Apple says Steve Jobs' email replies on iPhone 4 reception were faked - Page 3

So in maybe a sentence, why does it cross the line?

Here's some free advice for Steve:

Mac OS X' Mail.app supports S/MIME. Get a certificate, you can afford it.
Signed e-mails can't be forged easily, since any modification in the message body will render the signature invalid.

Of course, iOS Mail despite many complaints doesn't support S/MIME yet, which not only means you can't send signed or encrypted messages, you als can't read then while you're on the road should you receive any!

Of course, signed messages are also pretty hard to deny after the fact, so plausible deniability becomes a bit problematic once you start using them...

Oh yeah, and can we finally get S/MIME support in iOS, while we're on the subject?

You really think that one of the most successful companies in the world, one which has a strong supplier partnership with Apple, would hire such an imbecile?

Did you stop by the BGR site and look at the the screen captures and header shots? Lots of detail so if Apple's spokesperson is fibbing, it'll be tricky to explain.

The plot thickens.

I'd like the iPhone 4 to work like every other phone I've ever owned, in completing calls irrespective of how I hold it but that seems to be too much to ask of the iP4 as it currently stands.

I hope that clarifies my position for you.

Anyone with a computer and a keyboard can fake headers and screenshots. All that the "evidence" proves is that BGR trusted basic "evidence" and knows nothing about e-mails.

Remember when anti-Apple tools kept telling us that the Gizmodo leak was staged, or that there was no ethical warrant to seize Chen's stuff? Wrong.

When the facts come out, the trolls will hibernate for another fake scandal.

That they may be fakes is entirely possible, while the fact that they're available for scrutiny at least allows some measure of forensic examination. We wait with bated breath at the outcome.

As a sideshow to the main event though, it has it's own measure of mystery and deception, n'est pas?

The sad part of all this is not that some site tried to get a few clicks with typical tabloid-style made-up boulevard journalism, that's to be expected. The sad part is that people seriously think that you can e-mail the CEO of a multi-billion company directly, who will sit down to wade through the thousands of e-mails he likely gets every day to reply to them in person. Sure enough he has better things to do with his time, and sure enough a succesful business like Apple will never, ever allow direct and unscreened communication with Jobs, especially not about hairy issues like this, which could cost them millions in damages.

Even more sad is that the whole fucking internet copies these stories as truths, and hordes of idiots echo them everywhere. It's been like this with every iPhone release, and this one is no different, but worse. Sure enough some people will have reception issues with their iPhones, 1.7 million have been sold and the US enourmous, so the chances are close to 100% that not everyone will have a great experience with it. But the way it is right now, the supposed antenna problems have been blown up as if the iPhone 4 is pretty much useless as a phone, and that you should expect it to fail when you try making a call. Meanwhile there is no actual, factual information on how widespread this issue actually is, or how bad the reception issues are except for a higher attenuation loss when holding it, and a stupid way of displaying the signal strength bars.

See, there's that "American fairness" thing where it's considered open-minded to accept bullshit.

"I think Obama's not American." "Well, you're entitled to your opinion..." No, you're not, it's not a matter of opinion but of FACTS.

"They found WMD in Iraq." "Well, I certainly respect your right to your beliefs."

Etc. Etc.

This just encourages the powerful to exploit the ignorant, and there's a lot of ignorant yahoos around.

"Apple is better than Microsoft." Okay, now THAT'S a fact.

My beef was if Apple was actually denying the emails.

It seemed dubious that a single reporter would get such a denial, that the reporter withheld the "on record" source, and there was no general press release.

The guy gave up his source, so I believe Apple said it. That doesn't mean that Apple is not lying to protect themselves.

Or maybe not.

I will be honest here... I hadn't heard about that case before now. Almost all the search results I found had the same "urban legend" tone (short on facts, long on opinion). The only page I found that had an in depth analysis called the claim bunk.

That being said, regardless of the actual facts surrounding the case, I think the "CBS" comparison is more apropos since it involved the actual releasing of faked information, whereas the Fox case was about the right to do so.

CBS: Published a story based on a forged document. Later issued public apology after realizing the document was forged.

