> If journalists are competing for favors from Apple, like press passes and advanced review opportunities, then we won't get the full story.
The full story, in this case, is CLEARLY a new iphone being announced.
That kind of story can only work to Apple's (or, for that matter, any other company's) detriment, because it decrease sales of the current generation of products as people decide to wait for the next-gen one that'll be released in a month or two.
as for the "I'm ... glad that some outlets don't play the ... game" comment, it's like you're told since childhood, "if you're not willing to play by the rules, then you won't get to play at all."
Gizmodo proudly paid $10,000 for something. Whether what they did was unethical or illegal depends on whether the prototype was stolen, whether Gizmodo knew it was stolen, and whether Gizmodo was paying to possess the property, or just to view it and shepherd it back to its rightful owner.
Yes, some of those interpretations may be strained but we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out.
... we often want the press to stretch the rules to get secrets out.
These people weren't exposing government secrets or trying to figure out the actual flow rate of the Deepwater Horizon oil gusher; they were trying to get exclusive pictures of an iPhone for their gadget blog.
Totally agreed there's a difference in significance... but that's Gizmodo's beat and there's a giant audience for that info. The entire industry gets reshaped by Apple's product moves. So Gizmodo being as aggressive as the law allows for scoops is to be expected.
Also, the argument that the news was ultimately a social triviality works both ways. No one's reputation was besmirched. The alleged-stolen property was returned to its owner fairly quickly.
Gizmodo's peek confirmed a few things and refuted a few others already rumored about the 2010 iPhone. While that info wasn't released exactly as Apple may have preferred, whether there was any net economic damage to Apple is debatable. Apple lost some surprise value around next week's announcements, but they also got tons of free publicity and hype about their flagship product.
So indignation about Gizmodo's actions should also be scaled to match your observation: it's just some exclusive pictures for a gadget blog. No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.
You make fair points, though I think the central one is flawed:
No permanent damage to any involved; perhaps a net win for Gizmodo and Apple.
Exposing a trade secret the way Gizmodo did probably did hard-to-calculate damage to iPhone sales for the past several months. After all, there is a reason they stovepipe these announcements. I think it'd be hard to argue that this is a net win for Apple.
But: the 'secrets' about this model were pretty much as expected. Improved iPhone models are released like clockwork each summer. And the meme "your Apple product will be replaced by a better one in 6 months" is so strong it's a recurring joke on talk shows and late-night TV. So I think your 'hard-to-quantify' on buyers is in fact 'negligible' -- or failing that, 'outweighed by knocking news of all competitors off the front-pages for a couple weeks'.
I wonder if those expressing their disapproval of Gizmodo (and anyone who thinks Gizmodo's actions may have been legal and ethical) with copious downvotes think (a) Gizmodo is lying; (b) Gizmodo is telling the truth but still indefensible; (c) Apple and similar secretive corporations should just always be respected, no matter the legal details.
The full story, in this case, is CLEARLY a new iphone being announced. That kind of story can only work to Apple's (or, for that matter, any other company's) detriment, because it decrease sales of the current generation of products as people decide to wait for the next-gen one that'll be released in a month or two.
as for the "I'm ... glad that some outlets don't play the ... game" comment, it's like you're told since childhood, "if you're not willing to play by the rules, then you won't get to play at all."
and as for the "may" part, gizmodo has admitted, and they are proud of it, that they paid $10,000 for it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmod...