Gizmodo not allowed at the WWDC...

[puffnstuff]

Surprise surprise....

Gizmodo has just put a post up asking for volunteers who will be attending the event. They will not pay. On top of that they are now banning people who state they deserved it and starring people who say it's Apples lost. I hope Apple really drills them into the ground.


http://gizmodo.com/5554994/at-this-mondays-apple-keynote-help-us-liveblog


Edit:

you're banned. Jason Chen has banned you

hahaha Engadget is tech news anyways

 

[maflynn]

Seems kind of petty and vindictive by apple to do this.

Stuff like this only helps promote anti-apple sentiment.

 

[miles01110]

Surprise surprise....

There's nothing in the page you linked to suggesting they're banned, they just haven't been invited. It's Apple's party, they can decide who's on the guest list.

Seems kind of petty and vindictive by apple to do this.

Why? Gizmodo has obviously proved that their kind of journalism doesn't meet any sort of ethical standard that the rest of the industry abides by. They're just being treated accordingly.

 

[Tilpots]

Seems kind of petty and vindictive by apple to do this.

Stuff like this only helps promote anti-apple sentiment.

You don't invite the guy who robbed your house to the party. You just don't.

 

[belvdr]

I certainly wouldn't call Gizmodo's action "robbery". I really don't see the real ethics problem either.

 

[Peace]

Screw gizmodo. They got what they deserved.

 

[yg17]

Seems kind of petty and vindictive by apple to do this.

Stuff like this only helps promote anti-apple sentiment.

Yeah, pretty patheitc on Apple's part. I'm really finding fewer and fewer reasons why my next computer should be a Mac. Their business practices in the past few months have been disgusting.

 

[Hellhammer]

I certainly wouldn't call Gizmodo's action "robbery". I really don't see the real ethics problem either.

They knew that Apple will get pissed. All the crap Apple has now gone through because of that, crime investigation etc. Robbery isn't a right word, but possession of stolen items is a crime as it was more or less stolen (the founder should've gave it to the police).

I wouldn't invite someone who revealed something I didn't want to be revealed. Gizmodo is just acting childish and banning people who tell them the truth

 

[Tanto]

I agree with Tilpots, but I also think that it's petty to ban a site's representative that would only increase the exposure of Apple's new product. I guess Apple figures it doesn't need Gizmodo to help it with that though.

Maybe Steve is just pissed that Gizmodo spoiled his big unveiling

 

[maflynn]

You don't invite the guy who robbed your house to the party. You just don't.

Gizmodo did not rob, steal or take anything from apple. In fact when apple requested the phone back, gizmodo asked for the request to be in writing, once that occurred that complied.

So now because of an apple employee foolishly losing it at a bar, and gizmodo doing the news reporting thing and reported the details of the found phone. They are excluded from covering an apple event.

If that isn't being vindictive and petty I don't know what is. Jobs has a reputation of being vindictive, and apple appears to be getting that reputation.

 

[Blaine]

You reap what you sow Gizmodo

 

[Nieval]

I'm not sure exactly what to call Gizmodos action, that's for better qualified people to decide, but I must say that as a gadget news site I could somewhat understand their position. Having said that however, their reply to Apple asking for their prototype back was in bad taste - extremely arrogant and uncalled for. Plus the Apple bashing that's been going on on their site during the last weeks is childish at best.

What surprises me is that in their first article, Jason Chen (whom I know reads these forums) stated that the whole team debated over whether or not to publish the info and among their discussions were the possible consequences. For the Gizmodo team to expect anything other than this reaction is incredibly unrealistic and pathetically hopeful.

The irony and hypocrisy is that the OP was banned because he posted his opinion on their site which happened to not favor them. Plus one of their writers promoted a comment that made fun of Engadget - the first website that was offered the prototype and refused.

 

[Stella]

Predictable, but sad.

Apple - Stevie takes things so personally.

 

[miles01110]

So now because of an apple employee foolishly losing it at a bar, and gizmodo doing the news reporting thing and reported the details of the found phone. They are excluded from covering an apple event.

That's one way to oversimplify the story and draw a conclusion, indeed.

 

[maflynn]

That's one way to oversimplify the story and draw a conclusion, indeed.

Yeah it was over simplified, but my point wasn't to provide concise details, but illustrate that gizmodo did not rob apple as the other poster accused the site of

 

[gibbz]

Gizmodo did not rob, steal or take anything from apple. In fact when apple requested the phone back, gizmodo asked for the request to be in writing, once that occurred that complied.

So now because of an apple employee foolishly losing it at a bar, and gizmodo doing the news reporting thing and reported the details of the found phone. They are excluded from covering an apple event.

If that isn't being vindictive and petty I don't know what is. Jobs has a reputation of being vindictive, and apple appears to be getting that reputation.

You clearly haven't read California law's definition of theft.

 

[miles01110]

...but illustrate that gizmodo did not rob apple as the other poster accused the site of

Ah ok. Very true.

 

[Tilpots]

I certainly wouldn't call Gizmodo's action "robbery". I really don't see the real ethics problem either.

Gizmodo did not rob, steal or take anything from apple. In fact when apple requested the phone back, gizmodo asked for the request to be in writing, once that occurred that complied.

So now because of an apple employee foolishly losing it at a bar, and gizmodo doing the news reporting thing and reported the details of the found phone. They are excluded from covering an apple event.

If that isn't being vindictive and petty I don't know what is. Jobs has a reputation of being vindictive, and apple appears to be getting that reputation.

Call it whatever you want, but the police and DA feel it's enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Ultimately the courts will decide, but until then how's this line... "You don't invite the guy accused of committing multiple crimes against your company to the big, fun PR event. You just don't do that."

Yeah it was over simplified, but my point wasn't to provide concise details, but illustrate that gizmodo did not rob apple as the other poster accused the site of

Yeah, my point wasn't to be providing concise details either. So thanks for your heroism in clearing this up. Double .

 

[belvdr]

Call it whatever you want, but the police and DA feel it's enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Ultimately the courts will decide, but until then how's this line... "You don't invite the guy accused of committing multiple crimes against your company to the big, fun PR event. You just don't do that."



Yeah, my point wasn't to be providing concise details either. So thanks for your heroism in clearing this up. Double .

Apple is the one forcing the investigation part. Maybe a crime was committed by Gizmodo, but maybe not. I'm not a lawyer nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but from my point of view, they simply purchased some equipment believed to be a prototype. They had no real proof of that from the start. Additionally, it looks like the guy trying to sell it around was more in line with criminal activity than Gizmodo.

Rolling your eyes doesn't make everyone suddenly believe you are correct.

 

[quagmire]

Apple is the one forcing the investigation part. Maybe a crime was committed by Gizmodo, but maybe not. I'm not a lawyer nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but from my point of view, they simply purchased some equipment believed to be a prototype. They had no real proof of that from the start. Additionally, it looks like the guy trying to sell it around was more in line with criminal activity than Gizmodo.

Rolling your eyes doesn't make everyone suddenly believe you are correct.

Isn't the point of the investigation to determine if a crime was committed or not? Remember no one has been charged yet.

Gizmodo published in their own articles that the seller found it in the bar and knew who was the original owner. They also plugged it into a computer and iTunes saw it as an iPhone. OS X recognized it as an iPhone. Gizmodo had a responsibility to make sure the item they were buying was not stolen. They failed to do so and it is a crime to buy stolen property.

 

[belvdr]

Isn't the point of the investigation to determine if a crime was committed or not? Remember no one has been charged yet.

True, we agree on this.

Gizmodo published in their own articles that the seller found it in the bar and knew who was the original owner.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall in any of the first articles of them mentioning the owner. The only thing I can recall was they stated they bought it.

They also plugged it into a computer and iTunes saw it as an iPhone. OS X recognized it as an iPhone.

I'm not sure what plugging it into a computer has to do with unethical activity though. They were checking out the device like any of us would.

Gizmodo had a responsibility to make sure the item they were buying was not stolen. They failed to do so and it is a crime to buy stolen property.

Which is a good point and part of the investigation you mentioned earlier. So now you are saying the investigation is complete and they should be charged. What evidence do you have the investigators don't?

The laws for buying stolen property can be applied several ways. I've seen people acquitted or having charges dismissed because they had no reason to believe something was stolen.

 

[maflynn]

You clearly haven't read California law's definition of theft.

Of course not, I don't live there and I'm not a lawyer.

 

[ucfgrad93]

There's nothing in the page you linked to suggesting they're banned, they just haven't been invited. It's Apple's party, they can decide who's on the guest list.



Why? Gizmodo has obviously proved that their kind of journalism doesn't meet any sort of ethical standard that the rest of the industry abides by. They're just being treated accordingly.

Agreed. Apple can invite whoever they like, and given Gizmodo's style of "journalism" I'm not surprised they weren't invited.

 

[jdm111]

Yeah, pretty patheitc on Apple's part. I'm really finding fewer and fewer reasons why my next computer should be a Mac. Their business practices in the past few months have been disgusting.

Oh yeah? and what about that idiot Captain Chen pulling stupid stunts like this?

 

[quagmire]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall in any of the first articles of them mentioning the owner. The only thing I can recall was they stated they bought it.

http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone

I'm not sure what plugging it into a computer has to do with unethical activity though. They were checking out the device like any of us would.

They thought it could be fake( would be skeptical myself). By plugging it in to the computer, they verified it was in fact a real iPhone. So now they know it was an actual iPhone. This iPhone though had a different product identifiers. Another hint that this was indeed a prototype they had in their possession. By publishing it and dissecting it, they at least committed a civil crime of revealing trade secrets( not sure if it is a criminal crime though, but gizmodo can at least be sued for revealing trade secrets).

It is recognized as an iPhone
This iPhone behaves exactly like an iPhone does when connected to a computer, with the proper boot sequence and "connect to iTunes" restore functionality. Xcode and iTunes both see this as an iPhone. Mac OS X's System Profiler also reports this as an iPhone in restore mode, which is a natural consequence of remotely wiping the phone, but report different product identifiers (both CPID and CPRV) than either the 3G or the 3GS.

http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

Which is a good point and part of the investigation you mentioned earlier. So now you are saying the investigation is complete and they should be charged. What evidence do you have the investigators don't?

The laws for buying stolen property can be applied several ways. I've seen people acquitted or having charges dismissed because they had no reason to believe something was stolen.

I didn't say the investigation is complete. I just said gizmodo didn't do their job to make sure it wasn't stolen because they said it themselves that the phone was lost at a bar and the founder sold it to them. They didn't publish anything that they verified it wasn't stolen. That is mostly because they believe it wasn't stolen because the founder did call AppleCare and they said they didn't know anything about it. Which isn't enough or the appropriate outlet to give it back to Apple.

They only returned it to Apple after they got a letter saying it was theirs so they could publish it on their site for everyone to see that Apple themselves said it was Apple's.