There are a bunch of odd things about this story which do not add up.
And no - I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy.
Gizmodo had the device in their possession for at least a week before publishing the story.
Unless these guys really are drunk all the time, that seems a very long time to sit on the tech scoop of the decade.
We can presume that Gizmodo were not 100% certain this was a genuine Apple device until they actually cracked it open and saw the components. There were certainly no shortage of experienced pundits who assumed it to be a fake.
But once they opened the device they must have immediately known it was...
a) Authentic
b) The rightful property of Apple.
At that point they have to do one of two things.
Either run the story immediately - before Apple descends on you.
Or (informally) contact Apple and say "We have bought a device that appears to be your property. We are not thieves and assume you want it back. PS. We have taken photographs "
As I understand it, Apple can only issue a C&D if an NDA has been broken. So in this case could not do anything to prevent publication.
I wonder if Apple simply asked Gizmodo to sit on the story for a week or so. As a favour?
C.
It is a bizarre story. I don't think their options, if limited to the two you mention, were 'either/or'. It is just as possible they did both, run the story and notify Apple. Actually, running the story would essentially be notifying Apple. The fact that their story includes a message to Apple to simply ask for the phone back seems to imply this is the case.
It is a bizarre story. I don't think their options, if limited to the two you mention, were 'either/or'. It is just as possible they did both, run the story and notify Apple. Actually, running the story would essentially be notifying Apple. The fact that their story includes a message to Apple to simply ask for the phone back seems to imply this is the case.
Apple could make a case against Gizmodo, that regardless of what they knew/didn't know, they had some idea that it was legit, and by paying $5000 for it, they proved their intention to secure the device, for the sake of outing it (and thus raking in record advertising revenue).
Reporting Apple rumors is one of the things Gizmodo does. Making money off ad revenue by driving people to their site with sensational headlines, is ALSO something they do.
The buying and exposing of the next gen iPhone is a prime example of both. Intent to profit could EASILY be asserted in this case....
In short, Giz could easily be charged and easily found guilty.
Question is, will Apple bother? Would they forever alienate one of their biggest online advocates?
------------
Personally, I feel that Gizmodo did something very wrong here. They took advantage of an opportunity to make serious money, which they did. They profited greatly off this information and probably still are, every hour that ticks by. They never, ever should have paid for the lost iPhone. If I were on the board of Apple, I would burn Gizmodo to the ground over this. Would that be a PR disaster? No, I don't think so. Rumor sites would run wild, but most people wouldn't even notice.
Gizmodo should have known better, but they didn't care. All they cared about was getting the scoop, and thus, making money.
Most likely to give them time to disassemble, poke around, photograph and reassemble. But that wouldn't explain the entire delay, but would account for a few days.
There are a bunch of odd things about this story which do not add up.
And no - I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy.
Gizmodo had the device in their possession for at least a week before publishing the story.
Unless these guys really are drunk all the time, that seems a very long time to sit on the tech scoop of the decade.
We can presume that Gizmodo were not 100% certain this was a genuine Apple device until they actually cracked it open and saw the components. There were certainly no shortage of experienced pundits who assumed it to be a fake.
But once they opened the device they must have immediately known it was...
a) Authentic
b) The rightful property of Apple.
At that point they have to do one of two things.
Either run the story immediately - before Apple descends on you.
Or (informally) contact Apple and say "We have bought a device that appears to be your property. We are not thieves and assume you want it back. PS. We have taken photographs "
As I understand it, Apple can only issue a C&D if an NDA has been broken. So in this case could not do anything to prevent publication.
I wonder if Apple simply asked Gizmodo to sit on the story for a week or so. As a favour?
C.
See when you say, you're not suggesting a "conspiracy", you continue to reinforce the horrible and stereotypical media-use of the word conspiracy. What you defined, is in fact, a conspiracy, on the part of Gizmodo.
What you meant is that you are not suggesting the specific conspiracy "theory" that Apple and Gizmodo worked together on a controlled leak. This is a wild and unrealistic idea, that can also be defined as a "conspiracy".
But for the love of God, use the word correctly, and stop associating it with "crazy ideas."
Not every conspiracy is a crazy idea that never happened. However, television media would have you think otherwise.
