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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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.
  • Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `3suivulp'> on Sunday June 06, 2010 @04:24PM (#32477668) Journal

    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.



  • 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.

  • 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 bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Sunday June 06, 2010 @05:44PM (#32478270)

    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.

    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.

  • by Chyeld ( 713439 ) <> on Sunday June 06, 2010 @06:33PM (#32478624)

    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.

  • by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:23PM (#32478966) Homepage Journal

    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 game play and character/story development and use that to try to make better games.

  • by sortius_nod ( 1080919 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @07:23PM (#32478974) Homepage

    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.

  • by Joe U ( 443617 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @08:27PM (#32479382) Homepage Journal

    He said someone had committed a felony, not that they had been convicted for it.

    It's called innocent until proven guilty.

    Let Gizmodo try to sue him for that.

    I doubt they would, but they could.

    They'll lose, given all the evidence is that they did indeed commit a felony.

    Putting your psychic predictions aside, precedent says otherwise. Ever wonder why every single news story uses 'alleged'?

    Besides, before a libel case went through, someone no doubt will have been convicted for the felony.

    You would be willing to bet that he would be convicted before a civil suit is filed? That can take years. If a suit was filed today, the lawyer fees start today.

  • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Sunday June 06, 2010 @09:08PM (#32479606)

    Cars have locks on them for a reason - to keep people from taking them. That's also why houses and bank deposit boxes have locks on them - to keep people from taking what's inside them. If you don't want someone to take your phone / book / any other possession, don't leave it sitting in a public place.

    I've left things at restaurants or in a classroom when I was in college - sometimes I came back later and they were there (which is great), other times they weren't. Who did I blame when they were gone? Myself, because I was the one who left it there.

    Take some goddamn responsibility for your actions and, more importantly, your mistakes. Don't try to make it a crime and ruin someone else's life because you messed up and left your phone laying in a cafe.

  • 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 metamatic ( 202216 ) on Monday June 07, 2010 @11:54AM (#32484664) Homepage Journal

    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?

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.