FOX: Regularly publishes patently false, libelous, incendiary faux news. Rarely acknowledges or apologizes for anything.

You are not suggesting someone should pry his iPhone off from Steve Jobs's hands so he can send no more emails, are you? I guess Mr. Jobs can make a perfectly good judgement as to what emails to answer. It's the blogger's responsibilty to determine how legit such correspondence is.

So, in the past there have never been issues with AT&T's coverage, that's a relief to know.

I guess we won't have to put up with all the whining about it after being subjected to three years of it.



I wonder if the SEC should look into this, manipulation of stock prices and all that stuff.

The iPhone 4 works very well and makes calls better than other phones according to Anand's tests.

Yes, there are ways to make it drop the number of visible bars, but there's no evidence that that consistently causes calls to drop. Quite a few people report that they can make calls even when it says 'no service'. Even so, you have to go out of your way to create the problem. In normal use, it doesn't happen.


That's BS. First, why should Apple issue a general press release? One magazine called and asked a question and Apple answered it. That doesn't call for a press release.

And the accusation that Apple is lying is just absurd. Companies don't flat out lie very frequently. They might leave out information or put a spin on things, but it's extremely rare that they tell a lie like this - nor is there any real benefit. And, you'll notice that BGR has not offered to had a forensic specialist look over the emails.


ROTFLMAO. Glad you finally came to your senses. Your 'logic' needs some work, though.


That's not even close to being true. Apple could say "we will stand behind this statement, but don't want it attributed to an individual. That would be on the record. More likely, the Apple spokesman could give his name and Fortune could have left it out for space reasons. That would still be on the record.

Oh, and it turns out that the guy's name IS public now.

So when are you going to admit that your posts are all full of BS?


That's just plain absurd. First, there'd be no reason for Apple to lie. Second, companies rarely tell flat lies like that. The consequences are too great.

Why should Apple file suit against BGR? They aren't worth the bother- and there's no reason to give them the publicity. Let them shrivel up and die on their own. It's not like the Gizmodo case where trade secrets were stolen.

Maybe so, but your initial protestation descended into the absurd when you demanded to see a Press Release sent to all Media Outlets containing the same information. That's not how journalism works.

Oh you had me and I was willing to take my lumps till you got to here.

Companies don't flat out lie very frequently? Are you serious? Enron, BP, Microsoft, ever heard of them? How about the recent banking crisis, ninja loans, and the astronomical lies they were telling about the toxic debt they were passing around.

To try and claim the moral high ground for any public traded company in this day and time gives me the giggles. Apple has a lot to lose if it is realized they laid an egg with their flagship product and I don't doubt for even a microsecond that if a lie would get them out of it that they would lie their tails off.

Even though I'm a rabid, Kool-aid drinking Apple fanboy I agree with your publicly traded company comment. We want to think of Apple as some pinnacle of virtue, the tech master of the universe. But they are just a for-profit company in the end, whose sole goal is to make money for their owners, the stockholders. So yes, they are quite capable of skullduggery. Add to this the fact, so perfectly demonstrated here in this forum, that the sharks (err, I mean lawyers) are always circling in the water and anything can happen. One thing is for sure. Now that the lawyers are involved we will be hearing at lot less out of Apple going forward.

If TRUE, congratulations bloggers everywhere, you have arrived!

You are now in league with the so called, "objective", "non-partisan", and "factually accurate" of your esteemed brethren of journalists in the "Main Street" media! Woo-Hoo!

Are the consequences any less great for BGR or Bruford? Both of them have their entire companies on the line, while for Apple it's just another "don't hold it that way" in a moment when they're such media darlings a simple "we misspoke" would put the whole thing away.

That's the crux here: it's not necessary for Apple to have lied per se for the PR person to have been incorrect. He may simply have been mistaken. People make mistakes, and there's a lot happening at Apple right now. It doesn't seem entirely impossible that they are mistaken any more than the possibility that BGR may be mistaken.

As a company that has deployed its army of lawyers against blogs that post leaks from employees, it wouldn't really be all that out of character to at least file a cease-and-desist with BGR to pull the story down or issue a retraction. A suit wouldn't be necessary at all until after a cease-and-desist were ignored; indeed, that's the normal route such things take.

