Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

anyone else notice Gizmodo seems bitter over the iPhone thing

I don't spend time with Gizmodo very often. However I did enjoy their WWDC coverage this year. Their snide commentary was a nice counter-balance to the rainbows and unicorns that Jobs and company were summoning out of the ether.

But yeah, they're clearly pretty bitter about the Apple thing. They were kids dabbling in serious business without comprehending of the possible consequences of paying someone for what had become stolen property. Definitely a life lesson.
 
Gizmodo always seemed a little childish to me.

I do think it's pretty obvious they flipped their perspective when Apple got the law involved. But hey- paying for property that you know is stolen is a crime. People get in trouble for it every day. If you're gonna pull something like that on a huge company like Apple you shouldn't expect to get off with a slap on the wrist.
 
muledogus said:
Gizmodo, did request in their letters to Apple that the individual who lost the phone not be reprimanded at all.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with anything? Sort of like the car-jacker calling you up and asking you not to be angry with your wife for not rolling up the windows? :confused:
 
Actually have been there much lately but yikes, what a quantum shift. Them going back to the middle would be great but a quick poke around reveals them as basically an anti-apple site. They'll grab some Sprint/Droid advert money but that won't sustain them.



ash =o)
 
Gizmodo, lost me when Brian Lam did an article about the iPhone name back before the original iPhone was released

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphon...-will-apple-name-its-cellphone-now-222393.php

they then again lost all credibility, I think after the whole CES tv be gone "prank"

http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces

I mean how do you expect to be taken seriously as a site when you do something like that?


And lately its been a lot of, help us live blog wwdc, help us review the iPhone.

yesterday after seeing their "6 takes on the new iPhone 4" it was pretty obvious they just have no resources anymore other than to repost a bunch of other reviews.

Not only that but engadget has been getting a lot of exclusives like the droid-x and the samsung wmp7 reference phone.
 
I wouldn't know. I no longer read Gizmodo after it became clear that they were willing to break the law, expose an Apple employee for no reason, and generally act like entitled douchebags for a story.

I couldn't care less what they are saying about the iPhone 4.

What is really funny is that despite possibly facing jail time for their little antics, they missed 90% of the story! They had the phone in their hands, yet they didn't find out about the retina display, nor that the case was the antenna, nor the A4 processor. Great journalism, guys.
 
I was going to say it wasn't too bad or obvious they skewed the reviews (I would not have noticed if people hadn't said anything) except on the last review where they cut out the whole middle of hte guy's point (when he's talking about antennas). They skip how he said it was getting better reception, how at points it would claim not to but it was a bug (and he verified that it did at least seem to get better reception despite saying no bars) and skipped straight to him saying there were 6 incidences that nothing explained why it wasn't getting better reception.
 
The posts here regarding gizmodo are pretty childish as well, really. Did you ever think that maybe they aren't *serious* journalists? Yeah, because they are not. Gawker isn't journalism, it's glorified blogging. Blogging is opinion...

That said, if you read the entire story you'll know that the owner of fawned had his entire house thrashed by his local police at the behest of apple. You'll also notice they didn't do a tear down of the iP4 either, which they could have.

Additionally the item was never *stolen* it was left. Somebody else received it and took it to them and they paid for it. If you think of it, it's much like an exclusive. Exclusive paparazzi photos? Exclusive with Barbara Walters? All very much the same. They pay for an item or person to run a story on.

As a company they didn't get a test device nor did they receive an in it's to WWDC, but for why? Because Steve Jobs didn't like it? Because gawker does what most media outlets do? What's that terrible media tv show that only shows celebrities... It's on fox or something, anyways. It's no different.

You all look down your noses at gawker and specifically Gizmodo, yet you don't realize that despite being a bit upset at not being able to cover the phone, they still provide decent reviews, and manage to keep up to date on most if no all random tech stuff. He'll, comparing Gizmodo to Engadet isn't fair. Gizmodo usually has far more information as a whole, while engadget seems to have more serious style of information, which seems to get updated slower.

So just chill on the Giz bashing. It's not cool. Set apart your apple fanboy-ism and just relax and be be less judgemental about something you can only interpret in the 3rd person, because information always has more than 1 side.

Before you smash me for my comments, I don't work for gawker, and I'm frustratingly awaiting the iPhone 4 in white, and am abhorrently upset with the failure of the Apple public relations team in regards to information about these 2 models.
 
I still think they played the phone thing wrong. I think instead of running around showing it off and taking it apart (sooooo stupid there). They should have quietly contacted Apple, told them they had possession or could get possession and then work out some deal on getting exclusive content. I think that would have endeared them to Apple and they would not be on the outs and looking at legal action right now.

But they had to go all watergate and get the tapes out.
 
Tehdef said:
The posts here regarding gizmodo are pretty childish as well, really. Did you ever think that maybe they aren't *serious* journalists? Yeah, because they are not. Gawker isn't journalism, it's glorified blogging. Blogging is opinion...

