AnnesTripped Up by Libidos and HubrisAlexandria, VAIcrontian
edited April 2010
Either Gizmodo is lying about where they got the phone or they're a bunch of jackasses. I would prefer the former because that leaves them with at least a tiny bit of integrity.
The story's uniform, at least - Engadget mentioned a couple days ago that somebody found it at a bar and were shopping it around to the highest bidder among the tech blogs.
Giz just hung the poor guy out to dry who left it at the bar. He already farked up enough, but it did get you a gagillion pagehits and now you post his name on the net? Greeeeatt...
It still wouldn't surprise me if they leaked it simply because everyone was getting tired and paying less attention to their old marketing.
To be fair to Giz, it's not like Apple doesn't know who it was. If they fire somebody and the world doesn't associate the name, they have no qualms firing him even just for misplacing something. If Giz puts the name out and everybody sees that Gray just got fired, Apple feels a bit more pressure to explain why they canned somebody for a small mistake like that.
Giz didn't hurt Gray's chances with Apple by posting his name.
Gizmodo has published a follow-up article about the Apple employee who lost the iPhone 4G at the bar, Gray Powell... and has been met with several comments from suspicious and angered readers.
Calls of shenanigans and accusations of a controlled leak for publicity are flying around. The public's reaction to the article has me intrigued. I was expecting a series of "wow that sucks poor guy" reactions, but instead it's more of a "fuck you, Gizmodo!"
Personally, for the time being, I've lost a bit of respect for Gizmodo. We'll see how the dust settles.
Did Gizmodo do anything unethical to obtain the scoop? Apple engineer leaves a phone at the bar, some guy picks it up, Gizmodo pays that guy 5K for an exclusive look at the gadget....
I'm not sure I totally understand what all the fuss is about. I mean, I get the competitive view on street dates and why content publishers should enforce them... But this, its like a TV network paying for an exclusive interview, sure, its not the preferred practice for good journalism, but it happens all the time.
Help me understand why everyone's knickers are in a bunch over this?
Fanboys want to think Apple leaked it on purpose because they're allsome, bleeding hearts think they shouldn't have released the dude's name even though everybody who cared knew it, and everybody else is just pissed that Giz is getting pageviews of which they're jealous.
Help me understand why everyone's knickers are in a bunch over this?
I'll tell you my personal thoughts on it, as naive as they likely are. I'm happy to see (and cover) the iPhone 4G scoop/rumor/whatever. The main part that I'm a little irked about is how they really put the guy who was in charge of hanging on to the phone, Gray Powell, out to wash. Kind of an invasion of privacy. I know, it's what the media does, but it still isn't very cool.
The whole thing does seem a bit suspicious to me, but not enough to get me upset.
And I don't care about some giant site getting more pagehits. They can have it for all I care. It's either them, or some other group that has money to throw around.
Fanboys want to think Apple leaked it on purpose because they're allsome, bleeding hearts think they shouldn't have released the dude's name even though everybody who cared knew it, and everybody else is just pissed that Giz is getting pageviews of which they're jealous.
Done.
See, that was pretty much my interpretation, and you know what I say,
Cliff + Snark in agreement = fact.
I will say, the only item I find even mildly questionable was in the necessity to release the guy's name that "lost" the phone. Other than that, I can't take any exception to how they handled anything. They got a cool story because they paid for it. It kind of sucks, but hey, David Frost paid to interview Nixon didn't he?
I'm not necessarily pissed about breaking the story, although I find it slightly morally questionable the way the phone was obtained. I'm more upset about the subsequent relase of the engineer's name on the internet. Obviously Apple knows he lost the phone and publishing his name doesn't hurt him or help him with Apple, he's most likely screwed if this was not a planned leak. My main issue is that you post his name all over the internet and there is no real reason to do so. He is most likely in a precarious job situation and now the whole internet knows that it was him who lost a HUGELY important prototype. These companies take these sorts of situations VERY seriously and losing that phone is a f'up of the highest order.
It's akin to me taking shots of prototype automobiles and then losing my camera, only to find the shots posted on the internet. You better believe I would get fired. And if my name was posted, you better believe that me finding a new job in the automotive industry would be made a thousand times more difficult. Now imagine that happened in an even more internet connected industry as it did here. They just shat all over this kids career for a stupid little mistake. Not only might he lose his current job, his life was just made a lot harder for the near future for a stupid mistake he made.
In reality did Giz harm Apple? Most likely not, which seems to be why Apple isn't going too crazy about this. Obviously its the new iPhone, and obviously its going to be upgraded. No real nitty gritty got let out that could hurt them with a competitor and they got the phone back. Its the more tabloid esque outing of the guy who made the mistake that bothers me.
After all that, I still think this stinks of a staging. First the phone appears, then it blows up to the big media outlets, then the story of the guy who lost it appears, which then blows up to the big media outlets, and then the letter from Apple appears..... Keeping the ball rolling rather nicely I think, but that could just be Gawker media working it like they should.
