Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Major Leak: Apple iPhone

Apr 19, 2010 8:57AM PDT

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Removable battery!
Apr 19, 2010 12:01PM PDT

Genius bar must have been busy with battery replacements Silly

- Collapse -
Hmm
Apr 21, 2010 9:33AM PDT
- Collapse -
Should Gray Powell, Apple Employee who lost phone, be fired?
Apr 19, 2010 10:05PM PDT

Great Posts... letshave3!!!!!

Hey People,
This story is developing legs. It appears from other reports that the prototype iphone is real. As to whether Apple has a case for legal action toward Gizmodo for buying the phone remains to be determined. I think the bigger question maybe, should Gray Powell be terminated from Apple?

Careless handling of a prototype:
----------------------------------
1. Gray left the phone unlocked which is how his facebook page was seen.
2 He had personal information on a prototype phone. Hey, whenever I have tested experimental equipment, I had to use a dummy account. I could not use my personal account or information on the devices? Is that the same for you guys?
3. He left the phone in a bar and did not notice it missing and did not attempt to retrieve it.
4. He took the phone off Apple property, although I can do the same, but I was limited to just having devices in my home. How was Gray able to have it outside Apple and but not in his home? This one I do not get.
5. Finally, He wiped the phone but still did not attempt to retrieve it afterwards. Okay, maybe he was frighten at what happened, but he should have attempted to get the phone back after wiping it.

Bottomline:
-------------
Considering the implications and the enormous potential regarding the device, Gray Powell will have some serious questions to answer to Apple executives.

That is my take on this, what is yours people?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20002885-1.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/who-gray-powell-apple-worker-loses-new-iphone-4-0-bar-2607669.html
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20100420-tech-site-claims-apple-software-engineer-lost-new-iphone-prototype.html

- Collapse -
I'm glad it happened...
Apr 19, 2010 11:15PM PDT

Shows that there are actually humans working at that company with human failings, vs. the wall of secrecy that normally surrounds it. However, I'm sure there will be hell to pay from Jobs. Maybe not so much about this particular employee, but about the policy of letting the devices go out in the wild (aka public) when this kind of thing could occur. I mean, what if the dude was robbed? Are they going to fire him for that? It's a chance you take.

People are always losing phones and other electronic gadgetry.

It sure does take the wind out of the sales of the next big Apple event! I picture it starting with "Well, as you already know..."

- Collapse -
A month goes by on a prototype phone? Dude!!!!
Apr 20, 2010 3:59AM PDT

Okay, more word has come out about this incident. Gray Powell has indicated that the phone was lost about a month ago. Although Powell bricked the phone the next day, he chose not to tell Apple about it? So a prototype phone from Apple goes unnoticed for a month before it hits the news wire.

Dude!!!! In a month's time, you should tried to get the phone back. How drunk were you?

Later People.

- Collapse -
Wouldn't be surprised if....
Apr 20, 2010 7:48AM PDT

...Apple wanted this. Sure it takes a little thunder out of their announcement this June or whatever. But it also generates buzz. More people are going to wait until this thing is officially released now that they know it's coming.

And that's how it should be. Most companies announce new products well in advance. Apple has the habit of waiting until the last minute. That's why some people hold off on buying Macbooks and such. Why buy something if something better is coming just around the corner?

Just my opinion.

- Collapse -
Apple doesn;t do this.
Apr 21, 2010 9:29AM PDT

They don't need buzz, there's plenty of that to go around from their secrecy. And why on earth would they leak pre-production device? If they have to take something out at the last minute, then they will get crucified. There is simply nothing in Apple history or corporate culture to back up such speculation.

Personally I think that Gizmodo and its publisher Nick Denton have shown they have virtually no interest journalistic standards (or ethics) with this stunt. What's worse is that they wear their bottom feeding tactics as a badge of honor. I stopped reading them back when they acted like 15 year old boys with the whole CES television kill switch. This just shows that they haven;t really grown up all that much.

- Collapse -
I hope Apple sues them to the moon.
Apr 21, 2010 10:07AM PDT

I'm usually not a big fan of lawsuits, but in this case, I'm making an exception. Gizmodo are acting like a bunch of d-bags and I would not be upset of they were sued out of existence by Apple.

- Collapse -
Gizmodo takes great pleasure in acting like d-bags..
Apr 21, 2010 12:12PM PDT

The only way to wipe that self satisfied smirk off their face is to hit them where it hurts... in the pocketbook.

- Collapse -
Eh
Apr 21, 2010 1:12PM PDT

Like you wouldn't spend $5k on a lost phone to get a major scope.

- Collapse -
Its against the law to
Apr 21, 2010 2:43PM PDT

buy or sell stolen merchandise. And yes, the California penal code specifies that if you "find" something that clearly belongs to someone else (anf this opportunist and Gizomodo clearly knew it belonged to someone else) and sell it for a profit that is in fact the same as "stealing" and you may be prosecuted for it. As Gizmodo has shown before (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9848317-2.html?tag=mncol%3btxt) they pretty much will stop at nothing for page views.

So no, I would not have made a quick 5K. Not only is it unethical, but its very likely that 5K will be little solace when Apple's high lawyers come after you. Not to mention they will likely be banned from any future Apple special events. Hope they enjoy the page views they got from this stunt, because they just gave a huge competitive advantage to Engadget.

Selling this phone is about as smart as stealing from the mob.

- Collapse -
Depends...
Apr 21, 2010 8:32PM PDT

...if my "news agency" had journalistic integrity or not. Clearly Gizmodo does not, but quite frankly I wouldn't expect anything different from a blog.

- Collapse -
Not getting the hate...
Apr 21, 2010 1:54PM PDT

By the way, this isn't directed solely at you...I'm seeing/hearing it a lot re: Gizmodo on this story. I'm not sure why. So they paid somebody 5K for the phone. So? It's their money to blow, right?

I see people cheering when WikiLeaks publishes proprietary information all the time, but hey, that's ok, right? It's all in the name of "openness" and taking some moral high ground when they do it. I don't see the distinction. If it's illegal, it's illegal.

I see leaked Non-Disclosure-Agreement stuff online all the time. But instead of people coming down on the leakers, it's more of a "hey, look what this company "x" is coming out with...cool!"

Help me out here, but make sure you're consistent. No excuses for others' behavior if you're going to come down on Gizmodo. Seems like people are going out of their way to feel sorry for Apple on this one. As I said up-thread, I'm glad to see a little human nature come through those walls. I couldn't care less about Gizmodo's maturity level. It's the actual phone that counts in the end, and somehow that's getting lost in the chatter.

- Collapse -
I don't feel sorry for Apple at all.
Apr 21, 2010 2:57PM PDT

But Gizmodo has a history of unethical behavior and a bottom feeding attitude when it comes to getting a story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9848317-2.html?tag=mncol%3btxt. This is just the latest in string of childish stunts on their part. They have to decide if they are stand up journalists or frat boys. Throwing the Apple engineer under the bus when people started questioning the details of how Gizmodo came into possession of the phone was reprehensible.

I have never defended wiki-leaks and don;t know enough about them to really comment. But I can say that there is a culture of publish first, think later on the net that creates an unhealthy environment. It would not surprise me if information was leaked in the name of "the public having a right to know" that was had no business being leaked.

- Collapse -
Exactly...
Apr 21, 2010 8:40PM PDT

This isn't about feeling sorry for Apple, this is about a company buying a stolen item, dissecting it, and publishing that info. I feel the same way about non-disclosure leaks and other crap where people simply throw their integrity to the wind and do whatever they can to get more site hits. Ultimately it is up to the company that was wronged to decide if it is worth pursuing legal action in all of these situations, but that doesn't stop me, as a reader/consumer, from evaluating the judgement and overall attitude of a company and their reporting ethics.

- Collapse -
An NDA is unconstitutional anyway
Apr 22, 2010 9:28AM PDT

How can the legal system possibly be ok with the idea of people in the press being able to just sign away their first amendment rights. Something is very wrong with the system.

- Collapse -
Do people have a constitutional right to advance hardware?
Apr 22, 2010 9:48AM PDT

Of course not.

I doubt this is a burning legal question that needs solving. Its just business and its the game you have to play if you want to remain competitive in tech journalism. If someone were to take the matter to court what would they gain anyway? Nothing, they would just shoot themselves in the foot because nobody would be given exclusives or advances anymore.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory.

- Collapse -
But wait...
Apr 21, 2010 10:38PM PDT

Throwing the Apple engineer under the bus? He wasn't their source, and the first thing anyone is going to ask about this device is "How do you know it's an Apple phone? What proof?" Attaching a name to the story establishes that, doesn't it? How long do you think it would have taken before SOMEONE outed the individual in question?

I'll be the first to admit I'm not up on every last detail of this story and its nuances, so I'm shooting from the lip a bit, but I'm just going by the bigger picture.