That said, if you read the entire story you'll know that the owner of fawned had his entire house thrashed by his local police at the behest of apple. You'll also notice they didn't do a tear down of the iP4 either, which they could have.

Additionally the item was never *stolen* it was left. Somebody else received it and took it to them and they paid for it. If you think of it, it's much like an exclusive. Exclusive paparazzi photos? Exclusive with Barbara Walters? All very much the same. They pay for an item or person to run a story on.

As a company they didn't get a test device nor did they receive an in it's to WWDC, but for why? Because Steve Jobs didn't like it? Because gawker does what most media outlets do? What's that terrible media tv show that only shows celebrities... It's on fox or something, anyways. It's no different.

You all look down your noses at gawker and specifically Gizmodo, yet you don't realize that despite being a bit upset at not being able to cover the phone, they still provide decent reviews, and manage to keep up to date on most if no all random tech stuff. He'll, comparing Gizmodo to Engadet isn't fair. Gizmodo usually has far more information as a whole, while engadget seems to have more serious style of information, which seems to get updated slower.

So just chill on the Giz bashing. It's not cool. Set apart your apple fanboy-ism and just relax and be be less judgemental about something you can only interpret in the 3rd person, because information always has more than 1 side.

Before you smash me for my comments, I don't work for gawker, and I'm frustratingly awaiting the iPhone 4 in white, and am abhorrently upset with the failure of the Apple public relations team in regards to information about these 2 models.
Click to expand...

Engadget seemed to have thought differently about taking the prototype because they were offered it first and rejected buying it. I think we honestly know that they of course wanted to break an amazing story about seeing the new iPhone before anyone else and they're site must have gotten tons of new viewers, but after Apple put the hammer down on them (which was legal, they own the property) Giz definitely went downhill with how they view Apple products.
 
Tehdef said:
Additionally the item was never *stolen* it was left. Somebody else received it and took it to them and they paid for it. If you think of it, it's much like an exclusive. Exclusive paparazzi photos? Exclusive with Barbara Walters? All very much the same. They pay for an item or person to run a story on.
Click to expand...

I think this whole thing is a litmus test for people's morals.

You obviously failed.

If some one accidentally leaves something and you take it and do not make an honest attempt to return it, it's theft.
 
Gizmodo is only interested in putting the worst spin on this release, complete with outrageous headlines. Such as the current "First iPhone 4 Scratch On Its "Ultradurable Glass" Won't Be the Last"
 
I agree that they seem very childish at times. I guess that's their right though. And Apple has now left them out in the cold. They reap what they sow.
 
dagomike said:
Gizmodo is only interested in putting the worst spin on this release, complete with outrageous headlines. Such as the current "First iPhone 4 Scratch On Its "Ultradurable Glass" Won't Be the Last"
Click to expand...

It's so transparently embittered. I love it.
 
mac-mania said:
My distaste for Gizmodo started when they pulled that stunt back at CES a few years ago where they were shutting off display televisions on companies. I mean I'm all for jokes but when businesses pay for legitimate time to announce and display their technology it seems childish that a bunch of "journalists" would walk around repeatedly turning off their sets.

I respect bloggers as journalists but Gizmodo constantly lowers the bar for actual blogging reporters. People wonder why companies give the old guys exclusives and it's because at the end of the day you can't really trust the new ones when stuff like this happens.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly!

And as for this thread I've noticed Gizmodo has mainly been posting things that pertain to Apple in a negative aspect. So they didn't get a WWDC invite, what did they expect?
 
Tehdef said:
The posts here regarding gizmodo are pretty childish as well, really. Did you ever think that maybe they aren't *serious* journalists? Yeah, because they are not. Gawker isn't journalism, it's glorified blogging. Blogging is opinion...

That said, if you read the entire story you'll know that the owner of fawned had his entire house thrashed by his local police at the behest of apple. You'll also notice they didn't do a tear down of the iP4 either, which they could have.

Additionally the item was never *stolen* it was left. Somebody else received it and took it to them and they paid for it. If you think of it, it's much like an exclusive. Exclusive paparazzi photos? Exclusive with Barbara Walters? All very much the same. They pay for an item or person to run a story on.

As a company they didn't get a test device nor did they receive an in it's to WWDC, but for why? Because Steve Jobs didn't like it? Because gawker does what most media outlets do? What's that terrible media tv show that only shows celebrities... It's on fox or something, anyways. It's no different.

You all look down your noses at gawker and specifically Gizmodo, yet you don't realize that despite being a bit upset at not being able to cover the phone, they still provide decent reviews, and manage to keep up to date on most if no all random tech stuff. He'll, comparing Gizmodo to Engadet isn't fair. Gizmodo usually has far more information as a whole, while engadget seems to have more serious style of information, which seems to get updated slower.

So just chill on the Giz bashing. It's not cool. Set apart your apple fanboy-ism and just relax and be be less judgemental about something you can only interpret in the 3rd person, because information always has more than 1 side.

Before you smash me for my comments, I don't work for gawker, and I'm frustratingly awaiting the iPhone 4 in white, and am abhorrently upset with the failure of the Apple public relations team in regards to information about these 2 models.
Click to expand...

