Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Seriously. I cannot believe you're writing this. Are you kidding me. He tried to return it. He didn't try hard enough. If he couldn't get in touch with the rightful owner then the phone should of gone straight to the police not Gizmodo. For the Finder to make a profit of $5000 from the misfortune of the individual who lost it is nothing short of a total disgrace.

This is theft.

What Gizmodo did after that is criminal damage.

These are the facts. Now let's stick to these key points instead of applying questionable statements to devolve those of their moral responsibility.

Seriously this planets going to hell, people have the moral thought pattern of the horned one himself.

Look champ pay attention.

Gizmondo did not know they were buying an iPhone until they paid for it. They were denied access to the item until they coughed up cash.

Once they got it they didn't know it was defiantly an iphone, so they said to apple "if it is yours get in touch and we will return it"

what is your problem with that?
 
Haha. What abject ****tery.

Are you seriously telling me that you didn't know a new iPhone was going to be released this summer?

The new phone was a revelation which may cause people to hold off buying a new iPhone? What utter rot.

Sigh. You honestly didn't know that by "me" I meant "lots of folks who don't follow macrumors all day?" Because, trust me, there are lots of folks who didn't know such a phone was coming.

But thanks for lowering the level of discourse with your silliness. Well, my ignore list was looking a little empty anyway.
 
Felony? Do you have a concious? I honestly don't hope you mind if I take your mobile phone and give Gizmodo exclusive access :)

I don't know.
Tell me what a concious is and I may answer you.;-)

Sigh. You honestly didn't know that by "me" I meant "lots of folks who don't follow macrumors all day?" Because, trust me, there are lots of folks who didn't know such a phone was coming.

But thanks for lowering the level of discourse with your silliness. Well, my ignore list was looking a little empty anyway.

Splendid.
I would hate my sparkling discourse to be wasted on you.

Pearls before swine?
 
Once they got it they didn't know it was defiantly an iphone, so they said to apple "if it is yours get in touch and we will return it"

The problem is that they knew who lost the phone and yet still demanded proof ( that they could publish for a profit ) in order for them to return the stolen device.
 
Look champ pay attention.

Gizmondo did not know they were buying an iPhone until they paid for it. They were denied access to the item until they coughed up cash.

So they coughed up 5k for something they had no clue what they were getting?

Ok, that's it. I'm going to tell them I have a newer prototype that I found and I'll only charge 3k. Seems an easy 3k if they are willing to shell out money for something they have no clue what it is.
 
Gawker Media (parent company to Gizmodo) makes money by selling advertising on their site. How much they get for those ads is based upon page views. The more people that visit their site, the more money Gawker can charge.

Gawker doesn't reveal its ad revenue. But I know of sites that receive less traffic that will charge $5,000 per month for a single banner ad. I'm sure Gawker receives many times that amount. Particularly since they launched their initiative to pay bonuses to writers for page views (taken from this article in 2009):

Each writer on a site will have a (pretty demanding) individual pageview target…That target will be proportional to a writer’s base compensation. i.e. the more your monthly pay, the more people you’re expected to reach. If you go 10% over target, you get a 10% bump in pay. The target will rise as the traffic of the site as a whole increases. Your site’s editor-in-chief will be in touch to discuss the details later this week.

So Nick Denton (founder of Gawker) is dangling a nice juicy financial carrot out there to guys like Jason Chen to come up with a big story that brings lots of page views.

Bottom line: Gizmodo and Jason Chen wanted to expose the iPhone to MAKE MONEY. It's as simple as that. It was done in pursuit of the all-mighty dollar!

Mark

That's a difficult comp plan to marry with their revenue plan. According to the New York Times piece, Gizmodo had pre-sold the entire day's advertising of the day they published the iPhone prototype story to a single client (I want to say Eastman-Kodak) for a flat fee, long before they knew it would be a (ahem) banner day. With the extra bandwidth costs--not to mention legal fees--they were said to have actually lost money on the day. The story quoted one of their executives as saying that the true reward to them was the longterm enhancement of their brand.

So if the most successful day in their history, from their standpoint, was an incremental loss, and they pay some employees additional compensation nonetheless, they must struggle to address the mismatch. I imagine they use some statistical smoothing function to manage the comp side.