See when you say, you're not suggesting a "conspiracy", you continue to reinforce the horrible and stereotypical media-use of the word conspiracy. What you defined, is in fact, a conspiracy, on the part of Gizmodo.
What you meant is that you are not suggesting the specific conspiracy "theory" that Apple and Gizmodo worked together on a controlled leak. This is a wild and unrealistic idea, that can also be defined as a "conspiracy".
But for the love of God, use the word correctly, and stop associating it with "crazy ideas."
Not every conspiracy is a crazy idea that never happened. However, television media would have you think otherwise.
The word conspiracy from the latin for "breathing together" clearly seems to upset you.
The mystery is the delay to publish.
My theory is Gawker contacted Apple some time before the leak went public.
Perhaps the delay was caused by Gizmodo getting simply their story straight?
The word conspiracy from the latin for "breathing together" clearly seems to upset you.
The mystery is the delay to publish.
My theory is Gawker contacted Apple some time before the leak went public.
Perhaps the delay was caused by Gizmodo getting simply their story straight?
C.
The blatant and everyday misuse/misunderstanding/mis-association of the word conspiracy, by professionals and amateurs alike, bothers the hell out of me. I wouldn't care if it weren't for the fact that this intentional misuse often results in hiding the truth from people.
And yes, Gizmodo f'd up here. Big time. I'm done supporting that site.
"Now that I?ve seen the coverage and seem to have a good idea of what?s coming down the pipeline from Apple, I?m feeling pretty good about walking into a Verizon store next week and buying HTC?s Droid Incredible, which has been getting some pretty good reviews."
No, by your own evident admission, the only point it bolsters is the potential for commercial damage done to Apple via the unethical publication of pictures of an alleged prototype that could be one variant amongst many.
My company habitually made and field tested multiple iterations of prototypes before settling on a production model. Members of staff were selected to use prototypes in the field and file reports on performance, functionality, etc. I doubt Apple are any different.
To make your future purchasing decisions on the assumption that one prototype will be feature identical to a released product is both shallow and laughable.
No, by your own evident admission, the only point it bolsters is the potential for commercial damage done to Apple via the unethical publication of pictures of an alleged prototype that could be one variant amongst many.
To make your future purchasing decisions on the assumption that one prototype will be feature identical to a released product is both shallow and laughable.
I made no such assumption. Indeed, I have said again and again that I don't believe Apple would release anything as ugly as what was pictured.
But I reiterate that Gizmodo's actions were in the public interest, which was the point. The example used was that the public now has additional information WRT their decisions.
"Feature identical"? I never said that, and you made a baseless assumption about me.
Personally, I feel that Gizmodo did something very wrong here. They took advantage of an opportunity to make serious money, which they did. They profited greatly off this information and probably still are, every hour that ticks by.
Gizmodo should have known better, but they didn't care. All they cared about was getting the scoop, and thus, making money.
Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?
Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?
I don't understand why people are still trying to push this position. Apple has contacted Gizmodo asking for its return. This is not in doubt. While the case may well not be the shipping item, there is absolutely no doubt that this is an Apple device. The specs uncovered in the tear-down make it unlikely to be a previous-gen iPhone.
I'm not pushing it, at all. When the photos first surfaced I felt it was a fake of some sort. With the teardown, that became nearly impossible. That's really what I meant...if someone or some corporation could fake to that level, it would be the best fake ever. At this point it's clear there is no dispute...it's real.
The only question is whether or not Apple did this on purpose. I'd say the odds are stacked heavily against it, but it's possible. Their odd response to Gizmodo is what makes me wonder. Apple goes ballistic when someone publishes a photo of an unreleased product. They sue. They threaten. They protect their property aggressively.
But now, a website obtains a legit protoype and tears it down. It's probably the best rumor/scoop in Apple history. Nothing compares to this, not even workerbee. So what does Apple do? They make some phone calls and send a letter asking when they can pick it up. They treated it like a lost wallet, for God's sake. Seriously?!?! Something is not right here.
Most likely, the casing is going to change quite a bit when it's released. Or, it's such a colossal screw-up that Apple is just getting it back and deciding to take the good PR and be on their way. They'll sell a zillion of them, so what's the point. PUNT!
But I reiterate that Gizmodo's actions were in the public interest, which was the point. The example used was that the public now has additional information WRT their decisions.
"Feature identical"? I never said that, and you made a baseless assumption about me.