So to be clear, NO ONE currently has sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the emails posted at BGR. We have only BGR's hearsay vs a PR person's hearsay.

Given the "don't hold it that way" email that's gone completely uncontested for weeks, it's surprising that the relatively uninteresting emails at BGR are given so much scrutiny.

You're wrong.

Publicly traded companies disseminate all the time. They put spin on their statements. They are selective in the information they release, often favoring information that puts them into a positive light. I never denied that - and some are far worse than others.

But that doesn't change the fact that publicly traded companies do not flat out lie to a 'yes/no' question all that often.

Anonymous sources can speak on the record. It signifies they can be quoted directly, but not attributed due to fear of retribution. It is a time tested way of getting hard information that will stand up to further fact finding, or the on the record commenter becomes at risk for being openly outed as a liar by the reporter or editors.

The spokesperson and reporter are laying reputation on the line by printing on-the-record explicitly, that is a mark of journalism rather than blogism.

OffTopic: There are a few liars in there, but not too many. Mostly there are a couple individuals doing as much as they can to cover-up problems from the rest of the company, then when the house of cards falls apart, it just falls apart. The "company" Enron didn't lie, a couple VPs and the CFO cooked up a nifty, and at the time legal accounting trick. The CEO and board was greedy so they didn't look any farther, just kept spending lavishly on what looked like a golden goose that would make more money than anyone ever dreamed so the spending wouldn't be noticed. Then it all fell apart.

The company spokesmen didn't lie, the CEO didn't lie about the dealings. The damage was all done legally! It didn't become a legal problem until after the fact when failure to disclose the nastiness's risk was used as the lens of business accountability. Yes the folks involved deserved the legal trouble and convictions they got, but they are the VAST minority in the company and business as a whole. The rest got burned for lack of accountability, not lying.

Why am I splitting hairs? If you want to clean something up you have to understand what the mess is first. Mislabeling the mess will only make any attempts to fix it ineffective and possibly more harmful than good.

Now go back up and read what I said about Enron, here I'll quote it:

Now think about AIG, who almost single handedly created the credit default swap industry that provided top cover and enabled the mortgage crisis to actually become a crisis. It was the SAME PROBLEM. Legal operations without disclosure of risk!

Why is that a problem? We fried Enron for being corporate liars, not for non-disclosure of risk, which would than have also created regulatory controls on risk we still seem to be avoiding. The Enron regulatory solution was making CEO's sign affidavits saying they weren't lying. How much is that helping now???

Don't look for people to screw after the fact because you think they lied, they almost always didn't. Look for the rules that allowed them to do the damaging things legally in the first place, and fix those.

I'm with you, but I think it's only going to get worse because it's getting worse in traditional media as well. True balance and fairness doesn't sell. Grey areas don't sell. Sophisticated arguments don't sell. Simplified name calling and labeling sells. So when the media decides someone is a good guy or a bad guy, it's very simple for the average person to understand. And what the media really loves is a good guy who they can take down and make a bad guy. This also applies to politics and is something the Republicans understand much better than the Democrats do. The Republicans are actually genius at this, turning "liberal", "socialist" and even "sympathetic" into dirty words. (I forget the campaign, but in the 1950s, a candidate accused his opponent of being a heterosexual. The heterosexual lost. Nixon's campaign staff printed up literature about his opponent, Helen Gahagan-Douglas, on pink paper. (Commies were "pinkos"). That worked too.) That's what headlines are about: telling the whole story in four words. Republicans brilliantly do it in one.

In spite of the fact that more people in the U.S. are attending college than ever before, we seem to be getting incredibly dumber in almost every respect: analysis of arguments, understanding of politics, the value we place on learning and literature, etc. There are other forums I participate in and in some of them, 80% of the contributors sound like they learned English as a second language. Even some of the most supposedly financially successful people in this country (and I won't name names here) don't seem to have basic writing skills.

