in the usual handicapped space. A Good Samaritan quickly discovered this abandoned vehicle and yelled out "Finders keepers!" before driving it straight home.
It then took more than a month of negotiations before Steve Jobs finally got his car back, but not before the Good Samaritan disassembled the vehicle and put it back together again.
Re: (Score:2)
Gizmodo comments (Score:5, Interesting)
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Every fucking day they had an article summarizing the iPhone 4 coverage. Even if there was no actual new content. There were only ever two articles. The first one breaking the news, and then a second on where they showed a tear-down. But what do you expect from a firm that destroys presentations and displays at trade shows with TV-B-gone.
It's interesting how their tone changed. They used to sit around and wax and masturbate at great lengths about anything Apple. Now, not so much. Though it seems they all but forgot that computex was on this week.
I've pretty much abandoned them for Engadget.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Case in point:
http://gizmodo.com/comment/23991054 [gizmodo.com]
Original comment was obfuscated by the rat that bought the stolen iPhone (Jason Chen) to begin with, and he presumably unstarred me as well. So much for their free speech tact.
I only hang around Jalopnik now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't dare criticize them for acting unprofessional, trying to milk the story, or otherwise disagree with them. They will ban or unstar you at a moment's notice.
Unfortunately Engadget can be just as bad, especially in the way they treated their readers and commenters in the time leading up to the iPad release.
I disagree with a blog treats their readership like children (effectively saying we needed time-out), while at the same time sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the comments of the vast majority of their readership. Shutting down the commenting system of your blog to remove offensive and threatening comments is one thing. Carrying on with the
Re:Gizmodo comments (Score:5, Interesting)
I got banned from Gizmodo on this very story for replying to someone who said something like:
"Maybe there are legal ramifications involved as to why Apple didn't respond."
I replied:
"Legal ramifications related to Gizmodo stealing a prototype?"
1 hour later...
"You were banned by Jason Chen."
What's really bullshit about it is that it's all of Gawker that you get banned from and all of your comments get deleted on every site. So Jason Chen just banned me from io9 and other sites which Jason Chen has absolutely 0 influence in because I insinuated Gizmodo is full of dirty rotten lowlife thieves who purchase obviously stolen property in order to make a quick buck. The Gawker douche-baggery seems to be limited to Gizmodo.
I have one thing to say about Gizmodo's whining over getting "banned" from WWDC. Fuck Gizmodo. They banned me for pointing out in a comment WHY they were banned from WWDC. If in Gizmodo world commenting the obvious fact that Gizmodo wasn't invited because they stole a prototype is a ban-able offense then I can only imagine the relative scale of being the douche bags who ACTUALLY STOLE IT.
People can say Steve Jobs is childish all they want, but Apple's pettiness is nothing compared to Jason Chen's in this instance.
The law is very clear. If you find something. You give it to the establishment's owner. At the VERY LEAST notify the establishment's owner that you found a phone and that you can be contacted at ###-###-####. Did the guy who found that do that? No. Did Gizmodo? No. Did Gizmodo know that this--the most basic requirement the law provides--action was not performed? Yes. How do we know they knew? Because they bragged in a story that they would only give it to Apple if Apple admitted it was a secret prototype instead of returning it as required by law to the property owner.
If they had followed the law the next morning Embarassed-Unfortunate-Apple-Employee would have gotten his secret phone out of lost and found where it belonged and Jason Chen wouldn't have had all of his gear placed where he belongs: in the courthouse under lock and key.
Gizmodo is not Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the term "narcissistic twit" also applies to some dumbass corporation whose tool loses a top secret prototype, after having too many drinks at a public restroom, and hopes the whole legal system bows to their corporate interests and entitlement to total control.
It's scary how brainwashed people are in the US regarding corporations. I can envision a near future in which people will gladly insert 12 inch sticks up their rectums because they will be told that is good for the economy.
