Gizmodo and the Prototype iPhone

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/gizmodo_prototype_iphone

by johns • 16 years ago

157 119 16 years ago

anderzole• 16 years ago

Gizmodo knows Apple won't sue because it would be a public relations nightmare.

Hagelin9• 16 years ago

Considering their recent press coverage, I don't see why that would stop them. They probably wouldn't want it to interfere with the press coverage of the new phone launch, but after that is over I think they would be willing to take some bad press in order to make sure that there are repercussions to doing something like this.

veemjeem• 16 years ago

The other possibility is that Gizmodo & Gawker would never receive invitations to future Apple product unveilings/announcements. I'm sure they got a decent bit of traffic during the iPhone OS 4.0 live blogging feed. Jobs likes to hold grudges and if you get on his bad side, you'll probably be blacklisted for a few years at least.

raganwald4• 16 years ago

Remind me: Was it a PR nightmare when they sued various rumours sites for offering a bounty to anyone who would break their confidentiality agreements?

jrockway6• 16 years ago

Apple is one big PR nightmare. That company is so evil I wouldn't touch one of their products except to stick a defectivebydesign.org sticker on one.

That said, did Apple even win these lawsuits, or were they just a baseless threat?

Perceval• 16 years ago

Right, they were pretty effective at ending ThinkSecret. No reason to believe that they wouldn't be just as happy to end Gizmodo too.

potatolicious• 16 years ago

I don't know about you, but just about everyone I know who knows about this deeply dislikes Gizmodo right now. I would be happy if Apple sued Giz, and if criminal charges were brought - and I won't be the only one by a long shot.

pavs2• 16 years ago

Why is he personally offended by this?

I can understand if someone (including me) not really agreeing the way Gizmodo handled this situation, but are you offended by this?

raganwald4• 16 years ago

I just read about three bisexual men who were disqualified from playing in the Gay Softball World Series because they were not deemed to be "Gay enough." I was offended.

Sometimes people are offended by what they perceive as injustice or impropriety even when it doesn't directly appear to harm them. You may not be such a person, but I am not surprised they exist.

I'm astounded that they outed the engineer who they claim "lost" the phone. They appear to have taken the word of a law-breaker with a $5,000 incentive to lie that the phone was lost and not stolen, and on that basis they publicly humiliate the engineer. They are either exceedingly cruel or this is an act of misdirection intended to bolster their "defense" that the phone was actually lost and that neither the person who approached them or themselves were able to return the phone promptly.

A very nasty bit of business indeed.

po3• 16 years ago

Not gay enough? Hell, the olympics have a hard time even telling if people are woman enough:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/OlympicGenderTesti... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008...

po3• 16 years ago

offend |əˈfend| verb 1 [ trans. ] (often be offended) cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful • be displeasing to

po3• 16 years ago

I should add that I thought it was a strange way of stating how he felt too. That response is probably due to the popular usage of offend to mean more than just upset/resentful.

Gruber is the type of guy who is more likely to go by the dictionary definition than popular usage.

mechanical_fish• 16 years ago

Why is he personally offended by this?

Gruber is a tech journalist. When another person who claims the role of tech journalist acts like a sociopath, it reflects badly on everyone in the profession.

And that's not some abstract philosophical exercise. Gruber's job just got a lot harder. Who among us would trust a journalist now? How many Apple engineers just said a silent prayer and swore to never breathe a word to any journalist, ever? Hell, with guys like this on the loose who needs the legendary wrath of Steve Jobs? I might rather be denounced and fired by Steve Jobs [1] than publicly humiliated in the tech press.

Journalists with ethics need to complain about this loudly and forcefully. Otherwise they will be presumed to be among the journalists without ethics.

---

[1] Once the shock wore off, it would be something of an honor to be personally denounced by Steve Jobs. It's not like you wouldn't be in elite company.

jonknee8• 16 years ago

He has a very strong personal attachment to Apple and it looks like he thinks Apple was wronged. I don't really understand cheerleading a $230b company to prosecute a blogger for photographing and returning a phone lost in public, but he's not alone in that. People take Apple personally.

