Correct, but according to the video he wasn't supposed to let anyone see his iPad prior to the launch of the Wifi model. In this case I can only go by the video, he may have shown it a month early or he may have only shown it 10 minutes early.
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.
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter G4R2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Correct, but according to the video he wasn't supposed to let anyone see his iPad prior to the launch of the Wifi model. In this case I can only go by the video, he may have shown it a month early or he may have only shown it 10 minutes early.
You're right, they SHOULD have been searching the home of the thief that stole the iPhone at the bar. But Gizmodo wasn't interested in revealing that person's identity. They only wanted to smear Gray Powell and get their big scoop. So, authorities had no choice but to go to the home of the person that last had possession of the stolen iPhone, Jason Chen's home.
The sickening thing is that it could be argued that Gizmodo smeared Gray Powell specifically to deflect "blame" for how the iPhone came into their possession. The sickening part is the high number of clueless morons that seemed to have bought into it.
Gizmodo screwed up big time in the entire way they handled this thing. They've possibly exposed themselves to both criminal and civil liability. And I'm not talking 40 hours of community service and a $50 fine. Somebody could be going to jail to be a roommate with "Bubba" and the civil award could run into the millions of dollars!
Mark
And yet, somehow Apple decided not to fire Steve Jobs for backdating his stock options.They are very selective about whose trust may or may not be violated
No kidding. It is amazing that a few months ago I was looking forward to the MBP update and now between the greedy "options" they "allowed" us like getting matte only with high res, and this pursuing of Gizmodo, they have totally turned me off as a customer. The more I read about their practices I wonder why it took me so long to decide not to reward them with my money.
IANAL, but this is how I see it.
True, but the police aren't usually served up with such a slam-dunk of evidence, are they?
At the end of the day this is all Gizmodo's own doing. They knowingly bought a stolen phone. And Giz trying to hide behind section 1070 is just pathetic, anything their "source" has to do with this case is pretty irrelevant, as Gizmodo has still committed a felony, and that is all that the search warrant was about, gathering evidence to further secure that conviction.
The finder of the phone cannot be gone after, certainly not based on any evidence gained from Giz's equipment as it would violate Section 1070. But this case is all about Gizmodo and their actions, not the actions of the finder.
Thereby making Section 1070 an irrelevant point.
Yeah, that's how police always react to reports about lost phones. You are funny
True, but the police aren't usually served up with such a slam-dunk of evidence, are they?
At the end of the day this is all Gizmodo's own doing. They knowingly bought a stolen phone. And Giz trying to hide behind section 1070 is just pathetic, anything their "source" has to do with this case is pretty irrelevant, as Gizmodo has still committed a felony, and that is all that the search warrant was about, gathering evidence to further secure that conviction.
The finder of the phone cannot be gone after, certainly not based on any evidence gained from Giz's equipment as it would violate Section 1070. But this case is all about Gizmodo and their actions, not the actions of the finder.
Thereby making Section 1070 an irrelevant point.
So your understanding is that if I want to report a story about what the next Usher album is going to be like, the one he's currently mixing, and in the dead of night I break into the studio and steal the master tapes, and then I break into Usher's house and point a gun at his head and threaten to shoot him if he doesn't tell me which of the twenty songs on the tapes will be on the final album, and if I then murder him so he can't identify me, and the next day the police find the business card I dropped in his bedroom with only my fingerprints on it, and it has my home office address on it, you're saying the police can't get a search warrant for my house to look for evidence--like the tapes, the gun, and my notes?
Really? Here's a quarter; go call your mother and tell her you'll never be a lawyer. And neither will the COO of Gizmodo.
Oh did I hurt your feelings by insulting your brand? I didn't say I was going anywhere...just not buying Apple anymore.
Don't let the door smack you in your face while it swings back at ya
(see how lame that sounds?...yeah yours was just as bad)
No offense, but this strand of logic seems to be one of the more tenuous I've heard recently. Let's think about this, shall we?
From the point of view of Gizmodo...
- Would you be hoping the phone was real, or a fake?
- Would you spend $5K on a prototype suspected to be a fake?
- Would the seller's story (which Gizmodo published) induce you to think the phone was real, or a fake?
