Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

IPad Discussions

stephengilbert

stephengilbert

Active member
Jeez. Remember Apple's 1984 commercial?

Are they smart enough not to fire the guy who lost the phone? A tough choice: good PR vs. complete control of their environment.
 
D

Diane B

New member
I just listened to a segment on NPR/Talk of the Nation with interviews with the Gizmodo folks and others. They seemed to feel this wasn't a planned leak--saying that Apple 'just doesn't do things like that'--but one does have to wonder. It certainly got a lot of publicity, as Godfrey says, and not the 'bad' kind (unless they fire the engineer LOL).

OTOH--they have also said a lot about what should be expected--perhaps just in firmware upgrade, but certainly in new 4G also. Its not going to be revolutionary, for sure.
 
Terry

Terry

New member
They also just announced earnings that were a complete and utter blowout from what was expected with huge Mac (3.3mm) , iPhone (8.74mm) and iPod numbers (20.97mm).
 
Terry

Terry

New member
Lars Vinberg said:
What law?
Click to expand...
Just do a scroll through the various links on daringfireball.net and you can read it. Essentially, you can't buy property that is stolen or even found for that matter. You are supposed to return it to the owner. Clearly, there is no way that Gizmodo can claim that they didn't know it was Apple's property when they paid $5,000 for it.

Personally, I thought the letter asking for the phone back was very tame.
 
D

Diane B

New member
And it is back in Apple's hands now. In the segment I listened to even Gizmodo stated what the law says (though they seemed unaware of it initially). They said that they saw it as a way to get their name out. It appears that the phone was offered to a number of similar tech sites.
 
ustein

ustein

Contributing Editor
TEBnewyork said:
Just do a scroll through the various links on daringfireball.net and you can read it. Essentially, you can't buy property that is stolen or even found for that matter. You are supposed to return it to the owner. Clearly, there is no way that Gizmodo can claim that they didn't know it was Apple's property when they paid $5,000 for it.

Personally, I thought the letter asking for the phone back was very tame.
Click to expand...
I am not even sure it is legal to analyze a phone.
 
Godfrey

Godfrey

Well-known member
Diane B said:
I just listened to a segment on NPR/Talk of the Nation with interviews with the Gizmodo folks and others. They seemed to feel this wasn't a planned leak--saying that Apple 'just doesn't do things like that'--but one does have to wonder. It certainly got a lot of publicity, as Godfrey says, and not the 'bad' kind (unless they fire the engineer LOL). ...
Click to expand...
I didn't mean that Apple intentionally leaked it. That was a mistake.

But once a mistake occurs, you can be stupid or you can be smart. The smart thing to do is to capitalize on the publicity. SJ and the rest of the folks at Apple are generally pretty smart.
 
ustein

ustein

Contributing Editor
Godfrey said:
I didn't mean that Apple intentionally leaked it. That was a mistake.

But once a mistake occurs, you can be stupid or you can be smart. The smart thing to do is to capitalize on the publicity. SJ and the rest of the folks at Apple are generally pretty smart.
Click to expand...
Yes. If publicity would not be an issue Apple would sue Gizmodo in no time (top $$$ at play).
 
D

Diane B

New member
Godfrey said:
SJ and the rest of the folks at Apple are generally pretty smart.
Click to expand...
Yes they certainly seem so and I expect they'll figure out the best way to utilize a bad situation (from their viewpoint). and come out fine. They are masters at staging.
 
GrahamWelland

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Diane B said:
And it is back in Apple's hands now. In the segment I listened to even Gizmodo stated what the law says (though they seemed unaware of it initially). They said that they saw it as a way to get their name out. It appears that the phone was offered to a number of similar tech sites.
Click to expand...
I would think that the folks who sold the phone are the ones who Apple could legitimately go after, although I think in this case it's probably easier & wiser to just let it go as it would be little more than bad publicity if they did.

As regards the engineer - he may not have been fired but I'll bet that this was his ultimate CLM as we call them. (Career Limiting Move). :lecture:
 
ustein

ustein

Contributing Editor
>he may not have been fired but I'll bet that this was his ultimate CLM as we call them.

Unless he is that good that Google wants him :).
 
Lars

Lars

Active member
ustein said:
Yes. If publicity would not be an issue Apple would sue Gizmodo in no time (top $$$ at play).
Click to expand...
Actually Apple had no ground for a lawsuit the way it worked out. Apple had to make a formal request to get its property back, which it did. Had Gizmodo denied that request then Apple could have escalated by taking legal action, if Gizmodo was based in California. As it worked out, Gizmodo broke no Californian laws.

Apple was stupid or ignorant enough to ignore question from the person who found the phone. Only when publicity became a problem did Apple act. Gizmodo forced Apple to confirm in writing that the device was indeed an Apple device, thereby firming up speculations. Very well played. The real winner here is Gizmodo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top