LOL
Protest with coverage? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do media sites always complain about Apple, then proceed to give them so much free advertising? Every time Apple releases a new product, the media falls over themselves to tell everyone about it. If they wanted to teach Apple a lesson, they'd impose their own ban on Apple news. No free product placement on the front page. No glowing "reviews" about how great the new iWhatever is and how you just have to have one.
Of course, that would imply intelligence in the media, and so far there's been very litt
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. T's words of Wisdom: (Score:2)
More evidence of Apple "openness" (Score:2)
Apple, they will format your life.
They are welcome (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think either party comes out looking good, but Gizmodo is really milking it. You bought a leaked phone, attempted to get confirmation that the phone was real to get a scoop, and you got burnt. Oh well. that shit happens. If you don't want to get burnt, don't play with fire. This isn't the pentagon or the white house, where some public service is gained through continued access by all parties--Apple is not a government agency. They are a private company. We may feel (As I do) that Apple SHOULD allow press to attend regardless of their orientation, but apple is under no mandate to do so. If we feel strongly enough, we should refuse to buy the products and/or own the stock on the basis of our reservations. Beyond that, we don't have much sway.
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
The "news" outfit that's willing to pay for an iPhone prototype of murky origins is whining because they don't want to pay for a WWDC ticket?
Oh come on (Score:2)
And this is news why?
They'll be welcome again at another Apple shindig when Steve Jobs is dead and buried.
And, probably not then.
Steven
Ya know, nobody seems to get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any real journalist knows their defining characteristic is integrity. Everybody just wants to overlook that when it comes to Gizmodo though. Integrity means you don't go to a trade show and disrupt the demonstrations of companies that paid lots of money to be there. Integrity means you don't even offer, let alone actually pay for a stolen device. Failing that, integrity means you simply give the device back when asked for it, you don't try to use it as a bargaining chip. Integrity means you don't harm members of the public for no good reason.
Now, let's get into common sense. If journalists are to be the protectors and the propagators of truth, discernment and common sense are two of their most valuable tools. Common sense tells you that you don't attempt to acquire trade secrets of a company that has less than three months ago sent you a letter to cease and desist attempts to acquire said trade secrets. Common sense tells you that if you want greater access to a company, and someone offers to sell you something valuable belonging to said company, you buy it, then return it to said company without making a story about it. Common sense tells you if you do purchase a device that is likely to be stolen in California, pay no more than $799 for it, thereby avoiding any implicit acknowledgement that the device is worth enough to you, to constitute grand theft in the eyes of the law.
So who thinks these guys are journalists? People who don't care about what a journalist is supposed to be.
Re:Ya know, nobody seems to get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless they reported the truth and that is what Apple is punishing them for. If Gizmodo had just made up the entire story they would be at WWDC just like all the other tech rags out there.
They aren't being punished for reporting the "Truth". Hundreds of blogs reported the "Truth" and all of them will be attending.
They're being punished for buying stolen property.
Easy, just blog faster. (Score:2)
Blog about it in a way that publishes faster than Apple can act.
Instant publicity either way.
Apple's disinvitation becomes worthless, and Gizmodo still gets the story.
Waiting for folks to irrationally modbomb in 3,2,1...
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you were joking.
This kind of shit is par for the course today, and it's the reason it is hard to trust journalists these days. Most so-called reviews out there - especially larger sites - are essentially paid-for ads. It's a rare day that a bad game or bad product gets panned like it deserves, because the editors are always worried about (a) the company pulling their ad dollars, (b) the company pulling product support away, or (c) the company launching some frivolous lawsuit just to burn up cash.
Remember the Kane & Lynch Eidos/Gamespot fiasco? Ever watched Farhad Manjoo at Slate change his tune to whatever Apple/Google want him to say on a given day, even if they were saying the opposite last week?
How about Rockstar's bullshit [geek.com] recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I don't look to journalists for product information any more than I would seek it from dead-tree media that depend on adverts.
