It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!
The thing is way too ugly to be a production model.
And there's no real reason for a software engineer to have a prototype which includes the final case. My guess is that the ugly case is a generic iphone 4.0 prototype case - one that they give to everybody who needs the real guts, but doesn't need a real case.
I don't understand why, if a software engineer needs to take a prototype into the field, Apple would give him one with the final case on it. Special prototypes for the non-design departments makes a whole lot more sense.
They have been working on the guts for years. A standard prototype case to hold evolving prototype guts makes sense to me.
It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!
Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.
Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.
It has made them an incalculable amount of profit already.
Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.
It has made them an incalculable amount of profit already.
Lots of people have gone to their site who were unfamiliar with them previously. They are now national news. Everybody, including AI, is cashing in on this story for all that it is worth, but Gizmodo is the one getting the largest benefit.
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 cannot believe that people are still believing this is the real deal. Either the whole thing is a fake, or Apple has finally discovered viral marketing. Unreal that you'd expend 2 joules of energy armchairing this, but I guess Apple can always count on the fans to believe everything they say, even when they make it look like they're not the ones saying it.
Gizmodo should have never released a story about an Apple device that was a prototype and unannounced as yet. They deserve whatever is coming their way soon, that's if Apple actually pursues any legal action against this unprofessional blog site. I am glad the engineer was not terminated, and they should not have involved his identity at all, talk about being terrible. I never visited that site, and never will, their Microsoft's lackeys and I like to stay away from drivel websites like that.
I know of no professional ethics in journalism which prohibit the reporter from divulging secret information.
That's basically what journalism is all about. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Watergate?
Publishing secrets information which is of value to the readers is the first responsibility of a journalist. It is not a breach of ethics.
Ever hear of Valerie Plame? I'm thinking no.
Journalists don't have a right to publish anything they want.
They are also typically follow rules about publishing information only from creditable sources, and in the case of anonymous sources, protecting them from harm. You mentioned Watergate yet didn't mention Deep Throat, an anonymous source.
There is also a fine line between "value to the readers" vs. actually harming someone. Newspapers typically don't publish the names of victims of certain types of crimes because of ethics rules like this.
Unfortunately we live in a blog and twitter era where it's ok to publish every bit of information without any regards to the consequences.
The finder has a call number proving they tried to return it, and the phone provided no info on it's owner since it was disabled.
I hope you represent yourself in court someday. You'll be hilarious.
I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below).
Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station.
What they should NOT have done is sold the phone.
What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. They really should NOT have taken the phone apart.
There's case precedence of being found guilty for receiving stolen goods where the defense argued that the goods were purchased in order to return them for the reward. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in California.
I think this is one area of law where the law goes beyond what a lot of people think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Too many people think "finders keepers" is morally and legally correct. It's certainly not the latter in California.
And yes, I won't be representing myself in criminal court, but I would suggest that people understand that in California:
If you find lost property, don't think you can do with it what you want. If you take possession of it, you take responsibility for it. Part of that responsibility is returning it to the owner. This means taking it to the management of the place where it was found or to the local police station.
Drunk guy leaves iPhone at bar. That really doesn't sound like it was stolen.
Could be that Apple wants it to go down like that (theft vs. accidentally left) so they can sue the pants off Giz and everyone else (they are so good at suing)...
Honestly, what is this going to do? It'll come out, everyone who has an iPhone will buy one and love it to death.
I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below).
Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station.
What they should NOT have done is sold the phone.
What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. They really should NOT have taken the phone apart.
There's case precedence of being found guilty for receiving stolen goods where the defense argued that the goods were purchased in order to return them for the reward. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in California.
I think this is one area of law where the law goes beyond what a lot of people think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Too many people think "finders keepers" is morally and legally correct. It's certainly not the latter in California.
And yes, I won't be representing myself in criminal court, but I would suggest that people understand that in California:
If you find lost property, don't think you can do with it what you want. If you take possession of it, you take responsibility for it. Part of that responsibility is returning it to the owner. This means taking it to the management of the place where it was found or to the local police station.