We are focused totally on meaningless trivia. People obtain college degrees who can't tell you the approximate year the Civil War started or the name of the Vice-President or even who we fought against in World War II, but they're genius at sending out 200 tweets a day or what Lady Gaga is up to or whether the stars of Twilight are romantically involved. And we let these people vote. Want to see something really scary? Go to the site http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798 Then ask yourself whether you think these people show up in voting booths and whether such people are interested in sophisticated argument.

Look at this site. While one can argue that the reporting is relatively balanced, the responses generally aren't. They tend to be isolated into "Jobs is a fool and Apple will fail and you're all idiots for buying Apple" and to "Apple/Jobs is my God."

In today's society, grown men dress like little boys and live with their parents until they're 40 and on forums like this one, people call each other names like they're still 10 and in the playground. We're becoming less mature and our media is a reflection of who we are, so I think internet journalism will continue to become less mature as well. We used to make distinctions as to how we behaved when we stood on a street corner and how we behaved in places such as offices and schools, but now we make no distinctions whatsoever and in forums like this one, people seem to have no problem whatsoever with using "WTF" as the totality of their argument.

And just as many people can't tell the difference between Fox or MSNBC commentators and news, they no longer perceive a difference between bloggers and journalism.

So yes, you can dream. I think we'll see mature journalism on the internet just around the same time that Apple loses its arrogance and paranoia.

What distinguishes this set of alleged emails from Jobs from the many others over the last several months is that someone at a major publication (Fortune) was prompted to look into their authenticity.

No one at Fortune bothered to fact check "You're holding it wrong" or any of the others, but somehow these far less interesting emails at BGR warranted more attention.

Does anyone here have an opinion on why Fortune decided to investigate only these lest interesting emails but none of the others? What prompted their call to Apple? Or did the call happen the other way around, as someone in this thread suggested earlier?


Agreed.

Yes they do. I also reserve the right to discount everything they say.

And sites that wish to present themselves as credible should cite sources like BGR as their source and report it as the unsubstantiated "fact" that click whores like BGR specialize in.

This whole thing was blown *way* out of proportion by a bunch of media whoring self serving jerks. I keep hoping the average person will see this sensationalistic crap for what it is, but the general populace loves a good story - even if it is fake and causes harm in the real world.

Humanity at it's finest \


Really? That would be a fascinating court case indeed - can you point me to it?

The voracity of you statement aside, I'm pretty sure if Apple wanted to peruse it they have a very clear cut case of libel. Personally I hope they go after them as the "everything goes and to hell with civility" that is the norm on the Internet is growing very old.

A better question is -- why didn't BGR verify their authenticity, as Fortune did? The answer is actually an obvious one. It is because BGR is not a source of journalism, and Fortune is. The first rule of journalism is to verify, to find more than one source for information. Do journalists sometimes fail to follow this rule? Sure, but that's usually called a mistake. But the untrained (and unprofessional) publishers of web sites like BGR aren't even aware of the rule, so they never follow it.

Unfortunately that costs money. People don't want to pay subscriptions because there is "so much free content - I can get news anywhere!" and they also block ads left and right, so how are you going to fund your vetting, editing and fact checking?


And that's all it will be without a sustainable business model. Up until recently newspapers used to fund all of the above with classified ads - and Craigslist has pretty much killed that business. I'm not assigning blame - just laying out why we are in the sad state of affairs we are in now.

In short, when enough people want what you want, it will happen because there will be enough demand to make it profitable and worth doing. Sadly too few people really wish to be informed about things beyond what they consider their immediate sphere of influence.

Unfortunately the ants are vastly outnumbered by grasshoppers \

I don't care if people reply to trolls, just stop quoting their entire posts! If you want to waste your time in a fruitless enterprise, so be it - but don't force the rest of us to continually scroll past their inane blather by quoting it.

But at least I know where I am and what I am getting when I visit AI. And they do cite their sources like Gizmodo so I can (and routinely do) choose to discount it.

What's stupid is that mainstream sites will pick a story up and then use a generic "online news sites report..." or other such nonsense. Those of us who are jaded by the reality of the Internet might discount it as soon as we hear their citation, but even those of us who are jaded may not pay attention because it comes from a source we otherwise trust.