I don't need to be an early adopter (let them take the risks, they will) so I wait until the folks on enough different forums I lurk in report problems with (electronics, vehicles, whatever) before considering a buy. Pissed off people are more than ready to expose defects.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite likely you'll find that the localised copy is written in one place by the employees of one company, and that the advertising is sold (and revenue received) by another company. True, both companies are themselves owned by an uber-company, but the system is designed to reduce conflicts of interest between the editorial side of the publication and the advertising side of the publication.
If you're in a "small country", then it's fairly possible that the two companies are based in different countries. The local editorial content (reviews, consumer advocacy, blah) is generated by a fairly small staff, but the advertising, quite likely the printing, and possibly some of the more international content comes from the multinational uber-company.
Contrary to the cynicism that a lot of other readers punt, this structure has been widely adopted in the print media for decades, in no small part because over the longer term advertisers and editorial staff both recognise that customers tend to re-visit publications that put a high value on their editorial independence. This is not to deny that clashes do happen - they do - but to stress that more mature media have developed techniques for reducing the frequency and severity of such clashes, while recognising that they are inevitable and actually good for the publication in the longer run.
It's likely that 17,348 separate SlashDotters will reply and regale me with tales of their miserable experiences. None of them will have got as far as reading this, but I'll waste electrons writing it nonetheless : firstly, a significant part of the computer press is not particularly "mature", especially parts that have come from web back into print media. This applies to both publications and individual "journalists". Secondly, I'm describing the situation I know in Europe - I don't know (or care much) about the situation in other countries media - if you don't like the media you get in in your home country, either import stuff that you do like, or move out. If you don't have those options, then you've likely got bigger problems.
(Caveat - I learned a lot about journalistic ethics and the "back room" organisation of news media from being friends with a British editor who spent a couple of decades in NZ and AU before returning to teach and practice journalism in Britain and Norway ; he tells me that the structures "down south" are broadly similar.)
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree in general that a journalistic site should not fear biting the hand that feeds them, for the sake of integrity.
But Gizmodo has already proven that they do not have integrity. They fenced stolen property and then attempted blackmail/extortion on Apple, very very recently. It's not some 10 year old grudge, the fallout of this shit is still happening. This sort of behaviour really should not be condoned, and nobody should expect it to be.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
From both personal experience and anecdotal evidence I lost my faith in Gizmodo a long time ago. Their policy of banning commenters for disagreeing with their contributors is just one of the ways they ensure their opinion is always reflected as the truth on Gizmodo.
I'd prefer to get trolled by 100 /b/tards than see a site with just pure arsekissing & cocksucking by commenters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
yup exactly why i gave up... same goes for BoingBoing...
advocating free speech (just for the free publicity it seems) while censoring/mocking those who have a different viewpoint... a bit too much for my taste...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny, I disagree with Gizmodo all the time and they haven't banned me yet. I took them to task several times for the way they hyped the iPad.
Maybe it's the way you do it?
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that Apple didn't like the press, it's that Gizmodo stole their property.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:4, Informative)
And then wouldn't give it back without an "official confirmation" by apple. They were trying to hold the prototype hostage for an inside scoop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?
Or a Chinese knockoff company.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, imagine wanting to verify the owner before handing it over.
Under California law, you mustgive the phone to the bartender for safekeeping. Return it to its owner - or surrender it to the police.
Under California laww, you are legally a caretaker of the phone - you hold it in trust for its owner.
You cannot disassemble the prototype on your workbench.
You cannot call in a professional photographer for a commercial photo session.
Demanding money or services from the owner for its return is extortion, plain and simple.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Informative)
Given that Gizmodo knew the name of the actual Apple engineer who was the keeper of the device, why would you day they needed paper confirmation from Apple?
I mean we know from the email that Gizmodo sent to Apple the fact that they only wanted that confirmation "for journalistic purposes". But it would be fun to find out what sort of nonsense you've managed to cook up to convince yourself that Gizmodo was in the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple had already privately confirmed it.
