Exactly, so why should publishing future activity of a company be any different?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EFF Believes Search and Seizure of Gizmodo Editor's Computers Was Illegal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Regardless of the legality question, I don't understand why fanbois are so upset. Apple didn't lose anything. Actually, they are taking advantage of the whole situation:
1.- OK, we know in advance how the new iPhone looks like. Big deal: it's exactly what everybody expected, like the previous one with minor modifications. Nothing to see here for us or the competing brands. Everybody knew this more or less (and specially the guys competing with Apple).
2.- How much RAM are we talking about? What processor? What's the clock speed? No idea. The important secret things are basically not known, so no help for competitors.
3.- Everybody all around the world is talking about the iPhone and the stupid Apple employee. That's free publicity you can't pay for.
So really, what's the problem for you guys, Apple users. I understand that SJ is pissed about a guy leaving unreleased products in a bar (in case everything was not already planned, which I would not be surprised), but I don't get why you are upset.
1.- OK, we know in advance how the new iPhone looks like. Big deal: it's exactly what everybody expected, like the previous one with minor modifications. Nothing to see here for us or the competing brands. Everybody knew this more or less (and specially the guys competing with Apple).
2.- How much RAM are we talking about? What processor? What's the clock speed? No idea. The important secret things are basically not known, so no help for competitors.
3.- Everybody all around the world is talking about the iPhone and the stupid Apple employee. That's free publicity you can't pay for.
So really, what's the problem for you guys, Apple users. I understand that SJ is pissed about a guy leaving unreleased products in a bar (in case everything was not already planned, which I would not be surprised), but I don't get why you are upset.
Ya, I agree. Its hard to say what should and shouldn't be done because it was like a lost and found thing. Idk, I'm not one to interpret the legal system, that's why we are leavi0gn it up to the peeps in the courts to figure it out, lol.
I'm thinking that the general public always picks the good guy and the bad guy in any story, and that most people will be inclined to make Apple the bad guy this time around. I've looked around the web for reactions to this story, and the only ones who are happy about (and in rare cases even sexually aroused by) the DA going after Jason Chen are a handful of Apple fanboys and lawyer wannabes. The consensus among the general public (=potential Apple customers and existing Apple customers who aren't fans), on the other hand, seems to boil down to "boycott Apple nazis NOW!". The story broke just one day after the other story about an employee being fired for showing Woz an iPad 3G for 2 minutes, which yielded a similar reaction ("boycott Apple!").
They did not return it immediately when Apple requested it. They refused until Apple sent a formal request in writing. That was something they had no legal right to do. Giz stated that as soon as Apple contacted them they were absolutely certain the phone was Apple's. At that point the must return it to them unconditionally.
Somehow I think we don't read the same things. The employee that was fired apparently showed an iPad 3G to Wozniak _and others while photos were taken_. And, of course, this was reported by - guess who - Gizmodo who really has all reason to stir up public opinion against Apple right now.
On the other hand, I have seen claims of police corruption, about DAs being in Apple's pockets, totally irrational. The general public sees a $5000 payment for a phone and knows that something very, very dodgy was going on.
Big deal to you, but it is Apple's decision what they tell the public and not Gizmodo's. And if there are no changes in the design: Well, that is something that competitors would want to know as well, wouldn't they?
Well, no, they don't. EFF made a claim that the search was illegal. That doesn't mean they believe it is illegal, and it doesn't mean it is illegal, it just means that the EFF wants their name mentioned in big big letters. The law that they quote doesn't seem to apply here. A journalist (or blogger) is protected if they want to protect the identity of a person who gave them information. A journalist is also protected if for example someone gave them some papers, and a claim is made that the journalist stole the papers (trying to force the journalist to reveal the source to prove that they didn't steal the papers themselves). None of these applies here.
Fair enough, but taking the comparison further, there have also been plenty of occasions where money has changed hands for leaked documents without prosecution of the receiving reporter has occurred.
The most funny part of all is that eveyone wants to know details about the new iPhone when rumors are spreading. Everybody will hunt those rumors so they "finally" know what will come next.
But in the end, everybody is in some way disappointed with the fact that they already know what they're gonna get! It's like Sinterklaas ( the dutch version of Santa Clause ) when you really really wanted to know what kind of gifts you're gonna get when the day is there. But in the end you really don't want to know it before that day comes because the whole surprise and wow-factor is gone.
The exact same happened here I guess. I also wanted to know what the new iPhone is going to look like, because this one will replace my old 2G. But I'm always trying to dodge the newssites when I know their will be a or presentation where products are going to be revealed! So I can watch the keynote for myself.