Here's the real message for "legitimate" main stream media - guard the trust we have in you jealously or you will loose what little of it that remains. The hap-hazard way news in general is reported (and no, this isn't solely a purview of Fox, despite the ax many obviously have to grind with them) is the larger story.

To me this is the biggest loss of traditional newspaper journalism. At least with an in depth story in a newspaper they have enough space to report in depth and make a case. You loose that in a less than 3 minute piece over the air or in a snippet on some online site.

Based on what?

Anandtec concluded the iPhone 4 is better than the HTC for reception, so I'm not sure what line your crossing - unless it's reliance on an on-screen display that every cell phone manufacturer pretty much admits is not really useful for anything but feels compelled to put there since people need to have something to look at.

Sigh. A screen shot of a fake header is still fake.

As someone else pointed out, the only way to resolve this is with encryption (i.e. something like SMIME)

Since Apple has far more to loose than BGR if there is any fakeness going on here, I think I will apply a little Occam's Razor and conclude that BGR is the problem, not Apple.

Of course if you have a perpetual ax to grind against Apple or you just like to stir up stuff, that's not nearly as fun as accusing Apple of conspiracy - but really, what is more likely?



Only as a legend in small minds. In lieu of a tin foil hat smiley I

What the heck is "forensic examination" of files with an unsecured chain of custody?

Forensic examination would be pulling logs from an Apple mail server that show that in a controlled environment there is a system in place to ensure their integrity.

I doubt you could get anything "forensic" out of an operation like BGR.

This isn't CSI, this is the real world and in the real world there are concepts of logic and fact, not fantasy and wishing.


Speaking of fantasy and wishing...

Although if Apple does go after them for libel, you may get your wish. But even if Apple does, I wouldn't hold my breath - they will more than likely fold like a house of cards and we may never know the details - other than they were reckless idiots.


No, it just further demonstrates deception, greed and stupidity. Rather tawdry and boring, actually.

That incorrectly presumes anyone here is interested in finding out the truth. Why bother examining the facts when you can just have a good ol' fashioned lynching instead?

Just wait till these blogger start getting sued because how it effects the companies stocks.

So Democrats never toss around "conservative", "fascist" and other concepts? And your railing against intellectual laziness?

Talk about ironic!


The problem is critical thinking is a tool. It's not something that can be taught like facts or math skills. And to truly hone it you have to use it often, read voraciously and expose yourself to ideas that you may not agree with. Heck, you might even have to accept that every once and a while your sacred cow may not even be that sacred! All it takes is looking at Internet communities to discover just how popular that is with people.

Internet echo chamber indeed.


That's because it's socially acceptable to write like an idiot. If someone points out bad spelling or language use they are a "grammar nazi" or worse, a square (or <insert other pejorative here>)


In some ways computers have been wonderful tools. But in others they have really done damage to basic intellectualism. In reading, I do notice my vocabulary and spelling has decreased significantly because I no longer read. I browse on the Internet, reading snippets (of often malformed english) here and there. When I actually read books it was much different. I was in a different frame of mind - more focused and in tune to what I was doing. I've been saying I am going to read less on the computer and go back to reading at least a little the "old fashioned way" - thanks for giving me the impetuous to do so!

And it's not just reading. Words are cheap. When you can type out at a keyboard and make wholesale edits with the whack of a mouse or stroke of a few keys, you don't have to pay attention much to what you are doing. Gone are the days of typewriters and carbon where every action was a deliberate one or you had to re-do lots of work! The discipline of writing has shifted, that's for sure. I'm not saying I want to go back to the typewriter, but there needs to be some way to capture a little of the deliberation of old.

Talk about another ironic moment, forum writing like this is probably the worst for enforcing the "off the cuff" and "little forethought" habits as well. Ack!


Sadly this is nothing new, nor will it ever likely change. The methods and means for triviality may change but it will always be there.

Personally I see the future as predicted in several Sci-Fi stories where everyone jacks into a virtual universe and then goes extinct from inaction.


It ebbs and flows. It's definitely ebbing now...


lol - I used to have a link to an essay from the 1800's complaining that society was becoming more "casual". While I don't really wish to go back to formal cards for introductions, courting and other concepts are are pretty arcane and foreign, I do agree that there is a more constructive middle ground that as a society we are leaning a little to far towards the opposite spectrum.