- Would you assume that a phone with an Apple logo and markings nearly identical to an existing iPhone is more likely to be real, or fake?
- Would you, as an experienced gadget blogger, be more or less skilled than the general public at discerning real and fake Apple products?
- Wouldn't it be less risky to publish some photos and the story of how it was acquired before purchasing it, and then wait to see if/how Apple responded? If it was indeed ill-gotten, wouldn't it be nice to be able to wash one's hands of responsibility?
- Would it be more lucrative to acquire the device and post detailed information that would draw widespread attention to your site?
My gut feel is that after hearing the seller's story and briefly examining the device, the Gizmodo folks were pretty certain it was the real deal. Their attempt at "plausible deniability" is tarnished in my eyes because of the motive they had for purchasing the device in the first place. Claiming they didn't know it was real until Apple officially asked for it back further weakens their claim. (Seriously?!) Didn't they claim "this is the real deal" before that letter hit, anyway?
Wait just a minute. Did all that really happen? Did you just use this forum post to establish yourself as a journalist. OMG is Usher really dead!
But since you went to all the trouble, whats that album going to look like?
there is a difference...
Gizmodo does not produce tangible products, there is no actual product Gizmodo has that could be rumored about, if you read Woz's reaction to the whole engineer event, he actually empathizes with the person who did get fired, this person violated his NDA, and it was a poor choice, but how many get the chance to impress the Woz? its still a violation. I do not make their rules, I would give the guy a second chance. Now,You can call it hypocrisy or whatever about the Apple fans which clearly bothers you or some, the story of the lost prototype to me at least was not juicy at all since Im not interested in the iPhone, as Gizmodo posted the pics and Powell's info for the world to see the story seemed to sour quickly for me or became a mocking disdain against Apple's secrecy.
The confusion lies in wether the Apple fans or Macrumors posters are objective enough to know the difference between blind obsequious adoration and actual healthy brand support. I'm not in the business of convincing folks of anything I just share my input, as for you calling Steve "stupid" its a child-like reaction, what's next you are going to show me your tongue? but seriously I really do have a healthy brand support, and I could be as objective as ice, but there seems to be a resistance from people from acknowledging that any company has the right to keep their upcoming products a secret. There seems to be a need to pigeon-hole Apple fans as blind followers and that is not the case. Gizmodo has been ruffed up in brawl that they started and its not testing well, if any other company would go through this same quagmire I would not notice it as much I must admit but my life is not that unsubstantial that I can derive glee from such abstractions.
Gizmodo does not produce tangible products, there is no actual product Gizmodo has that could be rumored about, if you read Woz's reaction to the whole engineer event, he actually empathizes with the person who did get fired, this person violated his NDA, and it was a poor choice, but how many get the chance to impress the Woz? its still a violation. I do not make their rules, I would give the guy a second chance. Now,You can call it hypocrisy or whatever about the Apple fans which clearly bothers you or some, the story of the lost prototype to me at least was not juicy at all since Im not interested in the iPhone, as Gizmodo posted the pics and Powell's info for the world to see the story seemed to sour quickly for me or became a mocking disdain against Apple's secrecy.
The confusion lies in wether the Apple fans or Macrumors posters are objective enough to know the difference between blind obsequious adoration and actual healthy brand support. I'm not in the business of convincing folks of anything I just share my input, as for you calling Steve "stupid" its a child-like reaction, what's next you are going to show me your tongue? but seriously I really do have a healthy brand support, and I could be as objective as ice, but there seems to be a resistance from people from acknowledging that any company has the right to keep their upcoming products a secret. There seems to be a need to pigeon-hole Apple fans as blind followers and that is not the case. Gizmodo has been ruffed up in brawl that they started and its not testing well, if any other company would go through this same quagmire I would not notice it as much I must admit but my life is not that unsubstantial that I can derive glee from such abstractions.
No, that's how police react to stolen prototypes of highly valuable products from local A-list tech companies. Try to keep up with the conversation.Yeah, that's how police always react to reports about lost phones. You are funny
How disappointing.
Further proof that Apple have lost track of what they once were.
Are Apple right to demand answers over the circumstances surrounding the new iPhone prototype and it's journey into Gizmodo's hands? Of course they are.