And I quote you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
Take me, for example. The Nexus One is now available on ATT. I was waiting to see what Apple would come up with for their A+ iPhone update.
Now that I know, I'm not going to wait around, but instead, I'm going to pull the plug and get a Nexus One.
Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?
Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?
AI reported on the actions of another publication. They did nothing wrong whatsoever, even if they did profit from it.
By the way, your quotes about buying another brand phone now that you know what Apple will offer pretty much sum up why Apple can claim their business has been damaged.
Nothing here was in the "public interest" either. That's just ridiculous on every level.
That letter from apple to gizmodo is likely the last official word from apple we'll hear. Maybe a nodding reference and a wink at the unvieling, maybe.
Brothers from different Mothers!
Yea that's about what I expect as well... People can give any excuse they like the fact remains that those images are still flying high at Gizmodo, who for the record, I don't care one way or another about.
Apple is like a pack wolf protecting her young when it comes to leaked or otherwise obtained photos being circulated about the net. Even 'plain text' has been ordered removed at the behest of Apple Legal. Gizmodo on the other hand seems exempt from any such orders.
Why?
- Perhaps a legal issue that somehow prevents Apple from legally ordering a site to remove photos that were actually taken by the site itself? I dunno... that could be a reason...
- Perhaps its something else that the conspiracy theorists will still be discussing 10 years from now.
Hey we could be wrong and Apple might come out with guns a blazing on their OWN time table... All but letting Giz squirm in the meantime. Hey, we all know that with Apple, a company who will sue fan sites like they were public enemy #1.... ANYTHING is possible.
AI reported on the actions of another publication. They did nothing wrong whatsoever, even if they did profit from it.
Huh?!?!
Are you really saying that the actions of ONE publication would be questionable and/or illegal while at the same time another publication reporting ON the original story, showing all the photos, describing in detail the exact same information would be completely in the clear?
- Perhaps a legal issue that somehow prevents Apple from legally ordering a site to remove photos that were actually taken by the site itself? I dunno... that could be a reason...
- Perhaps its something else that the conspiracy theorists will still be discussing 10 years from now.
I am not an expert on law of any kind. US or British.
But as I understand it, companies have no power to censor the press at all. Thank goodness.
However, if a Chinese factory worker snaps a picture of a prototype, in violation of a valid non-disclosure agreement, I think the company is entitled to ask for those images to be removed from publication.
Whereas if an Apple employee leaves a device in a public place, I am not sure it is entitled to restrict publication in those circumstances. I could be wrong.
But it's fair to say, in these days of Twitter and the Internet, the power of a cease and desist order is valueless as a means of controlling the flow of information - once images are out, they are out.
Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?
Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?
AppleInsider did not dissect a known Apple prototype product, and post images of it on the Internet. If this had been done by Microsoft we'd be hearing nothing but industrial espionage.
It's not free public info. Its private intellectual property. This was a crime.
Separate from the other crime, of knowingly purchasing the above intellectual property.
Are you really saying that the actions of ONE publication would be questionable and/or illegal while at the same time another publication reporting ON the original story, showing all the photos, describing in detail the exact same information would be completely in the clear?
I'll wait for your reply...
I'll say that!
Gizmodo broke the law by receiving stolen goods. They admit they paid $5,000 for the phone that was found. California Penal Code Section 496 prohibits this.
In doing so, there may also be trade secret issues.
Plus they're total jerks for outing the guy who lost the phone. Sure Apple already knew who he was, but now any potential employer in the future with access to Google will see what he did.
AI isn't breaking the law. They didn't break the law. They reported on the story. There's a huge difference, part of which has to do with what is already public info.
Gizmodo didn't have to break the law. They could have reported that this guy found the phone and take pictures of it. Paying for the phone is where they crossed the line. Selling the phone is where the finder crossed the line. Taking it apart was another crossing of the line as was not turning it in to the establishment or police department.
The only question is whether or not Apple did this on purpose. I'd say the odds are stacked heavily against it, but it's possible. Their odd response to Gizmodo is what makes me wonder. Apple goes ballistic when someone publishes a photo of an unreleased product. They sue. They threaten. They protect their property aggressively.