I hate to say it, but I hope they get at least a swift kick in the rear (I thought it was stealing in the first place). It seems to me that the internet likes to hold itself to a different standard (IC seems not to be included in this, I U!!) and greed rules the roost, and I find Gawker at the top of this list (For the record, I don't blame them, they are just working the current game) For some reason, journalistic integrity has disappeared and the "click" has become god, hence that story was posted on EVERY GAWKER MEDIA BLOG (Which is smart BTW..... urge to hate rising).
Full disclaimer. Do I really understand this gray area? No. Am I a journalist? No. Would I have done what they did? No. MHO. Their excuse about Apple ignoring them is BS to me. I would have walked into the lobby and given it to the receptionist. Then again, I don't have millions resting on my pagehits, and it's pretty easy for me to say that when I don't have a million dollar prototype in my hands. Quite the conundrum but I hope I toe my own line.
I have been involved in several situations where a rival company learns something about their competition, keeps their mouth shut, and actually tells the competition about the leak. Do they know the info? Yes. Do they take the honorable route out of the situation, yes. Do they publicise (God Save the Queen) it all over the place going NAHANAHANHANHA, Cha-Ching! NO.
Did Giz do this, meh.... They jumped the greed train and went with it. Am I surprised.... No. As a car guy, I've read Jalop for a long time (I love it BTW). Are they egotistical and holier than thou (Gawker as a whole)? You're damn right. Do I expect anything less from Gawker... No. They play to the masses and pray to the dollar, nothing less, so I don't hold them to a higher standard. Do I use parenthesis too much?? Yes..... I just consider all this a sign of the Mike Judge apocalypse...
/endrant.... Wow, I forgot how much fun ranting was....
I still hope this is fake... I for one, stand against crap like this. Call me old school, but I won't bow to some tabloid culture that seems to want to permeate rumor and destroy others just to make a buck.
I say again - Giz was trying to do the right thing by releasing his name. It gives him external publicity so Apple can't just fire him quietly. If he's out of a job in a week, there will be a lot of people who ask why Apple fired a guy because he made one mistake. Add to it that it certainly looks like theft and a bunch of people just banded together to make a ton of profit and he looks less and less to blame.
That said, if his qualifications and his skills are good enough, it won't matter to companies that his 4G was the one that got loose. There's hardly another phone hardware company in the world that has clamps like Apple does - leaks and authorized early information come out all the time. He'll have no problem finding a job; the internet will be the only source of stigma.
He'll have no problem finding a job; the internet will be the only source of stigma.
I sure hope so, for his sake. I think you may have a good point. It may help him spread some of the blame around instead of taking it all himself. Maybe it's a blessing in a very strange disguise.
As for the "it's not finders keepers, it's theft", that does sound fairly accurate. According to my law class at Purdue University (take with a grain of salt), if you find lost property and do wish to keep it, you are required to make and show due diligence to return it to the owner. This can include posting fliers around the place it was lost, an ad in the newspaper's lost and found, and so on. After a reasonable time has passed (xx number of days), only then may you keep it.
The Californian law sounds very similar. Right or wrong to do it, whoever "sold" the rights to see the phone to Gizmodo may be in some trouble with the law.
It's not a first amendment issue at all. Gizmodo committed a crime in the state of California by failing to return lost property with a known owner. Chen is the EIC, he calls the shots, he takes the fall.
//EDIT: RELEVANT STATUTES
California’s penal code, section 485:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
California’s civil code, section 2080.1:
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.
Chen and Gizmodo published an article clearly demonstrating that they were aware of the rightful owner of the product. They not only failed to return the item, they destroyed the product by dismantling it.
Bandrik
Elkhart, IN Icrontian
Comments
It still wouldn't surprise me if they leaked it simply because everyone was getting tired and paying less attention to their old marketing.
To be fair to Giz, it's not like Apple doesn't know who it was. If they fire somebody and the world doesn't associate the name, they have no qualms firing him even just for misplacing something. If Giz puts the name out and everybody sees that Gray just got fired, Apple feels a bit more pressure to explain why they canned somebody for a small mistake like that.
Giz didn't hurt Gray's chances with Apple by posting his name.
Calls of shenanigans and accusations of a controlled leak for publicity are flying around. The public's reaction to the article has me intrigued. I was expecting a series of "wow that sucks poor guy" reactions, but instead it's more of a "fuck you, Gizmodo!"
Personally, for the time being, I've lost a bit of respect for Gizmodo. We'll see how the dust settles.
I'm not sure I totally understand what all the fuss is about. I mean, I get the competitive view on street dates and why content publishers should enforce them... But this, its like a TV network paying for an exclusive interview, sure, its not the preferred practice for good journalism, but it happens all the time.
Help me understand why everyone's knickers are in a bunch over this?
Done.
I'll tell you my personal thoughts on it, as naive as they likely are. I'm happy to see (and cover) the iPhone 4G scoop/rumor/whatever. The main part that I'm a little irked about is how they really put the guy who was in charge of hanging on to the phone, Gray Powell, out to wash. Kind of an invasion of privacy. I know, it's what the media does, but it still isn't very cool.