And holding up Gizmodo as "journalists"? I never would have done that. As far as I know, bloggers by and large don't have to live by the same rules that traditional journalists do. And once you inject opinion into a news story, there goes your journalism cred.

Ironically, the Gawker Media managing editor was questioned about whether he thought of himself as a journalist. Here's what he said:

"Professional blogger Lockhart Steele is the managing editor for Gawker Media's portfolio of Web logs. He also runs a quippy New York real estate blog called Curbed.com that solicits reader tips. Over dinner last February, he made it clear he did not consider himself a journalist. "I don't have time to do the fact-checking you do," said Steele. "BusinessWeek is reporting a different kind of news." He says a lawsuit could quickly bring down a shoestring operation like Curbed.com. "

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc2005037_7877_tc024.htm

Ironically, that came from a businessweek story in 2005 about a legal case involving Apple suing bloggers over leaks, lol.


http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc2005037_7877_tc024.htm

Other commenters I've read point out that Gizmodo has been very Apple-friendly and somewhat anti-MS in their pages over time, particularly with all the coverage they gave the iPad and how they dissed the MS Kin phone. Bite the hand, Apple?

As far as criminal charges against Gizmodo, that's a stretch. I think it would be a tough case to make that they intended to keep the device, but if Apple wants to press charges, go for it. Didn't Engadget publish photos? Wouldn't that constitute theft of proprietary info whether or not they had the physical device?

- Collapse -
Publishing photos sent to you for free and buying stolen
Apr 21, 2010 11:22PM PDT

property in order to get a scoop are two totally different things in the eyes of the law And Gizmodo's story about the origins of the phone kept changing so in all likelyhood they knew exactly what they were doing. Engadget turned down the opportunity to buy the phone by the way.

There are all sorts of holes on Gizmodos shifting claims about the origins of the phone You can read up on them and all the legal intricacies details here:

http://daringfireball.net/

- Collapse -
Not by my reading of the law...
Apr 22, 2010 1:16AM PDT

Seems to me that what I can understand about Trade Secret law in this country, there are potential liabilities for those who publish information (including pics) that may very well fall into what would be known as "trade secrets". How anyone could argue that Engadget wouldn't have understood that an Apple iPhone prototype wouldn't be considered a trade secret is just silly. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Engadget the first source of such pictures?

Here's where I'm getting my info:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/publishing-trade-secrets

So I dare say that while the offenses we are talking about might be different, there are laws regarding both actions. Gizmodo, of course, would be subject to both the criminal theft laws and the trade secret laws if these were to apply.

But what really strikes me about all of this is the overwhelming outcry against Gizmodo over this iPhone prototype acquisition. Would everyone here make a distinction if the guy who found it just brought it to Gizmodo out of the goodness of his heart and let them examine it and publish their findings, and then return the phone to Apple without selling it? Would that be ok? In other words, I'm interested to hear EXACTLY where people here who are pissed at Gizmodo would draw the line. What --exactly-- would have been OK in your eyes if they happened to be offered access to this without money changing hands and then publishing the results of their examination? I'm trying to understand exactly where people draw their moral boundaries here.

I'll say it again: If this wasn't Apple we were talking about, I would think nary a whisper would be heard about all of this. But god forbid anyone gets an inkling of a super-secret Apple gizmo and the story changes to the "how" vs. the "what" in the story, and the "what"s to me are:

a: the actual prototype

and

b: Apple finally joining the ranks of every other major company that failed to keep something super-secret. It's even more of a story because this company LIVES for that kind of security, otherwise it wouldn't be so interesting.

- Collapse -
Trade secrets is another issue altogether.
Apr 22, 2010 9:36AM PDT

But I believe that that the safe harbor provision of the DMCA only requires sites remove a photo if they receive a takedown notice (which of course is verification of the device's authenticity). There may be other laws at play and I it it possible that trade secrets violations could be invoked but I am not a lawyer.

Nonetheless, Engadget clearly knew that purchasing stolen goods for a story was a journalistic no-no so you'd have to assume that Gizmodo knew the risks and they just didn't care. Corporate culture gets set at the top and publisher Nick Denton has shown his total disregard for ethics before so its not surprising that his editors think its OK to behave like arrogant brats. This is the guy who runs Valleywag after all.