But now, a website obtains a legit protoype and tears it down. It's probably the best rumor/scoop in Apple history. Nothing compares to this, not even workerbee. So what does Apple do? They make some phone calls and send a letter asking when they can pick it up. They treated it like a lost wallet, for God's sake. Seriously?!?! Something is not right here.
Most likely, the casing is going to change quite a bit when it's released. Or, it's such a colossal screw-up that Apple is just getting it back and deciding to take the good PR and be on their way. They'll sell a zillion of them, so what's the point. PUNT!
There's nothing they can do in the near future. They only thing they can do is clam up until the next iPhone is updated. If you notice, Apple never ever never talks about a next gen product until the timing is right. They may say or do something after the next iPhone is announced, so it'll be interesting to see what happens afterwards.
This is a colossal mistake of epic proportions. I believe this is the next gen iPhone. The design language and everything about it is beautiful. Others may disagree, but the fit and finish and design is very Apple and very good. This would have been a huge "reveal" for the next iPhone. Instead of Apple announcing it, Gizmodo does. Think about it that for second.
And now, it throws a bunch of things into turmoil. Their channel/sales forecast has to be redone now, because people will wait. Their supplier contracts for the next iPhone may have to be modified. Their marketing has to be redone now, because the new design would have been a huge marketing vector. This is a new iPhone design, something that hasn't changed in 2 years. All of the tent pole hardware features have been revealed: redesign of the iPhone design language (glass/ceramic back, edge-to-edge front glass, etc.), front-facing camera, 2nd microphone, higher resolution screen. Worse, this gives competitors a 2 month lead in countering. It'll be interesting how enthusiastic Apple will be during the announcement.
As a stockholder, I am never ever visiting Gizmodo and any Gawker Media websites again. All bookmarks have been deleted. Gizmodo wasn't the big loss as there are lots of tech blogging sites. io9.com is a big loss as there aren't that many science fiction devoted sites.
Edit: Also I don't understand how people think this couldn't happen or that there is something funny about it. This is how this kind of stuff happens. It always starts because someone in the know makes a really really really stupid decision.
Comments
There are a bunch of odd things about this story which do not add up.
And no - I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy.
Gizmodo had the device in their possession for at least a week before publishing the story.
Unless these guys really are drunk all the time, that seems a very long time to sit on the tech scoop of the decade.
We can presume that Gizmodo were not 100% certain this was a genuine Apple device until they actually cracked it open and saw the components. There were certainly no shortage of experienced pundits who assumed it to be a fake.
But once they opened the device they must have immediately known it was...
a) Authentic
b) The rightful property of Apple.
At that point they have to do one of two things.
Either run the story immediately - before Apple descends on you.
Or (informally) contact Apple and say "We have bought a device that appears to be your property. We are not thieves and assume you want it back. PS. We have taken photographs "
As I understand it, Apple can only issue a C&D if an NDA has been broken. So in this case could not do anything to prevent publication.
I wonder if Apple simply asked Gizmodo to sit on the story for a week or so. As a favour?
C.
It is a bizarre story. I don't think their options, if limited to the two you mention, were 'either/or'. It is just as possible they did both, run the story and notify Apple. Actually, running the story would essentially be notifying Apple. The fact that their story includes a message to Apple to simply ask for the phone back seems to imply this is the case.
It is a bizarre story. I don't think their options, if limited to the two you mention, were 'either/or'. It is just as possible they did both, run the story and notify Apple. Actually, running the story would essentially be notifying Apple. The fact that their story includes a message to Apple to simply ask for the phone back seems to imply this is the case.
So why the delay?
C.
Apple could make a case against Gizmodo, that regardless of what they knew/didn't know, they had some idea that it was legit, and by paying $5000 for it, they proved their intention to secure the device, for the sake of outing it (and thus raking in record advertising revenue).
Reporting Apple rumors is one of the things Gizmodo does. Making money off ad revenue by driving people to their site with sensational headlines, is ALSO something they do.
The buying and exposing of the next gen iPhone is a prime example of both. Intent to profit could EASILY be asserted in this case....
In short, Giz could easily be charged and easily found guilty.
Question is, will Apple bother? Would they forever alienate one of their biggest online advocates?