The humorous thing is Gruber leaks information about Apple all the time, so it must only be wrong in his mind when you have proof (or well, show the proof). Apple got their hardware back and in the end all that happened was rumors were confirmed. It's an ego hit for Jobs, but he could use a few of those.

halostatue• 16 years ago

Gruber is not offended about the phone leak. Gizmodo's analysis of the phone hardware they obtained is legitimate, even though their methods in obtaining said hardware are shady-to-illegal.

What Gruber and a lot of other folks are upset about was the entirely unnecessary outing of the specific engineer who lost the prototype phone.

jonknee8• 16 years ago

Another thought... People treat Apple like their favorite political party / religion. Humans are tribal and Apple devotees (read fanboys) have chosen their tribe for better or worse. They have to defend it. If someone harms your tribe--or at least you believe they attempted to--then they are quite obviously bad people and should be dealt with. Rationality doesn't enter into the equation.

Why were Republicans offended by a health plan that was eerily similar to their own plan only a few years back? Why were Democrats offended by that plan originally? They chose sides before and had no choice.

anigbrowl6• 16 years ago

I've made a number of comments about why I believe it qualifies as industrial espionage (though an opportunistic rather than a conspiratorial variety); I have never owned an Apple product and nor do I wish to. I'm just not into their design ethic on any level.

I still think that Gizmodo's abuse of their IP is appalling.

punchfire2• 16 years ago

i agree that gizmodo shouldn't have published the guy's name at all. though how it was reported etc is hardly surprising. this is exactly how journalism works. people are all hotheaded in this situation because it's an apple product that's been unveiled. i doubt gruber would be "offended" by a similar case for any other company's gadget.

iambvk5• 16 years ago

Considering the fact that, a guy did suicide recently for the nature of Apple's secrecy, i think publishing his name is actually a better step by Gizmodo.

We really don't know what would have Apple security team done to this guy if this issue didn't become to public eye, don't you think?

bad_user• 16 years ago

> this is exactly how journalism works

No, this is "industrial espionage" through illegal methods, and it's only OK-ish to do if it serves some public good (justice). And no, this is not journalism, unless by that you mean intentionally breaking the law for your own profit.

I really hope the person that stole that phone and Gizmodo are prosecuted for theft.

Because of dicks like these we ended up with the current patent system.

punchfire2• 16 years ago

all i think is that everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill in this situation. this is blown way out of proportion.

tghw4• 16 years ago

Wow, guys picking up phones in bars led to the current patent system? There's a piece of history I never knew.

There is no "industrial espionage" here. Industrial espionage would, at the very least, require Gizmodo to intend to steal the phone from the outset, which clearly isn't the case. As far as trade secrets go, Apple gives up all claim to them as soon as that phone leaves its campus.

Gizmodo probably crossed some line in what it did and how it handled this story, but accusing a gadget site of industrial espionage is just ridiculous.

tlrobinson• 16 years ago

I wonder if publishing the guy's name is actually a good thing for him. It may put a little pressure on Apple to not fire him, knowing that it will inevitably be made public. Not that they ever care about our opinion of them...

wisty• 16 years ago

I'd rather be fired (quietly) than kept on but under the apprehension that I was only there for PR reasons.

tvon3• 16 years ago

Gruber isn't an "any other company" pundit, he's an Apple pundit.

tewks• 16 years ago

The notion of a "company-specific pundit" strikes me as rather silly. "Cheerleader" seems more appropriate.

iambvk5• 16 years ago

I don't understand why everybody is trying to quote the law and take strict meaning of it to prove Gizmodo did wrong. All are ignoring the fact that Gizmodo brought it to light, which everybody is really interested to know anyway!

As per the strict letter of law, many of our day to day activities would be wrong too! Considering that there were no deaths or loss of money, and Gizmodo is willing to return it back to Apple, I would give Gizmodo a clear pass!

davidmurphy• 16 years ago

Logged in to say this:

If many of your daily goings on would be wrong in the strickest sense, IMHO you're doing it wrong. Ethics matter. Rule of law matters.

