
Gizmodo and the Prototype iPhone - johns
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/gizmodo_prototype_iphone
======
Hagelin
According to Gizmodo the phone was lost March 18. On March 29 Gruber publishes
a short comment that casually includes some of the specs (A4-family CPU,
960x640 display, front-facing camera). Kinda makes me wonder if there was an
authorized leak of the hardware specs in order to steal some thunder from any
upcoming stories.

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/03/29/wsj>

~~~
jrockway
Or the specs were just obvious. Apple already released a next-gen device
running iPhoneOS with the A4 processor. And their competitors are all hyping
massive-res screens and front-facing cameras.

Apple would be insane not to do exactly what Gruber predicted.

~~~
necubi
Gruber gave the exact screen resolution, which was far from obvious (as, to my
knowledge, no other phone has been released with that resolution).

~~~
ajg1977
Given that it was a fairly safe bet the new phone would have a higher-res,
960x640 was a fairly obvious candidate for the resolution. Anything else would
have made resulted in a noticeable drop in quality when running existing apps.

Because 960x640 is exactly 2x the existing iPhone resolution in each dimension
existing apps and their artwork can be doubled. Since the screen is approx the
same size (unlike the iPad) this results in an image that's entirely
indistinguishable from previous models, and may even be better if things like
font and path rendering are "aware" of the higher res.

If they had chosen any other resolution then existing apps would need
filtering when rendered fullscreen which in many cases would almost certainly
resulted in a worse, or at least oddly different, look than the original. I'm
sure Apple would have preferred not to go with 960x640 for cost reasons, but
they couldn't very well release a phone where 160,000 apps look worse than
when running on the previous model.

~~~
orangecat
_960x640 was a fairly obvious candidate for the resolution_

A candidate perhaps, but not at all obvious. It's a higher pixel density than
any device Wikipedia knows about:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_densi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density).
Other alternatives that would have been at least as plausible would be to keep
it the same ("only geeks care about meaningless specs like that") or go to
720x480, where 1.5x scaling wouldn't be that bad.

------
ZeroGravitas
I'm a bit confused by this. Gizmodo's behaviour seems skanky, but only
different by degree from Gruber, in this very post, confirming that the recent
photos were of a late stage prototype, or in recent posts confirming tech
specs.

People are throwing terms like "industrial espionage" around. Why is
publishing such details of unreleased products from internal sources, as
Gruber seems to take great delight in doing, not the same thing.

If one of his moles gets fed tagged information and the release gets traced
back to him, resulting in a firing are we supposed to all gang up on Gruber
too?

~~~
bbb
I do not perceive a double standard here.

Gruber: _I’m not offended by their decision to obtain this unit and publish
everything they were able to ascertain regarding it._ [...] _Second,
publishing the name, photographs, and personal information of the Apple
engineer who lost the phone is irrelevant to the story. It was the dick move
to end all dick moves._

It seems to me that he made it pretty clear that he does not take offense with
reporting about the prototype per se. Rather, he condemns the way that Gizmodo
chose to handle the whole affair.

------
InclinedPlane
Gizmodo's actions were equivalent to a tabloid posting topless photos of a
"hot" celebrity they obtained via some sleezy paparazzi hiding in the bushes
with a telephoto lens. For people who are too obsessed with the idea of
celebrity to gauge the morality of their actions, or even the health of and
nature of their relationship to those celebrities, this sort of thing can be
exciting and can certainly cause a spike in readership.

But simultaneously it represents the self-destruction and denigration of
gizmodo's brand. Personally I'm not a fan of the slightly-warmed-over-PR-
release and tabloidesque tech journalism that is so common these days. I'd
rather have honest personal reviews and hard-hitting technical critiques than
gadget porn, gossip, and rumor mongering.

~~~
fab13n
> equivalent to [...] photos of a "hot" celebrity they obtained via some
> sleezy paparazzi hiding in the bushes

Not hiding in the bushes: detaining the photographed subject illegally for
weeks. It would have been equivalent if pictures had been taken while the
Apple engineer was playing with the phone, thinking he was alone.

------
betageek
My problem with this post is that Gruber acts like he isn't involved in this
whole circus - he's just as much to blame as Gizmodo.

I'd suggest one of the main reasons that Gizmodo published the guys name is
that Gruber implied immediately that they stole the prototype
(<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/19/gizmodo-rumors>) without giving
any evidence - not really the act of a 'ethical' journalist. It's fine to
decide that you think it's theft if you go by the letter of the law (AFAIK
Gruber isn't a lawyer, so it's just an uneducated opinion) but to stoke the
flames and then be 'offended' is pure hypocrisy.

~~~
bbb
_(AFAIK Gruber isn't a lawyer, so it's just an uneducated opinion)_

That's a bit harsh; there's a large difference between an "uneducated opinion"
and a "carefully researched assessment by a non-lawyer". Based on your
criteria, no journalist could ever write about any topic but journalism.