------------
Personally, I feel that Gizmodo did something very wrong here. They took advantage of an opportunity to make serious money, which they did. They profited greatly off this information and probably still are, every hour that ticks by. They never, ever should have paid for the lost iPhone. If I were on the board of Apple, I would burn Gizmodo to the ground over this. Would that be a PR disaster? No, I don't think so. Rumor sites would run wild, but most people wouldn't even notice.
Gizmodo should have known better, but they didn't care. All they cared about was getting the scoop, and thus, making money.
So why the delay?
C.
Most likely to give them time to disassemble, poke around, photograph and reassemble. But that wouldn't explain the entire delay, but would account for a few days.
There are a bunch of odd things about this story which do not add up.
And no - I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy.
Gizmodo had the device in their possession for at least a week before publishing the story.
Unless these guys really are drunk all the time, that seems a very long time to sit on the tech scoop of the decade.
We can presume that Gizmodo were not 100% certain this was a genuine Apple device until they actually cracked it open and saw the components. There were certainly no shortage of experienced pundits who assumed it to be a fake.
But once they opened the device they must have immediately known it was...
a) Authentic
b) The rightful property of Apple.
At that point they have to do one of two things.
Either run the story immediately - before Apple descends on you.
Or (informally) contact Apple and say "We have bought a device that appears to be your property. We are not thieves and assume you want it back. PS. We have taken photographs "
As I understand it, Apple can only issue a C&D if an NDA has been broken. So in this case could not do anything to prevent publication.
I wonder if Apple simply asked Gizmodo to sit on the story for a week or so. As a favour?
C.
See when you say, you're not suggesting a "conspiracy", you continue to reinforce the horrible and stereotypical media-use of the word conspiracy. What you defined, is in fact, a conspiracy, on the part of Gizmodo.
What you meant is that you are not suggesting the specific conspiracy "theory" that Apple and Gizmodo worked together on a controlled leak. This is a wild and unrealistic idea, that can also be defined as a "conspiracy".
But for the love of God, use the word correctly, and stop associating it with "crazy ideas."
Not every conspiracy is a crazy idea that never happened. However, television media would have you think otherwise.
See when you say, you're not suggesting a "conspiracy", you continue to reinforce the horrible and stereotypical media-use of the word conspiracy. What you defined, is in fact, a conspiracy, on the part of Gizmodo.
What you meant is that you are not suggesting the specific conspiracy "theory" that Apple and Gizmodo worked together on a controlled leak. This is a wild and unrealistic idea, that can also be defined as a "conspiracy".
But for the love of God, use the word correctly, and stop associating it with "crazy ideas."
Not every conspiracy is a crazy idea that never happened. However, television media would have you think otherwise.
The word conspiracy from the latin for "breathing together" clearly seems to upset you.
The mystery is the delay to publish.
My theory is Gawker contacted Apple some time before the leak went public.
Perhaps the delay was caused by Gizmodo getting simply their story straight?
C.
The word conspiracy from the latin for "breathing together" clearly seems to upset you.
The mystery is the delay to publish.
My theory is Gawker contacted Apple some time before the leak went public.
Perhaps the delay was caused by Gizmodo getting simply their story straight?
C.
The blatant and everyday misuse/misunderstanding/mis-association of the word conspiracy, by professionals and amateurs alike, bothers the hell out of me. I wouldn't care if it weren't for the fact that this intentional misuse often results in hiding the truth from people.
And yes, Gizmodo f'd up here. Big time. I'm done supporting that site.
I found this, which bolsters my previous point:
"Now that I?ve seen the coverage and seem to have a good idea of what?s coming down the pipeline from Apple, I?m feeling pretty good about walking into a Verizon store next week and buying HTC?s Droid Incredible, which has been getting some pretty good reviews."
No, by your own evident admission, the only point it bolsters is the potential for commercial damage done to Apple via the unethical publication of pictures of an alleged prototype that could be one variant amongst many.
My company habitually made and field tested multiple iterations of prototypes before settling on a production model. Members of staff were selected to use prototypes in the field and file reports on performance, functionality, etc. I doubt Apple are any different.
To make your future purchasing decisions on the assumption that one prototype will be feature identical to a released product is both shallow and laughable.
No, by your own evident admission, the only point it bolsters is the potential for commercial damage done to Apple via the unethical publication of pictures of an alleged prototype that could be one variant amongst many.
To make your future purchasing decisions on the assumption that one prototype will be feature identical to a released product is both shallow and laughable.