No, I'm sure not perfect myself. But we all should try our best and correct/learn from our mistakes and try to achieve the high road.

iambvk5• 16 years ago

Ethics matter, i agree. Rule of law matters? I am really not sure, it needs to be considered case by case: Things change over time, new laws come in that make old things illegal. Do i have to accept them blindly or not is a personal decision.

Coming to the point, you did not mention what part of Gizmodo story you think is ethically wrong. Ethics matter, rule of law matters, try our best, learn from mistakes, etc. are kinda universal truths, everybody knows. Say something concrete to the point!

houseabsolute2• 16 years ago

Good thing you're not the DA. This is not just the letter of the law that was broken. It's the spirit too, and ethics besides. This law is a good law, and its enforcement is good too. The laws we break unknowingly day to day are typically misdemeanor-level offenses that are good only under certain conditions (usually, but not always, the ones under which they are applied).

iambvk5• 16 years ago

What does DA stand for?

Please explain where spirit and ethics that are broken in your opinion.

AFAIK, Gizmodo's business is that: gather sources, inform interested people what it can. If we forget letter of law, this is how i see it:

(1) No where i see the proof that it was stolen. (2) Gizmodo paid the guy some amount to get pictures, etc. and is actually willing to return it to Apple. I still don't see the problem if it gets returned to Apple. (3) Gizmodo revealed the Apple employee's name to public, which is kinda crossing the line -- but given that a guy recently committed suicide for such a fault, i give Gizmodo a pass.

swombat• 16 years ago

which everybody is really interested to know anyway

Actually, after reading that article and seeing it confirmed that it's a real iPhone prototype, I felt a strong sense of disappointment. There won't be any surprises on this front at Apple's announcement, because of Gizmodo.

As unbearable as it might be, anticipating new Apple gadgets is quite fun. Gizmodo robbed us of the fun. It's a bit like someone shouting "the butler did it!" halfway through a movie. Sure, you wanna know who did it, but not that way.

orangecat2• 16 years ago

There won't be any surprises on this front at Apple's announcement, because of Gizmodo.

A slightly tweaked exterior and front facing camera are not remotely surprising. The quadrupled resolution is a much bigger deal; are you as annoyed with Gruber for ruining that?

waffenklang• 16 years ago

sometimes and sometimes a bit more often there is a thought coming up my mind and (attention ironic) I dont know why, but always apple got to do with it: what if...?

... never heard of viral marketing?

InclinedPlane• 16 years ago

Gizmodo's actions were equivalent to a tabloid posting topless photos of a "hot" celebrity they obtained via some sleezy paparazzi hiding in the bushes with a telephoto lens. For people who are too obsessed with the idea of celebrity to gauge the morality of their actions, or even the health of and nature of their relationship to those celebrities, this sort of thing can be exciting and can certainly cause a spike in readership.

But simultaneously it represents the self-destruction and denigration of gizmodo's brand. Personally I'm not a fan of the slightly-warmed-over-PR-release and tabloidesque tech journalism that is so common these days. I'd rather have honest personal reviews and hard-hitting technical critiques than gadget porn, gossip, and rumor mongering.

fab13n• 16 years ago

> equivalent to [...] photos of a "hot" celebrity they obtained via some sleezy paparazzi hiding in the bushes

Not hiding in the bushes: detaining the photographed subject illegally for weeks. It would have been equivalent if pictures had been taken while the Apple engineer was playing with the phone, thinking he was alone.

betageek5• 16 years ago

My problem with this post is that Gruber acts like he isn't involved in this whole circus - he's just as much to blame as Gizmodo.

I'd suggest one of the main reasons that Gizmodo published the guys name is that Gruber implied immediately that they stole the prototype (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/19/gizmodo-rumors) without giving any evidence - not really the act of a 'ethical' journalist. It's fine to decide that you think it's theft if you go by the letter of the law (AFAIK Gruber isn't a lawyer, so it's just an uneducated opinion) but to stoke the flames and then be 'offended' is pure hypocrisy.

allwein• 16 years ago

You're being disingenuous. Gruber didn't imply that they stole the prototype. He reported from his contacts at Apple that Apple considered the phone stolen rather than lost.

Also, just because Gruber isn't a lawyer doesn't make his opinion uneducated.

betageek5• 16 years ago

How is that not implying it was stolen???

