The Distress Signal

Shame On Gizmodo

This is why we can’t have nice stuff. When Engadget originally posted the pics of the allegedly new iPhone HD/4g over the weekend I took it with a big grain of salt. Apple hardware hardly ever leaks. It looked real enough, even though those unsightly seams and that odd volume rocker screamed fake. Ultimately I figured Ihnatko was right and that it was just an knock-off from somewhere in the Far East.

Then, as the story continued to unfold I got more and more intrigued. The same phone seemed to show up in some spy shots taken right before the iPad event; there were older photos that had found their way onto TwitPic back in February; Gruber was talking about an old Apple patent for a ceramic casing that made the new “ice cream sandwich” like design seem more plausible. This was starting to get interesting. Some good old fashioned Apple kremlinology was going on. Good stuff.

Then, as the story continued to unfold I got more and more intrigued. The same phone seemed to show up in some spy shots taken right before the iPad event; there were older photos that had found their way onto TwitPic back in February; Gruber was talking about an old Apple patent for a ceramic casing that made the new “ice cream sandwich” like design seem more plausible. This was starting to get interesting. Some good old fashioned Apple kremlinology was going on. Good stuff.

Step One: Buy Stolen Goods

I’m no lawyer, but apparently in California any person who finds something lost is under obligation to identify the owner if possible and return it. By ignoring that obligation and instead selling the item to a third party you are in essence stealing it. And, here’s the bad part for Gizmodo: By paying for that stolen item they share in the thief’s intent to deprive the rightful owner of their property.

Step Two: Get Douchey

After posting all the gory details of the phone Gizmodo then went on to publicly ridicule the poor engineer who “lost” it. Seriously? Was that necessary? They could have easily written up the story of how they came into possession of the phone without publicly pointing their finger at the guy and plastering around embarrassing photos from his Flickr and Facebook accounts. Identifying him individually adds absolutely nothing to the story.

I’m part of the problem: Now I’ll admit to browsing over to Gizmodo to have a look at the pics and videos they posted of the device. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, I don’t know. One thing I know for sure though is that I felt guilty afterwards. Like a kid that snuck into his parents bedroom to have a peek at his Christmas presents before they were wrapped. Looking back I’d have been happier if the story had ended with Engadget’s spy shots and the rampant speculation taking place on Twitter.

In an effort to make amends I’ll be taking @chockenberry’s advice and editing my local hosts file so I don’t inadvertently give Gizmodo any more traffic than I already have. Too little too late, I know, but at least it’s something.

This whole thing reminds me of the fast one they pulled back in 2006. Back then they made a big stink about having the inside scoop on the, then yet to be released, iPhone. After a long week of making us all wait it turned out to just be a new Cisco product that happend to be called the i-phone. You know how the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, go Fuck yourself.