That outcome results in 'Apple planned the whole thing for PR and Gizmodo is in bed with Apple' Gizmodo is then painted as part of Apple's PR machine. They can do it publicly.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like an odd moral system that allows purchasing stolen property, but avoids participation in marketing.
Then again it seems like an odd moral system of so many on slashdot that support the thief rather than the victim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The property was never stolen in the common use of the term, any more than torrented DVD rips are. It was lost. While the law may have made it "stolen property" (and it isn't at all clear; only the criminal code section applies), it was never deliberately taken from anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Gizmodo actually committed a felony."
Did someone get convicted that we don't know about, or do you commit libel as a hobby?
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Informative)
The way this is written always causes confusion among the feeble-minded. For example, unlike other cases where the theft happens right when you take something that you shouldn't take, in the case of lost property it is absolutely fine to pick up lost property, then you can take some time looking for the owner, and it's not theft. When you finally keep it instead of handing it over to the police, that is when it becomes theft. In this case, when the finder sold the phone to Gizmodo it was obvious that he wasn't returning it to the owner or giving it to the police, so at that point it became a theft and the sale was a sale of stolen goods. Some people ask why Apple only called it a theft when pictures appeared on the internet and not earlier - obviously Apple didn't _know_ it was theft up to that point; for all they knew someone could be knocking on every door in Cupertino to find the owner.
In Oregon, you would likely have to look for crimes related to lost property. For example, in New York you must give lost property to the police within ten days of finding or receiving it, otherwise it is a misdemeanour punishable with jail up to six months (they don't give that misdemeanour any name, so apparently it is not theft, but you go to jail anyway). According to New York law, not only the finder, but also Gizmodo committed a misdemeanour - they should have given the phone to the police within ten days from buying it.
But don't concentrate too much on the word "theft". "Theft" is what it is called in California, but I can guarantee that not returning lost property will be some kind of crime, often under a different name, in any civilised and many uncivilised countries.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't the guy who found it made a reasonable effort by calling up Apple, asking them if they want it back?
No "reasonable effort" would have been to notify the establishment at which the phone was lost that they had in their possession a 'found' phone.
If they had made that minimal effort or... done the legally correct action of simply *GIVING* the phone to the barkeeper in the first place then the next morning the Apple employee would have dropped by before work and picked up the phone he forgot on the bar.
Taking it home and not telling anyone isn't making a minimal effort.
If I can BMW's customer service line and tell them I found a super secret BMW prototype the guy in India isn't going to be trained or have any method of getting a hold of the CEO than you or I. Apple is so insular that most Apple employees don't even know what the new iPhone looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about Rockstar's bullshit [geek.com] recently at a reviewer who didn't like Red Dead Redemption? I wonder how many people Rockstar paid off to get the "critical acclaim" for their boring western sandbox... er litterbox gameplay.
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
hear hear, I too think Red Dead Redemption is great and more importantly, my girlfriend enjoys playing it as well.
She's very finicky in her gaming choices, and while she was let down with the "morality" in GTA IV after getting hooked on GTA III, she doesn't seem to have a problem with the morality in Red Dead Redemption and enjoys the gameplay.
However, no game or movie or any other product should ever expect bad reviews across the board.
They should look forward to bad reviews that offer solid criticism on g
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but the reason it's been getting rave reviews is because people actually fucking like it. It's cool if you don't, I hate some of the most acclaimed games (and movies, and music for that matter) of all time. That's just because it doesn't fit me, not because everyone else got paid to pretend to like it.
Uh...that would be fine, except that particular reviewer didn't like it, and it's his right to have an opinion, and his job to write about it. However, Rockstar responded by trying to get him to write a more favorable review. That's incredibly unethical, and it seems to me that if the game is as great as you say, they could afford some critics disliking it and survive it just fine. When the reviewer in question pointed out Rockstar's unethical behavior by publishing their e-mail, he got fired. So I guess the people he works for don't want to end whatever perks they get from Rockstar by exposing their tactics. Which is again, bullshit.