Hypothetical situations where the "finder" of the phone gave it to Gizmodo out of the goodness of his heart are inconsequential because that's not what happened. The guy barely lifted a pinky to return the phone to its owner (he didn't even mention it to the bartender in case, you know... the owner came back like people who misplace object tend to do), he sat on it for 3 weeks and then he shopped it around. The integrity-impaired Gizmodo paid 5,000 dollars for it. These are all documented facts. As soon as this guy made the decision to sell the phone to the highest bidder he crossed a very serious legal line. As soon as Gizmodo made a decision to buy this phone they also crossed a line.

- Collapse -
With all due respect...
Apr 23, 2010 2:12AM PDT

you punted and dodged on my question. It's a legitimate question, too, as some people are displaying a bit of righteous indignation vs. Gizmodo on this issue, and it's a pertinent inquiry as to where they would draw the line on acceptable/unacceptable actions where matters such as this are concerned.

Look, I have no love for Gizmodo. I only look at them for tech info. And I do have to say that gawker.com seems to be run by a bunch of jerks, in my view. On the other hand, I LOVE lifehacker.com. So, I give the family of sites mixed reviews.

Your antagonism vs. Gizmodo seems personal, and that appears to be coloring your opinion. Hey, that's fine; you're entitled. I'm looking at the broader picture. Take gizmodo and its history --as you see it-- out of the picture and replace it with some other tech site. What's permissible and what isn't --in your eyes-- regarding access to and publishing proprietary trade secrets information even if no money changes hands?

What I'm getting, by and large, is that some people just can't stand gizmodo. Far be it for me to challenge that, but I don't really pay that much attention to them to agree/disagree with that.

Why anyone individually would care whether gizmodo broke the law seems odd to me. That's for them to have to answer for, and they just may have to. But the information that came out about the prototype is now public, regardless. Can anyone honestly say that they didn't read the details about the prototype because of concerns that Gizmodo didn't act appropriately in obtaining it? Possible, but not likely.

- Collapse -
I am not "some people"
Apr 23, 2010 3:35AM PDT

Asking me to justify the positions of other people have said is silly. My issue with Gizmodo is simple and its based on what they have actually done. If they hadn't behaved like 13 year old boys at CES and they hadn't gleefully purchased stolen property and flaunted this fact for their 15 minutes of fame then I doubt I would have any opinion of them at all. At that point they would be just another tech blog making snarky comments about gadgets.

Its perfectly normal for people interested in the legitimacy of new media to take issue with Gizmodo breaking the law for a story just as it would be perfectly normal for members of any other profession to take issue with one of their own doing something unethical or illegal.

- Collapse -
That saved his job
Apr 22, 2010 9:30AM PDT

Now Apple can't possibly fire that employee without getting a lot of bad PR.

- Collapse -
You can't pay for that kind of advertisng
Apr 25, 2010 6:25AM PDT

I came on here, hoping someone else saw this as well.

How many times has something "leaked" from Apple? Everyone starts talking about it, searching & so on. What a great way to get interest in your product? There are zillions of fan boys who'll run to the computer to say they were the first to "find" it.

I think it's another Apple scam. Who has a prototype, with personal information/stuff on it? Seriously.

But anyhow, just wanted to say that & agree with Magishine.

Long live word of mouth Grin

- Collapse -
+1
Apr 25, 2010 6:15PM PDT

Too true. Free marketing for Apple. Smells so deliberate

- Collapse -
That's the point of the secrey in thr first place
Apr 26, 2010 12:37PM PDT

As to whether it was a deliberate leak, who knows.

- Collapse -
An update on Gizmodo from hype heist
Apr 26, 2010 1:01PM PDT
- Collapse -
And it deepens even more.
Apr 26, 2010 2:23PM PDT

Yahoo News has an "expose" which shows that the special task force involved in the raid of Chen's home has a steering committee that includes 25 tech compnies.... one of which is Apple.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100426/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1795;_ylt=Ap6pbcMscbpDjiP30J8CRbkEq594;_ylu=X3oDMTFhZTRtYW82BHBvcwMxMARzZWMDeW5fY29sdW1uaXN0X3IEc2xrA3doYXRpc2FwcGxlaQ--

But then John Gruber points out that the author of this Yahoo article (John Cook) forgot to mention that he used to work for ... you guessed it... Gawker media.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/26/cook-gawker

What a sleazy little web people weave.

- Collapse -
Great Marketing
Apr 27, 2010 11:12AM PDT

Who knows whether or not this was a true marketing tactic or not, but regardless it has turned into one on its own. The fact that people are talking about and creating a buzz around it is already a great thing for Apple. Besides, all iPhone fans already have there eye on it regardless of "leaks"

Regards,
http://www.prudentialwest.com/