~~~
stcredzero
Based on what I've seen, especially in science journalism, there are a lot of
journalists who should be topic-restricted in this way.

------
punchfire
i agree that gizmodo shouldn't have published the guy's name at all. though
how it was reported etc is hardly surprising. this is exactly how journalism
works. people are all hotheaded in this situation because it's an apple
product that's been unveiled. i doubt gruber would be "offended" by a similar
case for any other company's gadget.

~~~
bad_user
> _this is exactly how journalism works_

No, this is "industrial espionage" through illegal methods, and it's only OK-
ish to do if it serves some public good (justice). And no, this is not
journalism, unless by that you mean intentionally breaking the law for your
own profit.

I really hope the person that stole that phone and Gizmodo are prosecuted for
theft.

Because of dicks like these we ended up with the current patent system.

~~~
punchfire
all i think is that everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill in this
situation. this is blown way out of proportion.

~~~
ynniv
Except reactions to Gizmodo publishing the name and photo of an innocent
employee, who they then proceed to mock. The only rationale for doing so is to
deflect some of the heat that they were getting in classic dick fashion.

"Dude! We screwed up, but... look at this guy! Man he likes BEER!"

Thats professionalism right there.

~~~
stcredzero
I read their comments regarding beer as attempts to rehabilitate that guy as
an ordinary fellow who makes mistakes.

------
pavs
Why is he personally offended by this?

I can understand if someone (including me) not really agreeing the way Gizmodo
handled this situation, but are you _offended_ by this?

~~~
raganwald
I just read about three bisexual men who were disqualified from playing in the
Gay Softball World Series because they were not deemed to be "Gay enough." I
was offended.

Sometimes people are offended by what they perceive as injustice or
impropriety even when it doesn't directly appear to harm them. You may not be
such a person, but I am not surprised they exist.

I'm astounded that they outed the engineer who they claim "lost" the phone.
They appear to have taken the word of a law-breaker with a $5,000 incentive to
lie that the phone was lost and not stolen, and on that basis they publicly
humiliate the engineer. They are either exceedingly cruel or this is an act of
misdirection intended to bolster their "defense" that the phone was actually
lost and that neither the person who approached them or themselves were able
to return the phone promptly.

A very nasty bit of business indeed.

~~~
po
Not gay enough? Hell, the olympics have a hard time even telling if people are
woman enough:

[http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/OlympicGenderTesti...](http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/OlympicGenderTesting.html)
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender)

------
sunchild
Any suggestions of ethical gadget bloggers would be appreciated.

I don't give Gizmodo pageviews because of this incident.

I don't give Engadget pageviews because it feeds Calacanis' troll ego.

~~~
jonknee
Calacanis has nothing to do with Engadget anymore. It's still not a great
site, but don't visit because of him. He's busy filling the web with spam.

~~~
sunchild
He still spends plenty of time taking credit for it, I'm sure.

------
aero142
I'm slightly torn about this. This does appear to be theft, however, but
Gruber also seems to imply that Apple is a bit of a victim. This reminds me of
the relationship between celebrities and the paparazzi. Celebrities hate the
downside when they are stalked trying to live their normal lives, but need all
of the attention to continue making the ridiculous amounts of money they do.
Similarly, Apple lives by creating the obscene levels of hype around their
product launches. I can't help but think Apple has created this environment
where people would freak out about a prototype leak and do _anything_ to get
early details about it.

------
kraemate
I dont understand why people are blaming gizmodo and siding with the guy who
lost his phone. He works for a corporation notorious for secrecy and 'leaking'
product info through such underhand means for generating hype. Employees of
3-letter Govt. agencies know the risk when signing up, that their life may be
in danger because they know stuff which is worth killing. Well, same with
apple i guess. They have lowered(raised?) the bar on this whole secrecy
nonsense that punishing them by publicly disclosing and humiliating their
secret-bearing employees is the only way out. Let's keep in mind that it is
apple which has cultivated this ring of secrecy, and now their employee is
whining because gizmodo does what apple exactly expects them to?

~~~
vtail
Do you suggest that Apple's secrecy policy justifies buying stolen property??

~~~
kraemate
The whole point is that apple is capable enough of engineering such an
incident. And that whiner has no right to complain after being part of apple's
insidious plans.

------
jonknee
I wonder what he feels about Wikileaks?

~~~
Estragon
This was primarily a legal analysis. What laws are wikileaks breaking?

