Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Media Iphone Apple

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."
This discussion has been archived.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...

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:09PM (#32477592)
    Gizmodo has shown in the past that they are too immature [] 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!)
  • 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.

  • by Moryath ( 553296 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:15PM (#32477630)

    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 [] 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.

  • 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 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 theCoder ( 23772 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:34PM (#32477736) Homepage Journal

    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 little evidence of that.

    (that, and as others have noted, Gizmodo isn't exactly above reproach in many ways)

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:38PM (#32477754)
    Coverup? Coverup would be if Apple invited no news outlets and kept everything hush and squelched any reporting which Apple has done in the past. I think the word you are looking for is "retribution".
  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:39PM (#32477758)

    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.

  • by Your.Master ( 1088569 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:44PM (#32477790)

    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.

  • by mlingojones ( 919531 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:44PM (#32477794) Homepage
    Rockstar and Eidos just didn't like the reviews, though. Gizmodo actually committed a felony.

    It's not that Apple didn't like the press, it's that Gizmodo stole their property.
  • by gyrogeerloose ( 849181 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:46PM (#32477816) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:53PM (#32477860)
    Get an account, go to Preferences, Sections, block the Apple category and STFU.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:14PM (#32478008)

    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.

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:19PM (#32478050)

    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 worries. After Apple is done with them, they will be lucky if Apple does not decide to pursue having gizmodo shut down over this.

  • by Joe U ( 443617 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:19PM (#32478052) Homepage Journal

    "Gizmodo actually committed a felony."

    Did someone get convicted that we don't know about, or do you commit libel as a hobby?

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:21PM (#32478068)
    Its funny how people tend to act exactly the way you treat them. I don't think the prank was a good idea...


    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 validated the reason for being treated differently.

  • Re:Oh Noes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:42PM (#32478244)

    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.

  • by coolgeek ( 140561 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:42PM (#32478250) Homepage

    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.

  • by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <> on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:47PM (#32478286)

    Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:57PM (#32478354) Journal

    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.

  • 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.

  • by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 ) <robert.chromablue@net> on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:07PM (#32478414)
    No, Gizmodo claimed that the public confirmation was to help ensure they weren't painted as being participants in an Apple marketing ploy... which, in and of itself, is a fairly valid desire.
  • In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jay L ( 74152 ) * <jay+slash AT jay DOT fm> on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:13PM (#32478474) Homepage

    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?

  • by Joe U ( 443617 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:25PM (#32478572) Homepage Journal

    Oh please. Because they thought it might have belonged to IBM or Microsoft?

    Or a Chinese knockoff company.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:37PM (#32478662)

    IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did

    Wtf are you talking about? Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS and all the other legitimate major news organizations pay for their stories. Remember when CNN paid for a photo of the guy who stopped the underwear bomber? Every "non-legitimate" news organization followed it for weeks complaining about double standards.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:57PM (#32478784)

    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:03PM (#32478812)

    The mods there are in general immature idiots. The worst being the Jezebel mods.

  • by Wuhao ( 471511 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:05PM (#32478828)

    Probably because the way I act at parties is different from the way I act at industry trade shows.

  • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:14PM (#32478896)

    More rational people, even those who may not completely agree with Apple's decision, will at least understand where it's coming from.

    Yes, we do know where it's coming from - the almighty Lord Jobs is pissy that someone found out about his closely guarded "secret" (really, is he dumb enough to think we don't know a new update to every iDevice is coming each year with minor improvements?). Jobs has proven time and again that he's an arrogant prick who wants to force everyone to do as he says. This is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum from a childish CEO who has a fixation on making sure everyone knows how powerful he is.

    IMHO, legitimate news organizations do not pay for stories in the manner that Giz did, especially when it involves the purchase of stolen property.

    Actually, they frequently do. Also, the iPhone was found not stolen. If I leave my phone at a bar and you take it, it's my own goddamn fault for being irresponsible and leaving it there.

    And, yes, according to California law, the iPhone prototype was stolen.

    As any rational person knows, the law is not the same as justice. There have been plenty of examples of unjust laws all over the world, and especially in the US (Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws requiring escaped slaves to be taken back to their owners, the DMCA, etc).

    I'm not even going to entertain any debate about that.