However, are obtaining warrants to remove computer equipment from the editor of the website's home a justified action? I wouldn't say so.
Gizmodo are the easier target, but where is the person who removed the iPhone from the premises it was left on and subsequently sold it to Gizmodo for profit. Surely he should have questions to answer also.
The one question I've not seen answered is, have Gizmodo given Apple the iPhone prototype back yet? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not happy with the way Gizmodo ripped apart and screaming from the rooftops that it had the new iPhone, and I'm sure deep down they knew they were going to do nothing but enrage Steve Jobs, and surely by now everyone in the tech business know his wrath and ego meant they would be punished the full extent possible.
I used to be what some on here would call an "Apple fanboy". I wouldn't listen to negative comments from people regarding Apple, I would "defend" them in arguments, kept keynotes on my iPod touch and then iPhone, and basically couldn't see past the Apple brand.
Today though, I'm a far more sensible and objective person. Apple are a business, they exist to make their shareholders money. Brand loyalty is worth nothing these days, and the sad thing is that the happy-go-lucky company who strived to "Think Different" have ended up, through corporate growth and financial greed, managed to turn out like every other corporation.
Shame.
Further proof that Apple have lost track of what they once were.
Are Apple right to demand answers over the circumstances surrounding the new iPhone prototype and it's journey into Gizmodo's hands? Of course they are.
However, are obtaining warrants to remove computer equipment from the editor of the website's home a justified action? I wouldn't say so.
Gizmodo are the easier target, but where is the person who removed the iPhone from the premises it was left on and subsequently sold it to Gizmodo for profit. Surely he should have questions to answer also.
The one question I've not seen answered is, have Gizmodo given Apple the iPhone prototype back yet? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not happy with the way Gizmodo ripped apart and screaming from the rooftops that it had the new iPhone, and I'm sure deep down they knew they were going to do nothing but enrage Steve Jobs, and surely by now everyone in the tech business know his wrath and ego meant they would be punished the full extent possible.
I used to be what some on here would call an "Apple fanboy". I wouldn't listen to negative comments from people regarding Apple, I would "defend" them in arguments, kept keynotes on my iPod touch and then iPhone, and basically couldn't see past the Apple brand.
Today though, I'm a far more sensible and objective person. Apple are a business, they exist to make their shareholders money. Brand loyalty is worth nothing these days, and the sad thing is that the happy-go-lucky company who strived to "Think Different" have ended up, through corporate growth and financial greed, managed to turn out like every other corporation.
Shame.
Apple doesn't need to demand anything about the process, Giz published the process for all to see, including the police....
Apple didn't obtain a search warrant. Outside of law enforcement it is impossible to obtain a search warrant. Where do you get this notion that apple called up the DA and said search Jason's home and give us his computers?
The "finder" is protected under the law, at this time, to my understanding.
By all accounts it's a pretty great company to work for, according to people who have actually worked there. But don't let reality interfere with your neurotically constructed "Apple is evil" narrative.
I still wonder if he really "found" the iPhone or if he was a pickpocket or something. I just don't buy that whole story, especially in light of him turning around and selling it for $5,000.
Given my family's needs, I am the owner of two ibooks, four powerbooks, three macbooks, four macbook pros, four iPhone's, two iPad's and numerous ipods. I do not consider myself a fanboy, but I feel that Apple's actions here are truly despicable. Noone stole anything. Apple's employee got drunk and lost the iPhone. I would temporarily suspend the employee for being careless, and call it a day. If Apple does not drop charges, the iPads I purchased a couple of weeks back will be my last Apple purchase.
You should email Steve and let him know that. I did. Loss of profit is the only "reason" such people will listen to and the only way they will change is if they feel it in the pocketbook.
The one question I've not seen answered is, have Gizmodo given Apple the iPhone prototype back yet?
yes they returned it immediately.
yes they returned it immediately.
Go back and read the other THOUSAND posts that state clearly how and what crime was committed by the parties involved. Also, what if I said I was there and Gray never had a drink? How do YOU know he was drunk and lost it?
And what about the Trade Secrets that Gizmodo revealed to Apple's competitors?
