View Poll Results: Is Apple Getting Negative Attention For This?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes they look are starting to look bad.

    32 55.17%
  • No they are the victims they should pursue Gizmodo.

    26 44.83%
  1. Mustang5Oh's Avatar
    I am curious to see what people think about the Gizmodo/Apple "scandal" going on right now. Do you think this will make Apple look bad to the public going after a new site for posting what they posted about the new iPhone? Or do you think it will make people feel for Apple having their stuff put out there without their permission?

    To me it seems like it will cast a negative light on Apple for going after a company just for posting pictures and a write up of the new phone. I still love Apple and will continue buying their products but it does make me think they are kind of cold and that they are making themselves look a little harsh.

    *I know this might not be "appropriate" for this site so if it is removed I appologize now*
    Last edited by BrianT; 04-27-2010 at 02:25 AM.
    04-27-2010 02:22 AM
  2. sting7k's Avatar
    Apple isn't "going after" gizmodo, the police are merely investigating the facts to see if a crime was committed in the state of CA.

    The public probably doesn't care either way. And outside of tech blogs they have probably forgotten about the details and exactly what went down.

    The only real issue that remains is that an Apple prototype has been seen by their competitors. Apple releases one iPhone per year which in cell phone years is extremely slow. Pretty much all other companies release several magnitudes more than one in a single year, often dozens. This has given them a clear picture of the new iPhone months before it's release and could put Apple at a disadvantage instead of an advantage by keeping their cards hidden. People complain all the time about the lack of the front camera, but really how many other phones have one when you walk into AT&T/Verizon/Tmobile/Sprint store? As far as I know right now it's zero. Now they all know it's likely the next iPhone is going to have it; "finally" the way some people make it out. And you can be sure maybe even before the new iPhone comes out that there are now going to be phones with that. This could also now effectively kill 3GS sales, someone who isn't "in the know" might have walked into a store tomorrow and bought one. But they could have seen this story picked up by CNN or a major media outlet and now they know a new one is coming soon so they just wait. Apple could have millions of 3GS models just sitting around because now everyone knows a new one is for sure coming and they have seen it.

    The public knows what the iPhone is and who Apple is, they probably don't care about some tech blog. They are going to buy a cell phone anyway.
    04-27-2010 02:35 AM
  3. Mustang5Oh's Avatar
    Yeah I can see it the way you are talking about. I was just curious because I live in Northern California (near San Fran) and it has been on the news a lot here lately. I do agree that people will still buy their products as I myself would have purchased the new iPhone regardless or if it was shown early or not. I also agree that it does give unfair advantage to competitors but I guess thats the nature of the beast. I am not blaming Apple nor did I intend to imply they are the ones targeting Gizmodo I was just curious if people will see Apple as a bad guy for the way this situation has unraveled.
    04-27-2010 02:39 AM
  4. mth785's Avatar
    Buying stolen merchandise is a crime. It seems that according to CA law the phone was stolen. If I got caught buying the phone I would face possible criminal prossecution, why souldn't Gizmodo?
    04-27-2010 03:21 AM
  5. solius's Avatar
    I think that once the guy tried to return it to apple and they brushed him off that it no longer became stolen property the law only says that an item is stolen if you don't attempt to give it back then it is stolen, its not their fault that the apple guys brushed him off.
    04-27-2010 05:11 AM
  6. mth785's Avatar
    The guy said he called Apple customer suport, why would they know anything about a missing prototype? If he was serious about returning it he could have driven to the Apple campus or looked in the CA phonebook for the main phone number to Apple HQ.
    Anyone who thinks the thief exercised due diligance is smoking something.
    04-27-2010 06:09 AM
  7. ifarlow's Avatar
    I think that once the guy tried to return it to apple and they brushed him off that it no longer became stolen property the law only says that an item is stolen if you don't attempt to give it back then it is stolen, its not their fault that the apple guys brushed him off.
    Please stop. You have no idea what you are talking about.
    04-27-2010 06:47 AM
  8. Alli's Avatar
    The guy who "found" it, had the FB page of the guy who lost it. Gizmodo knew the name of the guy who lost it. Neither of them bothered to try calling him at home or at work? Even I smell the fish.
    04-27-2010 07:03 AM
  9. Ipheuria's Avatar
    I have said from day one that Gizmodo's story was garbage it just didn't seem right. Although I don't think harshly of what happend because I was glad to see the pictures and if anything Apple might have gained some customers who were possibly thinking of getting another phone until they saw the pictures. However the law is the law and even if Apple didn't want to press charges it may not be in Apple's hands. It's just like a vigilante who kills a murderer you may not feel he should be punished but murder is murder and he will have to face trial.

    Adding this just because fakesteve is hilarious and it sort of pertains to the thread

    The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs : Obama: All of Gawker must go to prison
    04-27-2010 08:29 AM
  10. Behshad's Avatar
    The guy said he called Apple customer suport, why would they know anything about a missing prototype? If he was serious about returning it he could have driven to the Apple campus or looked in the CA phonebook for the main phone number to Apple HQ.
    Anyone who thinks the thief exercised due diligance is smoking something.
    I think you must be smoking something, if you think we live in a world full of good smaritans where greed is gone and everyone is 100% honest and tries to do the right thing.
    04-27-2010 09:39 AM
  11. cardfan's Avatar
    All i know is that if i had a product that billions was riding on..one in which secrecy is key to their marketing/hype..i'd be kinda upset that some ***** blog site knowingly dismantled it, took pics and video and thinks that's ok.

    The Giz editor wouldn't have purchased the phone if he didn't strongly suspect it was Apple's. To think otherwise is absurd. Obviously he knew it was misplaced/stolen property and that it would be illegal to purchase it and do a tell all.