I don't see anything that suggests Gizmodo bought the device with non intention of handing it back to Apple. I can see a case for Giz in which they bought the device specifically to verify it was legit, keep it from being lost forever and to return it to Apple if they could prove it was in fact their property and not an elaborate hoax. I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it. It's clear Giz didn't photograph or detail the specifics of the internal chips. This may have been the limit their lawyers told them not to cross.
You guys are jawing on and on about legal this and legal that... well, here's a clear cut case of thievery! (from Gizmodo none the less...)
Thief Steals Man's iPad and Pinky Finger
Bill Jordan's recent iPad purchase turned nightmarish, in one of those delightfully grotesque ways that local news affiliates thrive on: a thief grabbed his shopping bag, tugging so hard that he took most of Jordan's little finger with him. Gross.
Journalists don't have a right to publish anything they want.
They are also typically follow rules about publishing information only from creditable sources, and in the case of anonymous sources, protecting them from harm. You mentioned Watergate yet didn't mention Deep Throat, an anonymous source.
There is also a fine line between "value to the readers" vs. actually harming someone. Newspapers typically don't publish the names of victims of certain types of crimes because of ethics rules like this.
Unfortunately we live in a blog and twitter era where it's ok to publish every bit of information without any regards to the consequences.
You are actually comparing this to publishing information that is covered by national security and treason laws?
Ethics rules are not laws. Some newspapers do release names of victims, some do not.
On another note, I'm cancelling all sites on my RSS feed who posted the engineer's name and helped to possibly ruin his career. I'm glad that AI took the classy route.
Dead to me:
1. Gizmodo
2. 9to5 Mac
3. Cult of Mac
4. Mac Rumors
How does this affect me or any users on this forum?
Those resposibilities are to Apple and not Gizmodo, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors & 9to5 Mac. These sites are despicable for what they tried to do.
We are all capable of mistakes and, like Wil Shipley said, there's another circle of hell which these people belong to.
he made a mistake, he is responsible for the consequences.
But, let's ask, who the hell are you to say what Giz can and cannot publish? maybe you missed the internet today, but this is huge, international news. And sometimes, just sometimes, in big media stories, the people associated with the news are actually name. heaven forbid. They should burn in hell Despicable my ass.
Comments
S'Funny - I find cars parked along the street every day. They don't belong to me.
But I have no duty.
I find newspapers on the subway every day. But I have no duty.
Once I saw a wallet on the floor. I had no duty to return it to the rightful owner, so I left it there.
Get it?
Sure - that's easy to understand. But the person in this case did not leave the device on the floor/seat/bar.
It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!
The thing is way too ugly to be a production model.
And there's no real reason for a software engineer to have a prototype which includes the final case. My guess is that the ugly case is a generic iphone 4.0 prototype case - one that they give to everybody who needs the real guts, but doesn't need a real case.
I don't understand why, if a software engineer needs to take a prototype into the field, Apple would give him one with the final case on it. Special prototypes for the non-design departments makes a whole lot more sense.
They have been working on the guts for years. A standard prototype case to hold evolving prototype guts makes sense to me.
It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!
If it's a fake, it's the best fake ever. EVER.
Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.
It has made them an incalculable amount of profit already.
Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.
It has made them an incalculable amount of profit already.
Lots of people have gone to their site who were unfamiliar with them previously. They are now national news. Everybody, including AI, is cashing in on this story for all that it is worth, but Gizmodo is the one getting the largest benefit.
If it's a fake, it's the best fake ever. EVER.
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 know of no professional ethics in journalism which prohibit the reporter from divulging secret information.
That's basically what journalism is all about. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Watergate?
Publishing secrets information which is of value to the readers is the first responsibility of a journalist. It is not a breach of ethics.
Ever hear of Valerie Plame? I'm thinking no.
Journalists don't have a right to publish anything they want.
They are also typically follow rules about publishing information only from creditable sources, and in the case of anonymous sources, protecting them from harm. You mentioned Watergate yet didn't mention Deep Throat, an anonymous source.
There is also a fine line between "value to the readers" vs. actually harming someone. Newspapers typically don't publish the names of victims of certain types of crimes because of ethics rules like this.
Unfortunately we live in a blog and twitter era where it's ok to publish every bit of information without any regards to the consequences.
The finder has a call number proving they tried to return it, and the phone provided no info on it's owner since it was disabled.
I hope you represent yourself in court someday. You'll be hilarious.
I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below).
Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station.
What they should NOT have done is sold the phone.
What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. They really should NOT have taken the phone apart.
There's case precedence of being found guilty for receiving stolen goods where the defense argued that the goods were purchased in order to return them for the reward. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in California.
I think this is one area of law where the law goes beyond what a lot of people think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Too many people think "finders keepers" is morally and legally correct. It's certainly not the latter in California.
And yes, I won't be representing myself in criminal court, but I would suggest that people understand that in California:
If you find lost property, don't think you can do with it what you want. If you take possession of it, you take responsibility for it. Part of that responsibility is returning it to the owner. This means taking it to the management of the place where it was found or to the local police station.
He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
Those resposibilities are to Apple and not Gizmodo, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors & 9to5 Mac. These sites are despicable for what they tried to do.
We are all capable of mistakes and, like Wil Shipley said, there's another circle of hell which these people belong to.
Could be that Apple wants it to go down like that (theft vs. accidentally left) so they can sue the pants off Giz and everyone else (they are so good at suing)...
Honestly, what is this going to do? It'll come out, everyone who has an iPhone will buy one and love it to death.
I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below).
Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station.
What they should NOT have done is sold the phone.
What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. They really should NOT have taken the phone apart.
There's case precedence of being found guilty for receiving stolen goods where the defense argued that the goods were purchased in order to return them for the reward. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in California.
I think this is one area of law where the law goes beyond what a lot of people think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Too many people think "finders keepers" is morally and legally correct. It's certainly not the latter in California.
And yes, I won't be representing myself in criminal court, but I would suggest that people understand that in California:
If you find lost property, don't think you can do with it what you want. If you take possession of it, you take responsibility for it. Part of that responsibility is returning it to the owner. This means taking it to the management of the place where it was found or to the local police station.
I don't see anything that suggests Gizmodo bought the device with non intention of handing it back to Apple. I can see a case for Giz in which they bought the device specifically to verify it was legit, keep it from being lost forever and to return it to Apple if they could prove it was in fact their property and not an elaborate hoax. I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it. It's clear Giz didn't photograph or detail the specifics of the internal chips. This may have been the limit their lawyers told them not to cross.
Thief Steals Man's iPad and Pinky Finger
Bill Jordan's recent iPad purchase turned nightmarish, in one of those delightfully grotesque ways that local news affiliates thrive on: a thief grabbed his shopping bag, tugging so hard that he took most of Jordan's little finger with him. Gross.
http://gizmodo.com/5520706/thief-ste...d-pinky-finger
Ever hear of Valerie Plame? I'm thinking no.
Journalists don't have a right to publish anything they want.
They are also typically follow rules about publishing information only from creditable sources, and in the case of anonymous sources, protecting them from harm. You mentioned Watergate yet didn't mention Deep Throat, an anonymous source.
There is also a fine line between "value to the readers" vs. actually harming someone. Newspapers typically don't publish the names of victims of certain types of crimes because of ethics rules like this.
Unfortunately we live in a blog and twitter era where it's ok to publish every bit of information without any regards to the consequences.
You are actually comparing this to publishing information that is covered by national security and treason laws?
Ethics rules are not laws. Some newspapers do release names of victims, some do not.
You are actually comparing this to publishing information that is covered by national security and treason laws?
Ethics rules are not laws. Some newspapers do release names of victims, some do not.
I'm not seeing the connection either. i even read up on it again just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
On another note, I'm cancelling all sites on my RSS feed who posted the engineer's name and helped to possibly ruin his career. I'm glad that AI took the classy route.
Dead to me:
1. Gizmodo
2. 9to5 Mac
3. Cult of Mac
4. Mac Rumors
How does this affect me or any users on this forum?
Those resposibilities are to Apple and not Gizmodo, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors & 9to5 Mac. These sites are despicable for what they tried to do.
We are all capable of mistakes and, like Wil Shipley said, there's another circle of hell which these people belong to.
he made a mistake, he is responsible for the consequences.
But, let's ask, who the hell are you to say what Giz can and cannot publish? maybe you missed the internet today, but this is huge, international news. And sometimes, just sometimes, in big media stories, the people associated with the news are actually name. heaven forbid. They should burn in hell