Brian Lam posted a rather remarkable account of what impact these events had on him, and on his ongoing relationship with Steve Jobs. He sent Jobs a major apology just before Jobs died. This is one of the best personal tributes to Jobs that I have come across.
Wow. Just, wow. Sent him a letter congratulating him on having the balls to admit his failings. Not very common these days when everyone's first instinct is to protect themselves at all costs.
In the car business, spotting a prototype before it's ready to prime time and publishing scoop pix to the embarrassment of the manufacturer is part of the game. Apple should not be so paranoid about this, and anyone finding an Apple product ahead of launch should be free to publicise it. But not be difficult about giving it back.
Point taken, but in this case, instead of snapping a photo of a car that wasn't being concealed properly, they found one with the engine running and drove off with it. The difference is between privacy and theft. If you don't conceal your new product, you can't expect it to stay a secret [private], however, under no circumstances is it acceptable to walk off with an item you <know> isn't yours or accept said goods from someone else [theft].
There was no mistake. It was a phone that nobody had seen up to that point. It was clearly a prototype. It had an Apple logo on the back. If I found an iPhone I'd never seen before in my life in a bar and it had an Apple logo on the back...I'd know it was probably Apple's. Did they know who the owner was 'likely to be' (AI's words, not necessarily the official definition)? Yes, absolutely.
Sorry, but getting from "I haven't seen this model of phone before" to "it must be a secret prototype" is just too large of a leap. I can't picture a court buying that.
But, as I said, it doesn't matter in this case because they can't use that defense, anyway. They tried to extort money from Apple so they knew it belonged to Apple.
In the case of the house raid on Chen's house, there was probable cause. So no illegal action by Apple - or do the facts of the matter get in the way of your attitude?
Do you know anything about that or do you simply watch too much television? Somehow I think it's the latter.
Comments
Brian Lam posted a rather remarkable account of what impact these events had on him, and on his ongoing relationship with Steve Jobs. He sent Jobs a major apology just before Jobs died. This is one of the best personal tributes to Jobs that I have come across.
http://thewirecutter.com/2011/10/ste...of-an-asshole/
Wow. Just, wow. Sent him a letter congratulating him on having the balls to admit his failings. Not very common these days when everyone's first instinct is to protect themselves at all costs.
Gizmodo is an embarrassment to tech 'reporting.'
Gizmodo is an embarrassment to whiny fanboy blogging.
In the car business, spotting a prototype before it's ready to prime time and publishing scoop pix to the embarrassment of the manufacturer is part of the game. Apple should not be so paranoid about this, and anyone finding an Apple product ahead of launch should be free to publicise it. But not be difficult about giving it back.
Point taken, but in this case, instead of snapping a photo of a car that wasn't being concealed properly, they found one with the engine running and drove off with it. The difference is between privacy and theft. If you don't conceal your new product, you can't expect it to stay a secret [private], however, under no circumstances is it acceptable to walk off with an item you <know> isn't yours or accept said goods from someone else [theft].
There was no mistake. It was a phone that nobody had seen up to that point. It was clearly a prototype. It had an Apple logo on the back. If I found an iPhone I'd never seen before in my life in a bar and it had an Apple logo on the back...I'd know it was probably Apple's. Did they know who the owner was 'likely to be' (AI's words, not necessarily the official definition)? Yes, absolutely.
Sorry, but getting from "I haven't seen this model of phone before" to "it must be a secret prototype" is just too large of a leap. I can't picture a court buying that.
But, as I said, it doesn't matter in this case because they can't use that defense, anyway. They tried to extort money from Apple so they knew it belonged to Apple.
In the case of the house raid on Chen's house, there was probable cause. So no illegal action by Apple - or do the facts of the matter get in the way of your attitude?
Do you know anything about that or do you simply watch too much television? Somehow I think it's the latter.