    Ah, so you're one of those people who blindly follows the law as opposed to using your brain? Wake up and think a little, you'd be amazed at how many unjust laws exist to cause certain people to profit at others expense.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:24PM (#32478984)

    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 or Dell. Apple is a lot more innovative and more savvy about marketing and that draws the interest of the public. Seriously, would you be happy if the press wrote 5 times the number of articles about HP computers as they do about Apple in order to reflect market share? What would they write and why would anyone care? HP releases another middle of the road PC in no way different than a thousand other boring PCs. And umm, we just though you should all know that, or something. Tune in tomorrow and for our exciting coverage of HP's use of off the shelf Windows OS and how it is exactly like the ones from five other companies and in no way interesting.

  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @08:13PM (#32479306)

    No, Gizmodo claimed that the public confirmation was to help ensure they weren't painted as being participants in an Apple marketing ploy... which, in and of itself, is a fairly valid desire.

    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.

  • by delysid-x ( 18948 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @08:47PM (#32479496)

    I wish Apple would just disappear. They've been guilty of pretentious douchebaggery since I had my C64 and they were claiming that the Apple 2 was better.

  • The thing is, he was just stating his opinion. Maybe he should have said something like this: "In my opinion, Gizmodo is in no way a journalistic enterprise, and furthermore they most likely have committed at least one Felony in the course of their "reporting"."

  • by NimbleSquirrel ( 587564 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @08:59PM (#32479556)

    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 behaviour that triggered those comments and censoring any vaguely critical views is another. I do not like being treated like a child, especially when I'm not at fault.

    It is their blog: they can do what they want, and I will just move somewhere else.

  • by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @09:41PM (#32479732)

    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.

  • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @10:02PM (#32479848)

    On one hand, he apparently believes in personal responsibility and economic liberty, yet believes that Steve Jobs and Apple may not have the right to prosecute Gawker/Chan?

    Apple's behavior has nothing to do with their business or the future of their business and everything to do with Steve Jobs being childish and prone to severe anger issues. Trying to sue someone who finds a phone is bullshit - take it out on the idiot employee who lost the damn phone.

    Jason Chen and Gawker Media acquiring stolen property

    Lost != stolen. When you lose a book because you forgot about it and left it on a plane, do you call the police and report is stolen? No. If you leave your cell phone on a plane, do you call the cops and report it stolen? No. You might call the airline and see if they can find it, but you sure as hell don't report it as a theft because there was no theft, only you not keeping track of your belongings.

    How is it that Gawker/Chen are being personally responsible.

    How is it that they were being irresponsible? I've yet to see anything to show that they were in any way acting irresponsibly. If this had been a major news source (say the NY Times) who'd obtained this or if it was Apple somehow getting a MS prototype, they wouldn't be criticized in any way for this. The only reason that this guy is getting all this shit is because Apple is the "perfect" company and can't be criticized in any way.

  • by Dylan16807 ( 1539195 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @02:55AM (#32481246)
    It's an informal discussion; opinions are often phrased that way.
  • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @03:11AM (#32481316)

    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.

  • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @03:43AM (#32481430)

    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.

  • by LaRainette ( 1739938 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @04:18AM (#32481544)
    NOBODY STOLE THE DAMN PHONE ! Some Apple punkass lost it and steve just can't get over it ! Please stop the misinformation here, somebody ! It's like that extortion non-sense ! How is Gizmodo supposed to extort money from Apple ? I mean you do realize Blackmail is a crime right ?

    Now what sounds more reasonnable :

    A) Gizmodo after making all the buzz they wanted with a prototype iPhone 4G just decided hey why not blackmail Steve Jobs and get millions from Apple ? After all it's not like we are a legitimate news company who will have difficulties laundering money we got from blackmailing another company. We are basically Mafia so...

    B) Steve Jobs as usual got carried away by his incredibly oversized ego and made up some fucked up story to cover the iPhone 4G. Oh no wait he didn't have to make up a story BECAUSE HE NEVER SAID HE HAD BEEN blackmailed ! That's just some shit Apple fanboys have been tossing here and there and that was repeated up until it became true to some morons !
  • by RockDoctor ( 15477 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @05:15AM (#32481718) Journal

    They had one edition where they gave 35% in a review, right next to the game's advertisement.

    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.)

  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @01:23PM (#32485984) Journal

    It seems like an odd moral system that allows purchasing stolen property, but avoids participation in marketing.

    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.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.