Selling found property without trying to contact the owner is theft, so saith the law of California where this took place. Just because you think it's not illegal, doesn't make it legal.

They did tear apart the prototype iPhone4, in fact in the court documents it states the iPhone was severely damaged due to this.

You obviously do work for gawker, your trying to support a bunch of childish ****s that are upset they get even less time with Apple products now.

Apple and SJ didn't invite Giz or any Gawker nor did they get a test device, why, are you that ignorant? They didn't get either because if they had all other sites would see that anyone can get a hold of stolen Apple property and not face any consequences - that would be a slippery slope for Apple and the last thing they would want to do.

Fact is Giz bought stolen property, published Apple trade secrets and tried to extort Apple to get more exclusivity - several crimes were committed and they should be banned from all things Apple hence forth.
 
I tried to view them and fair and biased, but after the whole iphone fiasco that they feel is apple fault is stupid. They knew they are buying someones property that they couldn't have purchased. If they want to feel bitter thats fine but apples pockets aren't hurting a bit from there whining.
 
Tehdef said:
That said, if you read the entire story you'll know that the owner of fawned had his entire house thrashed by his local police at the behest of apple. You'll also notice they didn't do a tear down of the iP4 either, which they could have.
Click to expand...

You must work for Gawker, the only side of the story you seem to have read is theirs and not the whole thing either. You people are pathetic.
 
Revelation78 said:
Selling found property without trying to contact the owner is theft, so saith the law of California where this took place. Just because you think it's not illegal, doesn't make it legal.

They did tear apart the prototype iPhone4, in fact in the court documents it states the iPhone was severely damaged due to this.

You obviously do work for gawker, your trying to support a bunch of childish ****s that are upset they get even less time with Apple products now.

Apple and SJ didn't invite Giz or any Gawker nor did they get a test device, why, are you that ignorant? They didn't get either because if they had all other sites would see that anyone can get a hold of stolen Apple property and not face any consequences - that would be a slippery slope for Apple and the last thing they would want to do.

Fact is Giz bought stolen property, published Apple trade secrets and tried to extort Apple to get more exclusivity - several crimes were committed and they should be banned from all things Apple hence forth.
Click to expand...

So much rage and emotion over such a minor situation. You act and state opinion as if Gizmodo direct hurt YOU! But they didn't. As you'll find in life, compassion is just a different way of looking down your nose I guess.

Need to take a step back and chill the **** out. It's just a phone. It's media. It did it's job and made money.
 
Tehdef said:
The posts here regarding gizmodo are pretty childish as well, really. Did you ever think that maybe they aren't *serious* journalists? Yeah, because they are not. Gawker isn't journalism, it's glorified blogging. Blogging is opinion...
Click to expand...

And the problem is that instead of giving blogging more integrity, potentially eating away at traditional journalism institutions, they decided to abuse their position of being able to get press passes for their own amusement at places like CES. What's wrong with expecting more from the sort of information sources that may one day replace newspapers?


Tehdef said:
Additionally the item was never *stolen* it was left. Somebody else received it and took it to them and they paid for it. If you think of it, it's much like an exclusive. Exclusive paparazzi photos? Exclusive with Barbara Walters? All very much the same. They pay for an item or person to run a story on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the law isn't quite that cut and dry. By the time Giz got their hands on it, it could very well be considered stolen property. The law doesn't have a clause saying that you own the property if you find it left somewhere. It has a clause saying that if you don't do a best effort attempt at returning the property, it becomes theft. That is one thing the investigation is looking into, to see if it was considered stolen property under the law by the time Giz paid for it.

Tehdef said:
As a company they didn't get a test device nor did they receive an in it's to WWDC, but for why? Because Steve Jobs didn't like it? Because gawker does what most media outlets do? What's that terrible media tv show that only shows celebrities... It's on fox or something, anyways. It's no different.

You all look down your noses at gawker and specifically Gizmodo, yet you don't realize that despite being a bit upset at not being able to cover the phone, they still provide decent reviews, and manage to keep up to date on most if no all random tech stuff. He'll, comparing Gizmodo to Engadet isn't fair. Gizmodo usually has far more information as a whole, while engadget seems to have more serious style of information, which seems to get updated slower.

So just chill on the Giz bashing. It's not cool. Set apart your apple fanboy-ism and just relax and be be less judgemental about something you can only interpret in the 3rd person, because information always has more than 1 side.

Before you smash me for my comments, I don't work for gawker, and I'm frusotratingly awaiting the iPhone 4 in white, and am abhorrently upset with the failure of the Apple public relations team in regards to information about these 2 models.
Click to expand...

No, we can't fault Giz for trying to get a story. We can fault them for the attitude they expressed while doing it, and for attempting to get press favors in exchange for returning the phone to Apple. And like it or not, Apple can shut them out of their press events for this sort of stuff. Doesn't mean Giz can't review Apple devices however they want, but it won't be on Apple's dime anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back