I thought a legal education was a pretty lengthy process - I stand corrected.

Hagelin9• 16 years ago

I'd suggest one of the main reasons that Gizmodo published the guys name is that Gruber implied immediately that they stole the prototype

How is that a valid response? Leaving aside your mischaracterization of what Gruber actually wrote, what does publishing the guys name, not to speak of his picture and other information, get them that couldn't have been accomplished without the personal details, aside from a bunch of page views?

betageek5• 16 years ago

My point is not that Gizmodo did the right thing (far from it) but that Gruber is actively involved in hyping this thing up. I don't think its a mischaracterisation to say he implied it was stolen, it's right there in the text of the post.

bbb2• 16 years ago

(AFAIK Gruber isn't a lawyer, so it's just an uneducated opinion)

That's a bit harsh; there's a large difference between an "uneducated opinion" and a "carefully researched assessment by a non-lawyer". Based on your criteria, no journalist could ever write about any topic but journalism.

stcredzero3• 16 years ago

Based on what I've seen, especially in science journalism, there are a lot of journalists who should be topic-restricted in this way.

jrockway6• 16 years ago

Considering no charges have been filed, it's far from clear that anything illegal happened.

Anechoic2• 16 years ago

I'd suggest one of the main reasons that Gizmodo published the guys name is that Gruber implied immediately that they stole the prototype

How does that support the case that the phone was lost? Publishing the name of the guy who found the phone might support your case, but publishing the name of the phone's owner isn't helpful - you can steal something from a known owner.

Poiesis• 16 years ago

He's as much to blame? Did he have in his posession something which did not belong to him? To be sure, that is where his outrage is. Someone had something that dis not belong to them. They sold that thing. The recipient had every reason to believe that the item did not belong to the seller.

It doesn't matter if he found the thing next to spare thing on the street. The finder knew who owned it (who was carrying it) and did not contact them. The buyer knew damned well that it belonged to Apple and not some random guy--they're in the tech journalism (apologies to ethical journalists) business for Christ's sake. I can't think of many people more qualified to know that the phone was property of Apple, Inc.

And that makes it wrong.

sunchild2• 16 years ago

Any suggestions of ethical gadget bloggers would be appreciated.

I don't give Gizmodo pageviews because of this incident.

I don't give Engadget pageviews because it feeds Calacanis' troll ego.

cubicle67• 16 years ago

arstechnica is pretty good

jonknee8• 16 years ago

Calacanis has nothing to do with Engadget anymore. It's still not a great site, but don't visit because of him. He's busy filling the web with spam.

sunchild2• 16 years ago

He still spends plenty of time taking credit for it, I'm sure.

jonknee8• 16 years ago

I wonder what he feels about Wikileaks?

Estragon• 16 years ago

This was primarily a legal analysis. What laws are wikileaks breaking?

jonknee8• 16 years ago

Classified US military documents and videos are a whole lot more secret and illegal to publish than an iPhone prototype (and have a lot bigger consequences--there won't be any retaliation suicide bombings from HTC). I think it's illogical to call for Gizmodo to be prosecuted without also saying the same for Wikileaks.

ZeroGravitas• 16 years ago

I'm a bit confused by this. Gizmodo's behaviour seems skanky, but only different by degree from Gruber, in this very post, confirming that the recent photos were of a late stage prototype, or in recent posts confirming tech specs.

People are throwing terms like "industrial espionage" around. Why is publishing such details of unreleased products from internal sources, as Gruber seems to take great delight in doing, not the same thing.

If one of his moles gets fed tagged information and the release gets traced back to him, resulting in a firing are we supposed to all gang up on Gruber too?

ugh2• 16 years ago

I don’t know where you get the impression that Gruber thinks this is industrial espionage.

ab9• 16 years ago

I think the distinction, from Gruber's point of view, is simply that Gruber is not violating any laws or contracts, while Gawker is.

Presumably, Gruber has never stolen any of Apple's property and is not under any contractual obligation to keep silent about Apple. His sources, on the other hand, are probably violating NDAs when they talk to him.

