I’ve been rather geekily invested in the recent Gizmodo Lost iPhone saga. At first I was stoked when Henry texted (ok, Pinged) me: I rushed to class, flung open my laptop, and reveled in all the leaked glory. But from the start, before I even read the article, I had a suspicion:
Dude whoevers that was… is in DEEP shit. Unless it was all a ploy by Apple [~10:30 EST]
The more I read, and the more they explained, the more questions I had. Confirmed reports of Nick Denton’s “checkbook journalism” arose, leading to questions about Gawker/Gizmodo’s journalistic integrity. Gawker paid the source $5,000 (supposedly after Engadget had rejected a $10,000 offer for the same piece of equipment) and Gizmodo editors appeared on multiple news networks this morning, no doubt raking in the cash for “image rights.” They then proceeded to post the name of the poor Apple engineer who “lost” his prototype phone in Redwood City.
Besides questions about the legality of the whole transaction, there are just too many things wrong with their story, at least in my opinion, for it to be both real and moral.
Gizmodo claims:
- Its Source was alerted to the existence of the iPhone by another bar patron
- Source supposedly wanted to find the owner of the phone: a) Source asked other patrons if the phone was theirs, and b) Source waited a little time to see if the owner came back
- Source played with the phone for a while, saw new features and buggy camera
- Source saw Gray Powell (GP)’s name on his Facebook account
- Source had full access to all of phone’s features while still in the bar
- Source took phone home that night, wanting to return the phone the next morning
- Source tried to get in touch with Apple but they wouldn’t listen, so he sold the phone to Giz.
OK. Seems straightforward, right? My problems with this:
- This one seems innocent enough.
- Sounds good so far, until you read on.
- If Source was familiar enough with iPhone features to recognize new OS, why play with a phone that has been out on the market for a year+ and easily accessible to use in any Apple, Best Buy, or AT&T store? Why take a picture with a stranger’s phone which you intend to return?
- Why didn’t Source get in contact with GP directly? Source knew GP was on Facebook. If Source supposedly forgot GP’s name due to drunkenness, how did Source remember so suddenly when Gizmodo asked? Why didn’t Source contact GP then?
- Why didn’t Source call one of GP’s contacts or e-mail GP himself?
- Why didn’t Source leave the phone with a bartender or manager since GP would most likely return to the bar once he realized it was missing?
- How hard did he try to get in touch? Steve is known to reply (or have someone else reply) to e-mails directed to steve@apple.com. Once the true nature of the prototype was known, I figure somebody at Apple would want to get more info on an e-mail that said, “Hey, Steve, I’ve got your NEXT GENERATION iPHONE.” And while Giz has included more details in a post today, Source presumably lived close enough to Cupertino (given Source was in same Redwood City bar as GP) and knew enough about gadgets (given Source eventually contacted Giz/Engadget to engage bidding war) to know that Apple’s main campus was there, and bring it over if Source really wanted to.
So the Source is shady. OK, that’s out of the way. We can’t blame that all on Gizmodo, though, right?Hmmm.
- Why did Gizmodo take an entire week to post on the phone? Given their fanboyism for Apple products and the gigantic scoop, don’t you think they would spend 48 straight hours awake and jittery on caffeine in order to get this out?
- Why did Giz post pictures and videos, and even disassemble the phone at the huge risk of being blacklisted/sued by Apple (one of the most prominent brands on their site) and even having to go the ThinkSecret route?
- Why hasn’t Apple sent a cease and desist letter and merely a “We’d like to pick it up” letter?
- Why did Giz post the name, pictures, and personal info of GP, for no reason?
Could it be that they had to get their story straight, as well as coordinate with Source and maybe Apple itself? At the very least, if the whole scheme wasn’t fabricated by Apple, Giz might have used the phone as leverage to a package deal (Apple gets phone back, Giz gets exclusive, entry to all future Apple keynotes, etc.).
The last question seems to be the most complex, however, both in terms of journalistic integrity and in the scheme of the Gizmapple conspiracy theory. GP does seem to be a real person, who indeed went to the university and worked at the companies he claimed (a quick Google search seems to verify). GP, however, thanks to posts on Twitter and Facebook, didn’t seem to be distressed about losing such a vital piece of equipment. In fact, he still associates with Apple on both sites, according to screenshots across the web.
In addition, before changing his Facebook name to be unsearchable to the public, his flickr stream (now deleted/private) had been prominently displayed on his info tab, showing pictures with the caption “Sent from myPhone.” Said pictures had been extremely high-quality and taken in low-light environments (e.g., from the nosebleed section of a Jay-Z concert), perhaps to exhibit the impressive features of the new iPhone with better camera and flash.
Some commenters also noticed that in order for Giz to publish the transcript of their phone conversation with him, they would have certainly had to have said they were on the record — something that a supposedly humiliated, shamed GP, self-conscious about losing the newest iPhone and about his job, never would have agreed to.
Giz claimed to “out” GP to the world in order to save his job with Apple (under the premise that Apple would get bad publicity for firing an employee who lost an extremely confidential piece of equipment, under an inevitably tight NDA, while drinking at a bar on his birthday. Yeah. I don’t think anything could save him.). But regardless of whether he was fired, his future career would have been almost certainly cursed, thanks to the 6.5 million Google hits under his name, most of which linking him to making a mistake that could have cost a company billions.
For me, the most likely scenario is that maybe it really was lost in a bar. Maybe the Source didn’t have the best intentions, hence the shoddily-made-up story, but did shop it around and ended up making some money (plus a solid contract keeping Source confidential). And Gizmodo used their new toy as leverage against Apple to get a huge, though heavily controlled, exclusive, without being blacklisted or sued into oblivion.
I guess we won’t ever know for sure, but honestly — it doesn’t make me any less likely to buy a new iPhone in June. My 3G is outdated thanks to OS 4.0 developments, and my dad is eager for the chance to have it. I’m excited for all that 4.0 offers and the possibility of a ceramic multitouch back surface (!!). And damn, if this was a carefully orchestrated Apple agenda all along, they have got to be the most clever marketing team in history, even more so than we all already thought. (Not clever enough to dupe some savvy Internet commenters, though.) I’m kind of a fangirl, I admit, but I also know that this would be a grand scheme that required a lot of creativity, and a lot of planning, to pull off.
Gizmodo, on the other hand — they may have experienced their biggest scoop, possibly ever, but a lot of loyal readers have turned away since yesterday. For now, I’ll keep reading to see what happens, but my perception has changed dramatically.
(They’ve just posted a response to the conspiracy theories, but it doesn’t seem to answer any of the pressing questions anybody has. Giz mentions that reporters have to step carefully in order to stay in Apple’s good graces, so why do the one thing to piss them off forever? The tone of this article is kind of all over the place and at some points even gives more credence to the conspiracy theory. Worst of all, it attempts to shift the blame onto the reader for so naively falling into a corporate trap of sorts. I’m still not buyin’ it.)
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
and is filed under Random.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.