I made no such assumption. Indeed, I have said again and again that I don't believe Apple would release anything as ugly as what was pictured.
But I reiterate that Gizmodo's actions were in the public interest, which was the point. The example used was that the public now has additional information WRT their decisions.
"Feature identical"? I never said that, and you made a baseless assumption about me.
And yes, Gizmodo f'd up here. Big time. I'm done supporting that site.
Given that Apple Insider published every revealed aspect of the device, do you feel the same way about AI?
Personally, I feel that Gizmodo did something very wrong here. They took advantage of an opportunity to make serious money, which they did. They profited greatly off this information and probably still are, every hour that ticks by.
Gizmodo should have known better, but they didn't care. All they cared about was getting the scoop, and thus, making money.
Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?
Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?
I don't understand why people are still trying to push this position. Apple has contacted Gizmodo asking for its return. This is not in doubt. While the case may well not be the shipping item, there is absolutely no doubt that this is an Apple device. The specs uncovered in the tear-down make it unlikely to be a previous-gen iPhone.
I'm not pushing it, at all. When the photos first surfaced I felt it was a fake of some sort. With the teardown, that became nearly impossible. That's really what I meant...if someone or some corporation could fake to that level, it would be the best fake ever. At this point it's clear there is no dispute...it's real.
The only question is whether or not Apple did this on purpose. I'd say the odds are stacked heavily against it, but it's possible. Their odd response to Gizmodo is what makes me wonder. Apple goes ballistic when someone publishes a photo of an unreleased product. They sue. They threaten. They protect their property aggressively.
But now, a website obtains a legit protoype and tears it down. It's probably the best rumor/scoop in Apple history. Nothing compares to this, not even workerbee. So what does Apple do? They make some phone calls and send a letter asking when they can pick it up. They treated it like a lost wallet, for God's sake. Seriously?!?! Something is not right here.
Most likely, the casing is going to change quite a bit when it's released. Or, it's such a colossal screw-up that Apple is just getting it back and deciding to take the good PR and be on their way. They'll sell a zillion of them, so what's the point. PUNT!
But I reiterate that Gizmodo's actions were in the public interest, which was the point. The example used was that the public now has additional information WRT their decisions.
"Feature identical"? I never said that, and you made a baseless assumption about me.
And I quote you...
Take me, for example. The Nexus One is now available on ATT. I was waiting to see what Apple would come up with for their A+ iPhone update.
Now that I know, I'm not going to wait around, but instead, I'm going to pull the plug and get a Nexus One.
My bold italics.
Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?
Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?
AI reported on the actions of another publication. They did nothing wrong whatsoever, even if they did profit from it.
By the way, your quotes about buying another brand phone now that you know what Apple will offer pretty much sum up why Apple can claim their business has been damaged.
Nothing here was in the "public interest" either. That's just ridiculous on every level.
That letter from apple to gizmodo is likely the last official word from apple we'll hear. Maybe a nodding reference and a wink at the unvieling, maybe.
Brothers from different Mothers!
Yea that's about what I expect as well... People can give any excuse they like the fact remains that those images are still flying high at Gizmodo, who for the record, I don't care one way or another about.
Apple is like a pack wolf protecting her young when it comes to leaked or otherwise obtained photos being circulated about the net. Even 'plain text' has been ordered removed at the behest of Apple Legal. Gizmodo on the other hand seems exempt from any such orders.
Why?
- Perhaps a legal issue that somehow prevents Apple from legally ordering a site to remove photos that were actually taken by the site itself? I dunno... that could be a reason...
- Perhaps its something else that the conspiracy theorists will still be discussing 10 years from now.
Hey we could be wrong and Apple might come out with guns a blazing on their OWN time table... All but letting Giz squirm in the meantime. Hey, we all know that with Apple, a company who will sue fan sites like they were public enemy #1.... ANYTHING is possible.
AI reported on the actions of another publication. They did nothing wrong whatsoever, even if they did profit from it.
Huh?!?!
Are you really saying that the actions of ONE publication would be questionable and/or illegal while at the same time another publication reporting ON the original story, showing all the photos, describing in detail the exact same information would be completely in the clear?
I'll wait for your reply...
- Perhaps a legal issue that somehow prevents Apple from legally ordering a site to remove photos that were actually taken by the site itself? I dunno... that could be a reason...