Perhaps under your system of morality, Gruber is at fault here: if he receives information from someone who he knows is violating an NDA, then he should immediately cover his ears, avoid publishing what he learned, and report the person to Apple's legal department. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's the position of US and California law. Under them, Gruber's sources are being naughty, while Gruber himself is not.

bbb2• 16 years ago

I do not perceive a double standard here.

Gruber: I’m not offended by their decision to obtain this unit and publish everything they were able to ascertain regarding it. [...] Second, publishing the name, photographs, and personal information of the Apple engineer who lost the phone is irrelevant to the story. It was the dick move to end all dick moves.

It seems to me that he made it pretty clear that he does not take offense with reporting about the prototype per se. Rather, he condemns the way that Gizmodo chose to handle the whole affair.

tvon3• 16 years ago

Confirming information as true in a situation like this is pretty insignificant once the information has been widely reported as fact.

Besides, getting someone fired by reporting "tagged" information that they willfully gave to you is not even in the same ballpark as publishing his name, putting up a big photo of him and linking to his Facebook page.

c00p3r2• 16 years ago

Such publicity is good for AAPL, even if that was an accident. =)

ugh2• 16 years ago

How so?

c00p3r2• 16 years ago

yellow-papers methods to keep the buzz up. Of course, effectiveness of such events cannot be compared to spreading rumors about ARM acquiring. =)

Hagelin9• 16 years ago

According to Gizmodo the phone was lost March 18. On March 29 Gruber publishes a short comment that casually includes some of the specs (A4-family CPU, 960x640 display, front-facing camera). Kinda makes me wonder if there was an authorized leak of the hardware specs in order to steal some thunder from any upcoming stories.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/29/wsj

jrockway6• 16 years ago

Or the specs were just obvious. Apple already released a next-gen device running iPhoneOS with the A4 processor. And their competitors are all hyping massive-res screens and front-facing cameras.

Apple would be insane not to do exactly what Gruber predicted.

necubi• 16 years ago

Gruber gave the exact screen resolution, which was far from obvious (as, to my knowledge, no other phone has been released with that resolution).

Hagelin9• 16 years ago

I have no doubt the information was leaked to him, he usually marks speculative predictions as such. What I'm wondering is if the leak was sanctioned or not.

jrockway6• 16 years ago

Oh goody, a legal analysis by a non-lawyer. Great reading...

kraemate2• 16 years ago

I dont understand why people are blaming gizmodo and siding with the guy who lost his phone. He works for a corporation notorious for secrecy and 'leaking' product info through such underhand means for generating hype. Employees of 3-letter Govt. agencies know the risk when signing up, that their life may be in danger because they know stuff which is worth killing. Well, same with apple i guess. They have lowered(raised?) the bar on this whole secrecy nonsense that punishing them by publicly disclosing and humiliating their secret-bearing employees is the only way out. Let's keep in mind that it is apple which has cultivated this ring of secrecy, and now their employee is whining because gizmodo does what apple exactly expects them to?

vtail• 16 years ago

Do you suggest that Apple's secrecy policy justifies buying stolen property??

kraemate2• 16 years ago

The whole point is that apple is capable enough of engineering such an incident. And that whiner has no right to complain after being part of apple's insidious plans.

aero142• 16 years ago

I'm slightly torn about this. This does appear to be theft, however, but Gruber also seems to imply that Apple is a bit of a victim. This reminds me of the relationship between celebrities and the paparazzi. Celebrities hate the downside when they are stalked trying to live their normal lives, but need all of the attention to continue making the ridiculous amounts of money they do. Similarly, Apple lives by creating the obscene levels of hype around their product launches. I can't help but think Apple has created this environment where people would freak out about a prototype leak and do anything to get early details about it.

jsean• 16 years ago

This whole episode is probably staged and directed by Apple. Great way to call attention to an upcoming release. Oh and also to get people like me, who otherwise never would've read an iPhone spec/review, to actually read an iPhone spec/review.

You got me there Apple! Well played.

MartinCron2• 16 years ago

Because Apple has a really hard time getting attention for upcoming releases, right?

If only they could generate buzz and media coverage in some other way, they wouldn't have to resort to these transparent and desperate gimmicks.

Gizmodo and the Prototype iPhone

Related Stories