    The fact he published the video and pics is the kicker because he knew at that point without a doubt that it was Apple's prototype. Giz's headlines said as much.

    Say i lost a harddrive with client files on it with very sensitive info. I would expect that the finder would look through it. But what if he published everything on a blog site and described everything he could in detail? It's not really about having stolen or misplaced property, but what you do with it. So what if he tried to return it afterwards?
    04-27-2010 09:41 AM
  12. ifarlow's Avatar
    I think you must be smoking something, if you think we live in a world full of good smaritans where greed is gone and everyone is 100% honest and tries to do the right thing.
    Wow. What does that have to do with anything? Are you actually justifying the lack of morals here? Sad.
    04-27-2010 09:43 AM
  13. ifarlow's Avatar
    It's not really about having stolen or misplaced property, but what you do with it. So what if he tried to return it afterwards?
    Yeah, it actually is about stolen property.
    04-27-2010 09:45 AM
  14. Behshad's Avatar
    Wow. What does that have to do with anything? Are you actually justifying the lack of morals here? Sad.
    Im not justifying anything. Im stating the facts and giving you a dose of REAL WORLD vs fantasy island
    04-27-2010 10:14 AM
  15. Mustang5Oh's Avatar
    I see points for both sides. I think that Gizmodo should not have paid for this and if they didnt get it then so be it. However i will say that calling customer service was a moronic attempt at contacting the owner (Apple) as they wouldnt have any idea of a lost prototype. In the end regardless i know i want this phone and I'm very interested to see what comes from it all.
    04-27-2010 11:33 AM
  16. whmurray's Avatar
    Tempest in a teapot. Typical media hype.
    04-27-2010 11:41 AM
  17. big9erfan's Avatar
    They had the guys facebook login and could have easily posted something on his wall or sent him a message to tell him they found his phone. Tried to return it my ***. Gizmodo is up a creek without a paddle. Possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you don't know it was stolen, ignorance does not grant innocence.
    04-27-2010 11:55 AM
  18. jsntrenkler's Avatar
    I believe Gizmodo is guilty of purchasing stolen property and should be held accountable. They knew the name of the person who lost it, they paid $5000 for it knowing it belonged to apple, I cannot see them shelling out $5K for something they "weren't sure of it's origins" ... If you or I committed the same crime we would be held accountable. So should they .. I really feel bad for the guy who lost the phone, I would hope that he lawyers up and goes after gawker media for slander.
    04-27-2010 12:00 PM
  19. macdev's Avatar
    But should this geeky gadget task force should get involved in raiding someone's house, working only under suspiciouns, and ignoring the california law about journalist's property unsizeability status? Had it been anyone else's "lost" or "stolen" phone there wouldnt have been a special Apple Deathsquad so quickly dispatched to turn this guy's home around.
    04-27-2010 12:52 PM
  20. Jellotime91's Avatar
    But should this geeky gadget task force should get involved in raiding someone's house, working only under suspiciouns, and ignoring the california law about journalist's property unsizeability status? Had it been anyone else's "lost" or "stolen" phone there wouldnt have been a special Apple Deathsquad so quickly dispatched to turn this guy's home around.
    Yep. +1 for that.
    I feel bad for Jason Chen now, I really hope nothing too bad happens to him.
    04-27-2010 01:07 PM
  21. whmurray's Avatar
    But should this geeky gadget task force should get involved in raiding someone's house, working only under suspiciouns, and ignoring the california law about journalist's property unsizeability status? Had it been anyone else's "lost" or "stolen" phone there wouldnt have been a special Apple Deathsquad so quickly dispatched to turn this guy's home around.
    "Apple Deathsquad?" May I assume that this is merely rhetoric and not an official designation?
    04-27-2010 01:08 PM
  22. iquinn's Avatar
    So here is my take on it. First Apple is not the ones that are pursuing this, and even if they were they have a RIGHT to protect their own IP against leaks. Second I don't feel bad for Jason Chen at all, I mean he had to know that there was going to be some kind of blowback from this, it is Apple we are talking about after all. In the end my guess is that Giz will have to pay some kind of fine and that will be the end of the matter, but they really should have know better. They didn't do this for us they did it to have the biggest story of the year in tech and boost their own image.
    04-27-2010 01:15 PM
  23. ifonefwenzy's Avatar
    I think it got all too serious once that guy got a search warrant for his house granted by the judge in San Mateo. It's all fun and games until your house is mobbed by police, the door is bashed in, and they have taken all your stuff into custody
    04-27-2010 01:42 PM
  24. big9erfan's Avatar
    But should this geeky gadget task force should get involved in raiding someone's house, working only under suspiciouns, and ignoring the california law about journalist's property unsizeability status? Had it been anyone else's "lost" or "stolen" phone there wouldnt have been a special Apple Deathsquad so quickly dispatched to turn this guy's home around.
    Should the police have the right to "raid" someone's house who is suspected of being involved in a theft? Yes. They had evidence that he had the stolen property in his possession. They posted the pictures online! That gave the police all they needed to get a warrant and seize property. Being a journalist does have it's protections, but those are thrown out the window when you are the one that was involved in the crime.
    04-27-2010 01:58 PM
  25. Behshad's Avatar
    Way too many here who suck on Jobs nipples for every drip of that koolaid.
    Apple should let this go. They let a drunk clown take their property out to public and leave it behind, I guess its fair game for everyone that can get their hands on it.

    If any of you BY ACCIDENT would find the secret recipe to Coca Cola, you would try to make some quick dough rather than being the perfect citizen and return it to Coke.

    Thanks Gizzy for proving that nothing is as airtight as Jobs&Co want us to believe it is at Apple HQ.....
    04-27-2010 02:52 PM
96 123 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD