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

Jason Chen nominate for gadget personality of year.

I don't know if its possible for me to care any less than I already do...
 
gizmodo also put Apple's antenna issue in the mainstream. they broke the story first.
 
The T3 awards are idiotic.

How the hell is Steve Jobs not in the running for Gadget Personality of the Year, and yet Jason Chen and a bunch of random people are?

What are they smoking over there that Steve Jobs (or Jonathan Ive) is not a famous/infamous gadget personality?

Hate him all you want, but you can't deny that Steve Jobs deserved to be nominated, more so than Jason Chen.
 
wikoogle said:
Those awards are idiotic.

How the hell is Steve Jobs not in the running for Gadget Personality of the Year, and yet Jason Chen and a bunch of random people are?

What are they smoking over there that Steve Jobs (or Jonathan Ive) is not a famous/infamous gadget personality?
Click to expand...

It's Gizmodo. They don't have the best relationship with Apple.

But I totally agree Jobs should, without a doubt, be Gadget Personality of the Year.
 
saxon48 said:
It's Gizmodo. They don't have the best relationship with Apple.

But I totally agree Jobs should, without a doubt, be Gadget Personality of the Year.
Click to expand...

No it's T3. The awards are by T3, which is not affiliated with Gizmodo.

T3 nominated Jason Chen and some other random people for Gadget Personality of the Year, and yet left out Steve Jobs!

So whatever they're smoking over at T3, I want some of it.
 
wikoogle said:
No it's T3. The awards are by T3, which is not affiliated with Gizmodo.

T3 nominated Jason Chen and some other random people for Gadget Personality of the Year, and yet left out Steve Jobs!

So whatever they're smoking over at T3, I want some of it.
Click to expand...

I don't think Jobs should be on there solely based on the fact that he isn't really a "tech personality". Those are people who are open about tech and share their opinions on tech related matter on a regular basis.. at least that how I think a tech personality should be defined. Jobs would be better suited on a category like.. "innovator of the year" or "marketer of the year".. something along those lines.
 
I'm new to this forum so this may be a stupid question...

But why exactly does everyone here hate Gizmodo with such a passion?
 
iceman718 said:
I'm new to this forum so this may be a stupid question...

But why exactly does everyone here hate Gizmodo with such a passion?
Click to expand...

They broke the story of the iPhone 4, which pissed off Steve Jobs, which in turn pissed off his loyal minions here. Some dislike the way that they put the name of the guy who was supposed to be guarding the new iPhone, Gray Powell, out on the internet for everyone to see. That was pretty low and unnecessary of Gizmodo. Otherwise, they backed up everything they said with photo evidence. It wasn't like they were making things up, despite what those who say that the site has no credibility would have you believe.
 
Not everyone here hates Gizmodo. I personally have no problem with them.

I do think T3 is stupid for leaving out Steve Job for Gadget Personality of the Year though.

But I guess they did it to give other people a chance. I mean if Steve Jobs was nominated, then no one else would have a shot in hell of winning.
 
rwilliams said:
They broke the story of the iPhone 4, which pissed off Steve Jobs, which in turn pissed off his loyal minions here. Some dislike the way that they put the name of the guy who was supposed to be guarding the new iPhone, Gray Powell, out on the internet for everyone to see. That was pretty low and unnecessary of Gizmodo. Otherwise, they backed up everything they said with photo evidence. It wasn't like they were making things up, despite what those who say that the site has no credibility would have you believe.
Click to expand...

The issue come down to knowingly buying stolen items, which makes them culpable.
 
gibbz said:
The issue come down to knowingly buying stolen items, which makes them culpable.
Click to expand...

Sorry, explain to me how finding a drunk guys phone is now considered stealing? Then explain how contacting apple about said prototype phone and then Apple laughing at you saying that is impossible, is stealing? Sounds more like Apple fail to me.
 
jiffy said:
Sorry, explain to me how finding a drunk guys phone is now considered stealing? Then explain how contacting apple about said prototype phone and then Apple laughing at you saying that is impossible, is stealing? Sounds more like Apple fail to me.
Click to expand...

According to Section 485 of the California Penal Code:
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.
Click to expand...

The person who obtained the device from the bar did not give a reasonable effort to try to return the device to Apple, which according to the above would make it stolen property. They then sold that stolen property to Gizmodo. Gizmodo then wrote to Apple saying they wouldn't give the prototype back unless Steve Jobs admitted it was the next iPhone. I'm not a legal expert or anything remotely close, but wouldn't that be close to extortion?
 
Seriously... who here can honestly say they didn't rush to the Giz page when they heard about the story?

I can understand people's feelings about naming the guy, but I feel like a lot of that may have been to add credibility to their story (did you see how many people, even with this info, commented that it was fake?). I agree that their whole extra article about how it happened was pretty unnecessary though.

But I feel like a lot of it has to do with the fact that if something angers the almighty Jobs, then it angers his followers.
 
macbookairman said:
According to Section 485 of the California Penal Code:


The person who obtained the device from the bar did not give a reasonable effort to try to return the device to Apple, which according to the above would make it stolen property. They then sold that stolen property to Gizmodo. Gizmodo then wrote to Apple saying they wouldn't give the prototype back unless Steve Jobs admitted it was the next iPhone. I'm not a legal expert or anything remotely close, but wouldn't that be close to extortion?
Click to expand...

I agree with the buying stolen property thing, but I don't see extortion. How would gizmodo know that it was the next iPhone? It could have been built in someones basement for all they knew. So why would they give it to apple without proof that it was theirs? If you found some ones wallet would you give it to someone without proof it was theirs?
 
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