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This discussion has been archived.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 Space cowboy (13680) * on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:07PM (#32477584) Journal
    I mean, it was quite clear from Steve's reaction during D8 that he regards it as having been stolen (and CA law would seem to agree, at least IMHO). Why the hell would he give free passes to the people who he thinks stole from his company ?

    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
    • 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.

    • 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.".

      • by Protonk (599901)

        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?

        • by Dahamma (304068)

          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.

      • by Joe U (443617)

        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.

        • by zill (1690130)
          True. But again Apple has full rights to kick that independent out if it's discovered that they are affiliated with Gizmodo.

          It's obviously bad press, but just like being singled out for the Foxconn suicides there's nothing Apple can do about it.
    • 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.

      • by meerling (1487879)
        there's plenty of info out there that Steve forgets a lot of things, especially when he's wrong, it fails, or it was someone else's idea first.

        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
  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:08PM (#32477588) Homepage
    I don't care so much that they exposed Apple's new phone but the fact they so happily gave up the guy's name showing no journalistic integrity. Fuck 'em, ban them for years.
    • Well, you see... including themselves and especially their readers, no one knew they were journalists.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mranime (760760)
      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 QuietLagoon (813062) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:09PM (#32477592)
    Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature [cnet.com] to be allowed attend these types of events.
  • Milk that bull (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:09PM (#32477598)
    So ... Gizmodo can't provide news at the WWDC after obvious events previously, so they're plugging link-bait about their inability to provide news. And this is news - how? Why, it's Gizmodo news! But of course! (Get your news that's only news to Gizmodo, on Gizmodo!)
    • Re:Milk that bull (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mmaniaci (1200061) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:06PM (#32477950)
      I read the article as news about Apple and Gizmodo, and it was brought to me by PCMag (through slashdot). Your reality distortion field must be turned up to 11 today.
    • If you'll note the article is by PC Magazine which is not associated with gawker as far as I am aware. So how is this link-baiting? I certainly think it isn't news and there is HUGE difference between BANNING Gizmodo and not giving them a free pass with news credentials but I don't see how you are correct in your assertion that this is link-baiting.
    • by coolgeek (140561)

      We're hoping if we feed this enough, gizmodo will actually eat itself.

  • by Wuhao (471511) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:13PM (#32477612)

    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.

  • Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pluvius (734915)

    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

  • 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.

    • by Joe Tie. (567096)
      For some reason I keep going back to io9 despite it sharing so many gawker family traits. It's a science fiction site with little apparent grasp of what science is, and one which seems to gasp with manic joy at every piece of low budget urban fantasy that pins the word "scifi" on itself. And the worst part is I don't even know why. It might just be the one or two contributers there who one just gets the impression of forced labor from. Like they know the score, know that we know, want to do actual reporting
  • by binaryspiral (784263) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:26PM (#32477682)

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

    • by zill (1690130) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:10PM (#32477984)
      I haven't eaten Cheerios in years; can we please stick to the car analogies?

      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.
  • Gizmodo comments (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:29PM (#32477700)

    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.

    • by DittoBox (978894)

      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)

      by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Monday June 07, 2010 @02:58AM (#32481258)

      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.

  • by retech (1228598) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:30PM (#32477708)
    PLEASE never call these narcissistic twits journalists again. Journalism is based on research, fact finding, source checking and has a goal to keep a check and balance on the democratic process. Agreed, much of the media today fails this. But in a spectrum of "news" Gizmodo "stories" are on par with Bat Boy in the Enquirer. Their usage of the English language is barely a step above txt speak while their maturity is nowhere above that of a third grade child.
    • by Dutchmaan (442553)
      Gizmodo more narcissistic than Steve? I do believe I have seen it all now. Bring on 2012, I'm ready.
    • 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

  • by theCoder (23772)

    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

    • by mmaniaci (1200061)
      Haha, very true. I don't understand why the media and consumers are so in love with Apple. Loving Apple is like asking stranger to marry after he/she just raped you.
  • "I pity the fool who messes with Mr. Steve."
  • Apple, they will format your life.

  • They are welcome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Protonk (599901) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:54PM (#32477868) Homepage
    They are welcome, they just don't get their tickets gratis. If they bought a ticket they would be at the keynote. You can construct whatever narrative you like. Either this is apple imposing their iron fist on dissent or this is Gizmodo getting their comeuppance for buying stolen property and attempting to extort apple for it. In both cases apple (presumably) has the right to refuse to extend a welcome to a press organization. That may be unseemly, but it is true.

    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.
  • 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

  • by coolgeek (140561) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:57PM (#32478360) Homepage

    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.

  • 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...

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...