- Perhaps its something else that the conspiracy theorists will still be discussing 10 years from now.
I am not an expert on law of any kind. US or British.
But as I understand it, companies have no power to censor the press at all. Thank goodness.
However, if a Chinese factory worker snaps a picture of a prototype, in violation of a valid non-disclosure agreement, I think the company is entitled to ask for those images to be removed from publication.
Whereas if an Apple employee leaves a device in a public place, I am not sure it is entitled to restrict publication in those circumstances. I could be wrong.
But it's fair to say, in these days of Twitter and the Internet, the power of a cease and desist order is valueless as a means of controlling the flow of information - once images are out, they are out.
C.
Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?
Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?
AppleInsider did not dissect a known Apple prototype product, and post images of it on the Internet. If this had been done by Microsoft we'd be hearing nothing but industrial espionage.
It's not free public info. Its private intellectual property. This was a crime.
Separate from the other crime, of knowingly purchasing the above intellectual property.
Huh?!?!
Are you really saying that the actions of ONE publication would be questionable and/or illegal while at the same time another publication reporting ON the original story, showing all the photos, describing in detail the exact same information would be completely in the clear?
I'll wait for your reply...
I'll say that!
Gizmodo broke the law by receiving stolen goods. They admit they paid $5,000 for the phone that was found. California Penal Code Section 496 prohibits this.
In doing so, there may also be trade secret issues.
Plus they're total jerks for outing the guy who lost the phone. Sure Apple already knew who he was, but now any potential employer in the future with access to Google will see what he did.
AI isn't breaking the law. They didn't break the law. They reported on the story. There's a huge difference, part of which has to do with what is already public info.
Gizmodo didn't have to break the law. They could have reported that this guy found the phone and take pictures of it. Paying for the phone is where they crossed the line. Selling the phone is where the finder crossed the line. Taking it apart was another crossing of the line as was not turning it in to the establishment or police department.
The only question is whether or not Apple did this on purpose. I'd say the odds are stacked heavily against it, but it's possible. Their odd response to Gizmodo is what makes me wonder. Apple goes ballistic when someone publishes a photo of an unreleased product. They sue. They threaten. They protect their property aggressively.
But now, a website obtains a legit protoype and tears it down. It's probably the best rumor/scoop in Apple history. Nothing compares to this, not even workerbee. So what does Apple do? They make some phone calls and send a letter asking when they can pick it up. They treated it like a lost wallet, for God's sake. Seriously?!?! Something is not right here.
Most likely, the casing is going to change quite a bit when it's released. Or, it's such a colossal screw-up that Apple is just getting it back and deciding to take the good PR and be on their way. They'll sell a zillion of them, so what's the point. PUNT!
There's nothing they can do in the near future. They only thing they can do is clam up until the next iPhone is updated. If you notice, Apple never ever never talks about a next gen product until the timing is right. They may say or do something after the next iPhone is announced, so it'll be interesting to see what happens afterwards.
This is a colossal mistake of epic proportions. I believe this is the next gen iPhone. The design language and everything about it is beautiful. Others may disagree, but the fit and finish and design is very Apple and very good. This would have been a huge "reveal" for the next iPhone. Instead of Apple announcing it, Gizmodo does. Think about it that for second.
And now, it throws a bunch of things into turmoil. Their channel/sales forecast has to be redone now, because people will wait. Their supplier contracts for the next iPhone may have to be modified. Their marketing has to be redone now, because the new design would have been a huge marketing vector. This is a new iPhone design, something that hasn't changed in 2 years. All of the tent pole hardware features have been revealed: redesign of the iPhone design language (glass/ceramic back, edge-to-edge front glass, etc.), front-facing camera, 2nd microphone, higher resolution screen. Worse, this gives competitors a 2 month lead in countering. It'll be interesting how enthusiastic Apple will be during the announcement.
As a stockholder, I am never ever visiting Gizmodo and any Gawker Media websites again. All bookmarks have been deleted. Gizmodo wasn't the big loss as there are lots of tech blogging sites. io9.com is a big loss as there aren't that many science fiction devoted sites.
Edit: Also I don't understand how people think this couldn't happen or that there is something funny about it. This is how this kind of stuff happens. It always starts because someone in the know makes a really really really stupid decision.