~~~
jonknee
Classified US military documents and videos are a whole lot more secret and
illegal to publish than an iPhone prototype (and have a lot bigger
consequences--there won't be any retaliation suicide bombings from HTC). I
think it's illogical to call for Gizmodo to be prosecuted without also saying
the same for Wikileaks.

~~~
nkassis
In Gruber's post he points to a law that clearly state that if the theft was
done in the interest of justice, then it could be considering OK. I think
wikileaks might be able to use this. They are doing it in the interest of the
public in their mind which is completely different here. Gizmodo did it in the
interest of making money and paid for a phone they knew had been stolen.

Also, wikileaks isn't hosted in the US and thus doesn't have to obey to
American laws. They also did not steal those videos these are copies and in my
IANAL opinion is completely different.

~~~
iambvk
I did not see anywhere that it was _stolen_ , any pointers?

~~~
ovi256
Did you read TFA ? What happened perfectly fits in the legal definition of
theft and handling of stolen property.

~~~
Lazlo_Nibble
There's also the problem that the "found on a barstool" story came from the
guy who sold it to Gizmodo. Gruber hints at another possibility, but let me
just lay it out explicitly:

1\. Powell takes the photo that he posted to Facebook, but uses the _front-
facing camera_ to do it. (Hey, field testing under real-world conditions!) 2.
Seller notices this (iPhone with a front-facing camera? WTF??). 3. Seller puts
two and two together ("cha-ching" noise, dollar signs roll up in their eyes,
etc.). 4. Seller sticks around for a while, picks Powell's pocket at the first
opportunity, and bails. 5. Seller lays low for a while to see if word gets
out, thinks up a plausible story, then makes the rounds of the tech blogs. 6.
_Profit!_

If this is what Apple believes happened, it's unlikely they'd take any action
(assuming they take action at all) until after the phone is
announced/released. Starting that ball rolling now would be too big a
distraction from the actual launch. But after that it could get very ugly for
Gizmodo very quickly.

------
jsean
This whole episode is probably staged and directed by Apple. Great way to call
attention to an upcoming release. Oh and also to get people like me, who
otherwise never would've read an iPhone spec/review, to actually read an
iPhone spec/review.

You got me there Apple! Well played.

~~~
MartinCron
Because Apple has a really hard time getting attention for upcoming releases,
right?

If only they could generate buzz and media coverage in some other way, they
wouldn't have to resort to these transparent and desperate gimmicks.

------
anderzole
Gizmodo knows Apple won't sue because it would be a public relations
nightmare.

~~~
raganwald
Remind me: Was it a PR nightmare when they sued various rumours sites for
offering a bounty to anyone who would break their confidentiality agreements?

~~~
Perceval
Right, they were pretty effective at ending ThinkSecret. No reason to believe
that they wouldn't be just as happy to end Gizmodo too.

~~~
BRadmin
They settled with ThinkSecret, probably paying a ton of cash to Ciarelli, to
shut it down. Don't think that's going to happen with Gizmodo...

------
c00p3r
Such publicity is good for AAPL, even if that was an accident. =)

~~~
ugh
How so?

~~~
c00p3r
yellow-papers methods to keep the buzz up. Of course, effectiveness of such
events cannot be compared to spreading rumors about ARM acquiring. =)

------
jrockway
Oh goody, a legal analysis by a non-lawyer. Great reading...

------
waffenklang
sometimes and sometimes a bit more often there is a thought coming up my mind
and (attention ironic) I dont know why, but always apple got to do with it:
what if...?

... never heard of viral marketing?

------
iambvk
I don't understand why everybody is trying to quote the law and take strict
meaning of it to prove Gizmodo did wrong. All are ignoring the fact that
Gizmodo brought it to light, which everybody is _really_ interested to know
anyway!

As per the strict letter of law, many of our day to day activities would be
wrong too! Considering that there were no deaths or loss of money, and Gizmodo
is willing to return it back to Apple, I would give Gizmodo a clear pass!

~~~
davidmurphy
Logged in to say this:

If many of your daily goings on would be wrong in the strickest sense, IMHO
you're doing it wrong. Ethics matter. Rule of law matters.

No, I'm sure not perfect myself. But we all should try our best and
correct/learn from our mistakes and try to achieve the high road.

~~~
iambvk
Ethics matter, i agree. Rule of law matters? I am really not sure, it needs to
be considered case by case: Things change over time, new laws come in that
make old things illegal. Do i have to accept them blindly or not is a personal
decision.

Coming to the point, you did not mention what part of Gizmodo story you think
is ethically wrong. Ethics matter, rule of law matters, try our best, learn
from mistakes, etc. are kinda universal truths, everybody knows. Say something
concrete to the point!

~~~
MartinCron
Regardless of rule of law. What Gizmodo/Gawker did looks very unethical, at
least to me. To hand-wave and say "people break laws all the time" and "the
story was interesting, so it's worth it" are both ex-post-facto
rationalizations for something that is, at best, pretty sleazy.