The whole thing does seem a bit suspicious to me, but not enough to get me upset.
And I don't care about some giant site getting more pagehits. They can have it for all I care. It's either them, or some other group that has money to throw around.
See, that was pretty much my interpretation, and you know what I say,
Cliff + Snark in agreement = fact.
I will say, the only item I find even mildly questionable was in the necessity to release the guy's name that "lost" the phone. Other than that, I can't take any exception to how they handled anything. They got a cool story because they paid for it. It kind of sucks, but hey, David Frost paid to interview Nixon didn't he?
I'm not necessarily pissed about breaking the story, although I find it slightly morally questionable the way the phone was obtained. I'm more upset about the subsequent relase of the engineer's name on the internet. Obviously Apple knows he lost the phone and publishing his name doesn't hurt him or help him with Apple, he's most likely screwed if this was not a planned leak. My main issue is that you post his name all over the internet and there is no real reason to do so. He is most likely in a precarious job situation and now the whole internet knows that it was him who lost a HUGELY important prototype. These companies take these sorts of situations VERY seriously and losing that phone is a f'up of the highest order.
It's akin to me taking shots of prototype automobiles and then losing my camera, only to find the shots posted on the internet. You better believe I would get fired. And if my name was posted, you better believe that me finding a new job in the automotive industry would be made a thousand times more difficult. Now imagine that happened in an even more internet connected industry as it did here. They just shat all over this kids career for a stupid little mistake. Not only might he lose his current job, his life was just made a lot harder for the near future for a stupid mistake he made.
In reality did Giz harm Apple? Most likely not, which seems to be why Apple isn't going too crazy about this. Obviously its the new iPhone, and obviously its going to be upgraded. No real nitty gritty got let out that could hurt them with a competitor and they got the phone back. Its the more tabloid esque outing of the guy who made the mistake that bothers me.
After all that, I still think this stinks of a staging. First the phone appears, then it blows up to the big media outlets, then the story of the guy who lost it appears, which then blows up to the big media outlets, and then the letter from Apple appears..... Keeping the ball rolling rather nicely I think, but that could just be Gawker media working it like they should.
/tinfoil
^this
I hate to say it, but I hope they get at least a swift kick in the rear (I thought it was stealing in the first place). It seems to me that the internet likes to hold itself to a different standard (IC seems not to be included in this, I
Full disclaimer. Do I really understand this gray area? No. Am I a journalist? No. Would I have done what they did? No. MHO. Their excuse about Apple ignoring them is BS to me. I would have walked into the lobby and given it to the receptionist. Then again, I don't have millions resting on my pagehits, and it's pretty easy for me to say that when I don't have a million dollar prototype in my hands. Quite the conundrum but I hope I toe my own line.
I have been involved in several situations where a rival company learns something about their competition, keeps their mouth shut, and actually tells the competition about the leak. Do they know the info? Yes. Do they take the honorable route out of the situation, yes. Do they publicise (God Save the Queen) it all over the place going NAHANAHANHANHA, Cha-Ching! NO.
Did Giz do this, meh.... They jumped the greed train and went with it. Am I surprised.... No. As a car guy, I've read Jalop for a long time (I love it BTW). Are they egotistical and holier than thou (Gawker as a whole)? You're damn right. Do I expect anything less from Gawker... No. They play to the masses and pray to the dollar, nothing less, so I don't hold them to a higher standard. Do I use parenthesis too much?? Yes..... I just consider all this a sign of the Mike Judge apocalypse...
/endrant.... Wow, I forgot how much fun ranting was....
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0O7_3o3BrI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0O7_3o3BrI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I still hope this is fake... I for one, stand against crap like this. Call me old school, but I won't bow to some tabloid culture that seems to want to permeate rumor and destroy others just to make a buck.
/tinfoil...... again.
//not sure
That said, if his qualifications and his skills are good enough, it won't matter to companies that his 4G was the one that got loose. There's hardly another phone hardware company in the world that has clamps like Apple does - leaks and authorized early information come out all the time. He'll have no problem finding a job; the internet will be the only source of stigma.
I sure hope so, for his sake. I think you may have a good point. It may help him spread some of the blame around instead of taking it all himself. Maybe it's a blessing in a very strange disguise.
As for the "it's not finders keepers, it's theft", that does sound fairly accurate. According to my law class at Purdue University (take with a grain of salt), if you find lost property and do wish to keep it, you are required to make and show due diligence to return it to the owner. This can include posting fliers around the place it was lost, an ad in the newspaper's lost and found, and so on. After a reasonable time has passed (xx number of days), only then may you keep it.
The Californian law sounds very similar. Right or wrong to do it, whoever "sold" the rights to see the phone to Gizmodo may be in some trouble with the law.
//EDIT: RELEVANT STATUTES
California’s penal code, section 485:
California’s civil code, section 2080.1:
Chen and Gizmodo published an article clearly demonstrating that they were aware of the rightful owner of the product. They not only failed to return the item, they destroyed the product by dismantling it.