It remains, though, that there were powerful incentives to drive viewership, but this is not an unusual phenomenon in any media business. Surely the New York Times and the Washington Post are similarly motivated, and they too have a financial incentive to report news of sufficient interest to attract subscribers and single-issue purchases and to monetize that audience by selling ad space. The fault and the difference is not in providing or supporting the incentive; the fault and difference is that Gizmodo's editorial supervision lacked the integrity to subordinate the profit motive to the demands of morality and legality. In fact, it appears, the behavior now the subject of a very serious criminal investigation was specifically approved at the highest levels of Gizmodo and of Gawker, their parent company.
 
Seriously this planets going to hell, people have the moral thought pattern of the horned one himself.
No, the horned one himself would've stabbed Powell in the face and walked off with the phone, before he made chili out of Powell's family.

A robber would've held up a gun and said gimme your phone.

A thief would've snatched it from his pocket.

A finders=keepers type of person would've found the phone and said "yay, free cellphone!", slipped it in his pocket and made zip-nada-zero effort to return it.

Then there's this guy, who according to the Giz story asked around in the bar if someone had lost a phone, placed a few phone calls to various Apple numbers the following day, ended up talking to their support crew who dismissed him as a loon/prankster/fool. After that, he switched to finders-keepers mode.

One notch above him is a person more on top of things and with a better understanding of the law. While not quite prepared to immediately bend over backwards and make the return of the phone his life mission, said person would still have tried a little harder and come up with more ideas on how to return the phone, and turned it in to the police if said ideas turned out to be dead ends.

Finally there's goody-two-shoes scoutmaster who would've shot like a cannon out through the bar doors, run like Usain Bolt down to the police station, slapped the phone on the desk and asked for a cookie, and later called his mom and told her all about the heroic deed.

On a scale from 1 to 10 the finder is maybe a 4, pretty weak but certainly not at the bottom of the barrel of human filth. If the law rounds off 4 to zero and finds the defendant guilty of fencing and/or theft-by-whatever, that's fine by me, I respect that – I do however have little respect for binary-minded fascists who want to make this into the crime of the century and get a pants tent from imagining the finder of the phone in a prison dungeon. Not to mention hypocrites who act soooo surprised and shocked that everybody else isn't a 10 on this scale.
 
That letter does not use any threatening wording.

"...constitutes a formal request...".
I do not see any treat of action in it, I do not see any accusations.

It sounds neutral.
So, unless they threatened them, there is no pressure? If the General Counsel of Apple sends me a letter with a formal request, I am going to consider it seriously, no matter how friendly it sounds.
 
I do however have little respect for binary-minded fascists who want to make this into the crime of the century and get a pants tent from imagining the finder of the phone in a prison dungeon. Not to mention hypocrites who act soooo surprised and shocked that everybody else isn't a 10 on this scale.

And where would you put Gizmodo on your Demon-to-Scoutmaster scale? If I can ask, where would you specifically put Jason Chen, and where would you put their COO?
 
So they coughed up 5k for something they had no clue what they were getting?

Ok, that's it. I'm going to tell them I have a newer prototype that I found and I'll only charge 3k. Seems an easy 3k if they are willing to shell out money for something they have no clue what it is.

Well, my advice is try it.

Good luck to you.

I think what people are forgetting is that it is only a phone. A phone that nearly everyone knew was going to be released this summer anyway.

Apple are kind of cool, I admit. I love my Mac. But people consider them to be some marvellous, magical company who make divine objects and should be treated with reverence.

Apple have a higher market cap. value than Microsoft.
Apple aren't smiley hippies who are fighting daily against evil Microsoft you know?

They are a huge global company who are slightly annoyed at a tiny company getting hold of a phone a few months before they wanted anyone to see it.

So fecking what. 80 people were killed by explosions in Iraq in the last few days.

IT IS ONLY A PHONE, A PHONE THAT EVERYONE KNEW WAS COMING ANYWAY.
 
And where would you put Gizmodo on your Demon-to-Scoutmaster scale? If I can ask, where would you specifically put Jason Chen, and where would you put their COO?
It depends. If the situation was that they just winged it, blinded by greed and lust for 15 minutes of fame and didn't give a **** about the legal implications, I'd say they're one or two notches below the finder.

If on the other hand they ran the whole thing by their legal counsel before going ahead, and it just so happens that their lawyers are complete amateurs who gave Gizmodo the wrong information and advice, then there's room for believing that Giz were acting on a bit of good faith and a possibility that they would've kept quiet if their lawyers had told them there'll be trouble down the line. There's also the possibility that their lawyers are really good and that they'll surprise everyone with an as-yet-unknown ace up their sleeve.
 