It might very well be that you're right, and the rave reviews are there because the game is awesome. The point is that when Rockstar pulls this shit, there's no way to tell if that's true because you can't tell if any one positive review is being honest or dishonest.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Informative)
Toby McCasker was sacked for a number of reasons, one of which was his decision to post a private email on his Facebook page. This email was not referring to a game review. He should not be considered a credible source of information on this matter.
As a reviewer you don't go around posting emails sent by the game publishers that are intended to be private, that reflects badly both on you and your employer. Some of the circumstantial information we got on him suggests he might just be a self-centered douche-bag.
The private e-mail in question is as follows, according to the article Moryath linked to:
This is the biggest game we’ve done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world.
Can you please ensure Toby’s article reflects this – he needs to respect the huge achievement he’s writing about here.
Exposing that is the ethical responsibility of anyone who reads it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think we can all agree that whistleblowers are cowardly people who should be silenced at any cost and do not deserve to have jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the fundamental mistake your making is indulging the likes of Gizmodo and Gamespot by calling it journalism. Its not journalism at all. They are at best infomercials that on rare occasions make a weak attempt at balance just to grab a little credibility here and there.
Re:I do not have a problem with this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think anyone who reads my comments, and no I'm not vain enough to think that people do, knows I'm not a fan of Apple's business practices or attitude, but you have to have a World Heavy Weight Championship Belt in Officially Missing the Point to bring up a "journalistic ethics" complaint against Apple in this particular soap opera.
If Jason Chen or the Gawker media group had even a smattering of "Journalistic ethic" in them, they wouldn't have purchased a stolen phone off someone, written an article about ripping the phone apart, followed up by an article humiliating the Apple engineer that lost it to 'prove its real', then attempt to make Apple publicly announce it's their phone before giving it back.
Re: (Score:2)
I am with you and it makes sense, but you can't go on applying it to all the shills too. Just because they are 'bloggers' does not make them impartial. Especially Gizmodo.
Re:Oh Noes (Score:5, Funny)
The apparent snub has left the tech blog in a bit of a predicament—according to Editorial Director Brian Lam, Gizmodo is going to use the liveblogging of a number of other sources to construct its own, well, liveblog, of the WWDC keynote instead of its planned, "we're actually there" coverage.
All of the Gizmodo sources can start this concerted effort to make something up. Have one guy write that Steve showed up Naked. One the Steve had a pink faux turtle neck. Steve came out. Steve introduces the iWall for the very wealthy who want a touch screen wall for their internet a movie viewing pleasure..
This could be really fun!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, the old "Apple is for gay people" joke.
The 1980's called. They want their humour back.
But congratulations on being a homophobic bigot - your parents must be so proud.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Congrats on being a humorless prick - Phantom Limb must be so proud.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The 90's called, they want their ""x" called, they want their "y" back" back.
(Enjoy the recursion.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Gizmodo wants to go, they can buy a ticket. No one is stopping them.
You really expect Apple to give them a ticket for free (which is what this story is about - and it's not even a confirmed denial, Apple just hasn't go back to them, so it;s either ignoring or busy etc, not a confirmed no) after the entire iPhone prototype fiasco?
Mm.
Remind me to invite the guy who stole my last car to my party celebrating the purchase of my new car so he can drink my beer and eat my food all at my expense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a funny fact though. Apple is only 10% of the market share for computers and 25% for mobile phones. Why the fuck do they get so much coverage?
Here is a funny fact though. Tesla motors is less than 1% of the market share for cars. Why the fuck do they get so much coverage?
In case you're unclear on the issue, the press doesn't portion out news coverage based upon market share. They cover what is new, innovative, strange, controversial, and otherwise of interest to the public.
The majority of people don't fucking care.
The majority of people care a lot more about a cool new toy from Apple or Google (even one with very small market share) than they do about the latest boring device from Nokia