Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I do agree with your assessment of Job's answer to the Gizmodo/Chen question -- he is clearly what he is in terms of his code, and does not waver. That is truly admirable and deserves great respect. I say this as someone who has been (and still firmly is), since this story broke, on the side of "Apple should let it go."
I almost did mention your name in the previous post. But knowing how perceptive you are, it would have been received without stating the obvious.
It was not meant "to rub it in". Actually, I was just puzzled by your position and the rationale you put forward, while the case was unfolding. I was baffled (but opted not to comment) considering how much I thought you knew Steve Jobs while following his career or read his history.
Steve Jobs does care about Apple but it did not stop him to adopt measures or policies, since he came back, that would be viewed by so-called investors (some were more speculators) to affect Apple stock.
As it turned out, Apple stock price did not directly take a beating because of the case. Apple even surpassed Microsoft now in terms of capitalization. I do not think that this was due either to the conspiratory theory that Apple staged the "lost iPhone" incident.
Apple will continue to attract the media and fans (as well as haters) for as long at it continues to innovate, and be a game-changer. Rather than detract, Steve Jobs character adds to the the process.
There is however a certain degree of realism in Steve Jobs. It would be too distracting, specially after the example with Gizmodo, to go after every violator, especially in places where Apple really does not have as much influence, and foreign meddling might be viewed differently.
I would not speculate what is being done behind the scene, but it would not be unlikely that if there is any truth behind those other leaks it is most likely that the very least he might have done was to call the head of his suppliers in Asia.
Depending on the outcome of the Gizmodo case, or whatever the outcome of the case, it is unlikely that any blogger would take lightly to repeating what Gizmodo has done. The reality of the legal cost must really have been impressed by now among those involved.
The irony is that other bloggers and mainstream media may have profited more from the fiasco created by Gizmodo, without incurring the cost of acquisition, and the legal costs that must be piling for all the characters in the "movie".