It's like knowing the score of some important match of baseball of basketball when you really don't want to know but see for yourself.
But in the end, everybody is in some way disappointed with the fact that they already know what they're gonna get! It's like Sinterklaas ( the dutch version of Santa Clause ) when you really really wanted to know what kind of gifts you're gonna get when the day is there. But in the end you really don't want to know it before that day comes because the whole surprise and wow-factor is gone.
The exact same happened here I guess. I also wanted to know what the new iPhone is going to look like, because this one will replace my old 2G. But I'm always trying to dodge the newssites when I know their will be a or presentation where products are going to be revealed! So I can watch the keynote for myself.
It's like knowing the score of some important match of baseball of basketball when you really don't want to know but see for yourself.
CA courts have so far refused to make that decision. Interestingly Gawkers owner says his organization isn't.
Gawker chief Nick Denton
It is totally different. In the cases where government documents are leaked it is usually leaked with regards to public issues/rights/concerns. For example, a new piece of legislation may disadvantage a particular secton of the community, or there may be cases of wrongdoing to expose (see the MPs expenses scandal in the UK). Sources in such cases have a right to be protected, and the public (usually) have an arguable right to know the facts and to have 'transparency' in terms of how their government operates. It's their government, they have a vested interest in how it is run. It is not, however, in the public interest for information pertaining to Apple's latest product to be released. Satisfaction of the public's craving to 'know' is an undulgence, not a right. This epidose has been damaging to Apple (for all that can be said about all publicity being good publicity). Competitors may now know the form of the next iPhone, and Apple will have to revise its publicity plans accordingly, which costs them money and resources. Why should they take that lying down?
The thing is, everyone doesn't care for the wow factor. Everyone doesn't watch stupid unboxing videos. Everyone doesn't watch keynote speeches. I can care less about the hype, I just want the product. I don't care what an apple product box looks like, because it gets thrown out the next day.
there is no need for the owner to request his property be returned only Giz's legal responsibility to do so. A responsibility they gained the second they bought the phone. However they made no effort to contact Apple and waited for Apple to contact them. This pretty much wipes away any claim that they bought the phone simply to return it to its owner. The owner they admit they believed to be Apple.
MPs expenses was definitely in the public interest, but there are also many cases where a leak is of public interest rather than in the public interest, leaked private memos often serve no purpose other than to create embarrassment for the individual concerned. Both cases are considered acceptable, however.
Lol I save all of my boxes. I'm still amazed at how small my MacBook Pro box was. Amazing. I mean I don't keep it on display or anything, that would be a bit much, but it does look cool. I still have my original nintendo ds box and all boxes from our games like from gameboy color. Haha.
The fact that they published it on the web demonstrates that there was no attempt to conceal their possession of the iPhone from Apple. The delay over returning it was also very short. From a journalistic point of view, the written request was important to them and also having a paper trail is good from a legal perspective.
But if they believed the owner to be apple (how could they not know. seriously, there is something fishy there) and knowing that they still exploited it without Apple's permission....... shouldn't that be wrong still?
For one sec, ditch the whole right and wrong according tot he legal system idea.... what about morals? Gizmodo certainly hasn't gained any brownie points from me for this whole thing. I never watched/paid attention to anythign they had to say. I certainly will never go to them for anything now that they have done this.
Note in previous cases of journalists purchasing stolen items. the case can be made that they purchased the information contained in/on the item and not the item itself. A piece of paper, video tape or hard drive is simply the medium and is of no real value to news organization. In this case the item is the only thing of value, it is not a medium, no information changed hands. Paying for a picture of a public official doing coke OK. Buying the coke. Felony
Hmm, I might be the only one then
I know a lot of people who don't care about product boxes and stupid stuff like cardboard, but they all have their Apple boxes flaunting around the room they work in at home I'm not flaunting with my stuff at all, but the only boxes I have laying around are the ones from Apple.And offcourse there are many people who don't care what it looks like or how the package is made, they just want to use it. But for me the whole keynote is some sort of game that's being played between the company en the consumer. It's something you don't find that often. When was I ever thrilled with a new Microsoft OS, I can't remember
Damn, for 3 years ago I wouldn't see myself moaning and drooling about just a brand or product. But they got me. Don't want anything else anymore.
But following that argument, the vast majority of modern journalism could be considered morally wrong. Huge amounts of journalism serve the public interest in no way whatsoever - superstar goes into drug rehabilitation, exclusive pictures of Jerry Hall's cellulite, star has affair, none of which serve the public interest in any way whatsoever and all of which are accepted, even welcomed by many.