The problem is that they knew who lost the phone and yet still demanded proof ( that they could publish for a profit ) in order for them to return the stolen device.

I know.

What a great situation for gizmondo to be in, eh?

But as I said before it isn't a device which cures cancer, or dementia. It's a ruddy phone. (and one, which I think isn't as good as my Hero)
 
This is great! Choose Your Own Adventure: The Gizmodo iPhone Saga:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1628679/...do-jason-chen-iphone-seize-search-police-raid

I didn't find the flowchart at top very entertaining. The real meat of that page is the "click to choose" to create your own adventure. I, of course, being firmly of the mind that it looks like Gizmodo was guilty of criminal activity, chose the path that led to this as one of the choices for the final page:

Gizmodo loses! They bought stolen goods, bragged about it, profited from it, and now Nick Denton is going to do a little time in San Mateo County. Gizmodo.com becomes the property of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Gawker Media employees lose their jobs. At night in his cell, Nick Denton discovers an alternate definition of the term "unique visitors."

:D

Mark
 
Look champ pay attention.

Gizmondo did not know they were buying an iPhone until they paid for it.
Bovine flatulence.

They were denied access to the item until they coughed up cash.
Oh look what you did... you made me cry in my beer.

Once they got it they didn't know it was defiantly an iphone, so they said to apple "if it is yours get in touch and we will return it"
(Defiantly?) Anyway, did you mean: "return it" after tearing it apart and posting every possible detail on the Internet for the entire world to see thereby boosting their web traffic despite having previously received a warning letter from Apple advising they desist from such illegal activity. Was that what you meant to say... champ?

what is your problem with that?
Other than the "abject ****titude" indicated above, no problem whatsoever.

[i have other posts stating my position which can be quoted, in case someone feels up to the challenge. :cool:]
 
Wow, so now Apple REFUSED to take back the item? :rolleyes:
Talk about rewriting history.

It's a total "lame ass attempt" because he called AppleCare. He already had the exact name of the Apple Engineer and could have called Apple's local office to directly to speak to him, he used Facebook to find the name of the engineer so he could have sent him a message too. Lastly, after all that, it's still not yours and you have to turn it in to the police before selling it.

I also love how you're taking this thief's word of the story at face value that he "found" it. Do you still think the same if the "finder" watched him play with this new/different phone while at the bar and then when the engineer wasn't looking he snatched it? Still feel the same way?? Because we can't dismiss that that didn't happen either.

First, he contacted Apple at a telephone number for general questions that APPLE provides. Just because he does not know the internal structure of Apple is irrelevant; its simply not his duty to know the 'right number' verses the 'wrong number'. The finder did his due diligence and called an Apple support telephone number, the number they use in many advertisements as to call with general questions. By the way, the first number that Apple gives as a POC is 1-800-MY-APPLE

Second, I don't follow the logic of a snatching here. Let me get your logic right; Mr. X takes the iPhone 4G, and since he is brilliant thief, later Mr. X calls Apple and ask about what he stole? Right. That is one smart crook. I guess you think a carjacker will call you after they rip off your car and ask you if you lost it and what to do. Right, I'm so sure that would happen.:rolleyes:
 
First, he contacted Apple at a telephone number for general questions that APPLE provides. Just because he does not know the internal structure of Apple is irrelevant; its simply not his duty to know the 'right number' verses the 'wrong number'. The finder did his due diligence and called an Apple support telephone number, the number they use in many advertisements as to call with general questions. By the way, the first number that Apple gives as a POC is 1-800-MY-APPLE

Second, I don't follow the logic of a snatching here. Let me get your logic right; Mr. X takes the iPhone 4G, and since he is brilliant thief, later Mr. X calls Apple and ask about what he stole? Right. That is one smart crook. I guess you think a carjacker will call you after they rip off your car and ask you if you lost it and what to do. Right, I'm so sure that would happen.:rolleyes:

I believe it is impossible for you to actually believe what you are saying. It is absurd. He had the person who lost the phones name. He could have called Apple and asked for him. He could have left his own name at the bar. He could have done any of the things a reasonable person would have done in the same situation. This is the standard the jury will asked to decide on, did he behave like a reasonable person. Jurors will rightfully interpret that as did he do what I would do since I am a reasonable person.

You will find very few reasonable people who will agree that removing the phone from the bar without leaving your contact information was reasonable at all. This is not a fact that is decided by lawyers, police or judges. The fact of reasonableness is determined by jurors.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.