Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Iphone Apple

Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC 395

Posted by timothy
from the not-until-you-apologize-mister dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC

Comments Filter:
  • by zill (1690130) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:43PM (#32477786)

    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:Wow (Score:2, Informative)

    by mulaz (1538147) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:53PM (#32477866) Homepage
    Nope...
    There's no was Apple could do something like this [macobserver.com]...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:03PM (#32477920)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:05PM (#32477938)

    WWDC 2010 was announced April 28th. It sold out 8 days later.

    Gizmodo posted their iPhone story on April 19th. They also knew, from the iPad announcement, that they were no longer given press badges to Apple events. They had "bounties" for an iPad -- $10,000 for pictures/video, $100,000 if they could have one before the iPad event. Apple is within their rights to choose which press to give access to.

    Gizmodo could have bought tickets to WWDC. It's pure speculation (not saying you're saying it, but others are) that Apple has banned them. Gizmodo just wanted a free handout. There are WWDC 2010 tickets on Craigslist. They've shown to have no problem paying for access.

    Buy a ticket on Craigslist and wait in line like all the non-press. No big deal.

  • by cffrost (885375) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:25PM (#32478102) Homepage

    If Gizmodo pissed in my [Cheerios] - I wouldn't invite them to my party either.

    Enough- that's not what happened! His Holy Majesty (blessing be upon Him) left His iBox of Cheerios in Gizmodo's bathroom, and Gizmodo accidentally knocked them into the toilet while taking a Whizmodo. Facts, please!

  • by halivar (535827) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {reglefb}> on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:29PM (#32478136) Homepage

    Apple had already privately confirmed it. Gizmodo wanted them to publicly acknowledge that they got the true scoop. That's extortion.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:40PM (#32478216)

    Instead they chose to illegally dissect

    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.

    After Apple is done with them

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:44PM (#32478268)

    Um no, they wanted a *public* "official confirmation." That is they wanted Apple to come out and say "yes that's our device" to the public. Apple readily said it was theirs privately. The emails were pretty clear they were trying to protect their investment in the story (he even said so), not Apple's hardware.

    Not taking sides here, but claiming the confirmation was to verify ownership is nonsense. Even Gizmodo didn't make such a silly claim.

  • by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:07PM (#32478418)
    Oregon law obviously doesn't apply, but California law. California law is a bit unusual in that it calls all kinds of things "theft" that have different names elsewhere. For example, if you rent a car, and don't return it, and the rental car company asks you to return it, and you keep it for another eleven days, then by California law it will be assumed that this was theft. The important one in this case is that when you find someone's lost property, and take it, and then neither return it to the owner nor hand it over to the police, then California law calls this theft.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:11PM (#32478446)

    Boohoo, Apple has chosen to have one less PR outlet humping their leg. Wah.

    Were it the government refusing to talk to an outlet that paid a whistleblower for information, I would have a problem with it.

    It's a PRIVATE COMPANY refusing a PRESS PASS to a group that apparently PAID FOR STOLEN PROPERTY, then tried to put Apple on the hot seat to get it back. Pardon me if I feel like Gizmodo is getting pretty much what they deserved. They played a dangerous game and lost at it. Call the fucking wahmbulance.

  • by westlake (615356) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:28PM (#32478590)

    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:Good (Score:2, Informative)

    by mranime (760760) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:47PM (#32478748)
    Actually, it was the roommate of the iPhone finder who tipped off the police. [wired.com]

    From the article:

    Martinson turned Hogan in, because Hogan had plugged the phone into her laptop in an attempt to get it working again after Apple remotely disabled it. She was convinced that Apple would be able to trace her Internet IP address as a result. "Therefore she contacted Apple in order to absolve herself of criminal responsibility," according to the detective who wrote the affidavit.

  • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:32PM (#32479034) Homepage Journal

    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:Good (Score:1, Informative)

    by Rotorua (1006439) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:40PM (#32479070)
    couldn't agree more fuck Apple !!!
  • by Estanislao Martínez (203477) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:53PM (#32479154) Homepage

    It may have gone faster if not for the fact that during the entire negotiation, Steve Jobs kept screaming "THAT'S NOT MY CAR!".

    Except that never happened. Read the affidavit for the search warrant. Once Gizmodo asked Apple for a letter saying that the phone was theirs, Apple sent it.

    To make it worse, even if Apple had denied ownership of the phone, that's not relevant, because the Good Samaritan knows that the car is not his.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @08:10PM (#32479280)

    Gizmodo needed proof that Apple was the true owner of the device.

    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.

  • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @08:54PM (#32479534) Homepage Journal

    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:Oh Noes (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @10:31PM (#32479974)

    Congrats on being a humorless prick - Phantom Limb must be so proud.

    The only phantom limb around here is your penis.

  • Gawker (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alaren (682568) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @11:33PM (#32480272)

    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.

    The practice isn't limited to Gizmodo. And while it is par for Gawker sites in general, it is actually pretty typical of all media--including "traditional" media. It's not 100% of the time. It's not even always transparent or malicious. But there are a number of cases, some quite famous, of (for example, not to start a leftist/rightist flame war or anything) liberal newspapers endorsing conservative candidates for high political office because the owner said so.

    It's all business; often business and principles coincide and everyone is happy. But sometimes they don't, and principles rarely win. Sometimes the pricetag is too high.

    In this case, we have two businesses and two kinds of principles in competition. I think both companies have behaved despicably in the past, so I guess they were bound to be at odds eventually. That they're fighting now gets a big "meh" from me.

  • by mad flyer (589291) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @11:47PM (#32480344)

    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...

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

Working...