I don't know about that. On MSNBC and Fox it's pretty easy to pick out the editorial content from the hard journalism since the legitimate commentators tend to emphasize their commentary.

What I have a problem with are journalistic outlets that are traditionally "hard only" editorializing. Much of the grinding against Fox and MSNBC is from people who are simply intolorant towards the expression of views that are contrary to their own. It's less an issue of the news and entertainment organizations and more an expression of their own immaturaty and selfeshness.

No one has the right to not be offended or challenged in their thinking


Mature Journalism is an oxymoron.

Apple is not arrogant or paranoid. What many people express as arrogance is Apple confidently stating: "This is our product, it's the best we feel it can be. If you agree, please buy it. If not, feel free to go to our competitors".

That's a far cry from "Apple is arrogant because they refuse to produce a trash under $500 PC - all these other manufactures can do it so Apple is just being arrogant and elitist!" Apple is about experience, first and foremost - and the experience of a cheap PC - if you are honest - is a pretty crappy one. So they choose to not be in that space. If you are willing to put up with the experience of a cheap PC, more power to you. It just won't be with Apple. That's not arrogant, it's discriminatory. They know they can't be all things to all people, so they choose to focus on that which they can excel at. It must be pretty smart, since with a fraction of the market they have vaulted past the likes of Microsoft and just about everyone else.

Same thing with features on phones, the app store vetting process and all the other things that people love to pillory them for. The "walled garden" stuff with Apple is the most amusing. If you don't like it, don't buy any iOS devices! But why can't Apple present and foster a different model? Simply because a few whiny developers and web pundits don't like it? Oh well, sucks to be them. There are plenty of people like my father for whom the walled garden approach with the consistency and stability it brings are exactly what they are looking for. So why would anyone want to deny my father the right to choose his experience?

Were back to selfishness and intolerance of thought that differs from their own...

As for claiming Apple is paranoid that's a bit over the top too. Apple isn't paranoid, they realize information is power. I have a feeling we are going to find out a court-assigned value to such early information as I'm sure the Gizmodo thing with the iPhone 4 prototype is FAR from over. If pre-release information didn't matter, then there wouldn't be scads of regulations around insider trading and disclosure laws for publicly traded companies. To label simple prudence as paranoia is more than disingenuous.

Quote:
I think we'll see mature journalism on the internet just around the same time that Apple loses its arrogance and paranoia.

[QUOTE=RationalTroll;1667442

Agreed.[/QUOTE]

Question: Is it paranoia when lawyers and rival corporations really ARE out to get you?

Also, Apple has earned its right to a little arrogance after being pissed on for so many years by Microsoft and Windows fanboys.

When was the last time you heard of anyone being sued successfully for libel in the U.S.? The reason you don't hear about these cases, is because it is virtually impossible to win a libel case under U.S. law. Like it or not, it's not illegal to be a reckless idiot.

"A screen shot of a fake header is still fake."

And a screen shot of a genuine email is still genuine. Was there a point to your remark?

"As someone else pointed out, the only way to resolve this is with encryption (i.e. something like SMIME)"

It's not the only way - BGR can allow an independent forensic lab access to the fles and let them establish their validity. I hope that happens.

"Since Apple has far more to loose than BGR if there is any fakeness going on here, I think I will apply a little Occam's Razor and conclude that BGR is the problem, not Apple."

You're in denial. The emails, if real, would be a PR embarrasment for Apple, while the world and dog's expectation of BGR is that it's a rumor site. A little Occam's Razor indeed.

"Of course if you have a perpetual ax to grind against Apple or you just like to stir up stuff, that's not nearly as fun as accusing Apple of conspiracy - but really, what is more likely?"

BGR has a perpetual ax to grind against Apple? News to me. Probably news to them as well, so perhaps you could post your thoughts about that on their site.

Like I said earlier, it's a sideshow to the main event, but interesting.

I won't respond to the personal insult although it doesn't reflect well on you in resorting to that.

Already explained. Look at that post.