Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Consumers To Apple: Fuck You

1235729

Posts

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Partial liver transplants are one of the more gruelling operations one can have. It is not right - at all - that we would force the poor into effectively having to sell and damage their bodies just to get by. It would also be much more expensive for us in the long run in terms of follow up care required and the such.

    And the US isn't even fucking interested in paying for people to get preventative care.

    electricitylikesme on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?
    PR. Whereas the non-controversy about scalping in this thread is the best PR they could possibly imagine. Seriously, anyone with substantial amounts of Apple stock should pop a stiffy when they see a thread like this.

    that's not really true.

    there IS such a thing as bad exposure

    Evander on
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And yet the companies do not sell the older stuff at a loss for a good long while even as the prices drop. They lower prices as supply ramps up and as they need to clear stock at higher volume to maintain profits. It's the same thing.

    RAM very much demonstrates this - if I recall correctly DDR2 is starting to get more expensive now as supplies dry up because the volume is falling off as people move to DDR3. RDRAM was very notable for this.

    The other part is that prices were being held artificially low because the DRAM makers all got convicted of price-fixing and other anti-competitive behaviors. As a response to this, they all (or at least the Taiwanese ones) flooded the market with a glut of DDR2 and DDR3 chips to try to drive some of the other companies out of business.

    a5ehren on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    They'd rather keep everyone excited. It's free marketing. Also if you have a 600 dollar ipad and they are selling on eBay for 1500, you get to feel like you have a 1500 dollar toy for awhile (until the eBay price comes down).

    If I were apple, i'd sell them for 600 dollars in stores and with my left-hand sell them for 1500 on eBay under different, unbranded, account names. Then I'd publicly deride the "eBay scalpers" that I secretly endorse to appear as a hero to the consumers.

    Mwahahaha

    Ticketmaster / TicketsNow are pretty much doing exactly that, right now.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?


    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    I don't think anybody who sells shit at bricks and mortar uses trending prices.


    I can actually only think of two quasi-examples: One is Intel SSDs on newegg. Intel sells their SSDs for rape$ because the "demand" is so high, but thats mostly because they also aren't producing them in high volumes at the moment either. And Two, the other market you see this happen is in exotic cars, but thats only because when brand new models of supercars are hitting the market the dealers are marking them up like hell, basically acting like scalpers. 3 years ago, if you wanted an Audi R8 you'd be placed on a 2 year waiting list and would have to pay about 60,000-80,000$USD over MSRP for the privilege. Now? If you want one you can have it easily for about 114k$USD in a matter of months.

    1. Sony stated specifically their PSPGo was priced so high to get the olol cutting edge demand while everyone else griped about them pricing something inferior at a higher price.

    2. There's a bus company here that does that that goes between SF and LA. First seat is $1. Then the prices get higher and higher until it's sold out.

    3. I'd say auctions fit as well.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?

    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    Video games drop in price the longer they are out. They start at a given price point, and drop at a speed relative to their popularity. Granted the don't suffer from quite the same constraints as those that face Apple, but the idea that no one discriminates in pricing over time is wrong.

    Games drop in price as the demand drops.

    What people would be suggesting is for games to raise their price higher than the starting price when the demand is simply too high to satisfy.

    Why do you assume that the "starting price" is the only price? If they can be sold profitably at lower prices, doesn't it imply the starting price is in fact low, and raised artificially?

    no.

    Wow. You totally convinced me there! There's no possible flaws in this cunning rebuttal.

    There's only an "artificial" price to the extent you consider a non-market-clearing price as not the "proper" price. For a given price, you're going to see a given demand. Certainly there's an ideal price given a company's preferred strategy, but it's not like every piece of merch is assigned a magical price from on high that must be adhered to against risk of angering the Capitalism God.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?
    PR. Whereas the non-controversy about scalping in this thread is the best PR they could possibly imagine. Seriously, anyone with substantial amounts of Apple stock should pop a stiffy when they see a thread like this.

    that's not really true.

    there IS such a thing as bad exposure

    Of course there is such a thing, but $1500 iPads on ebay isn't bad exposure, is the point. It's the opposite of bad exposure. $1500 iPads in the Apple Store would be bad exposure, but I could see how they could sell a new and exciting pricing scheme wherein it progressively decreases during release month, or whatever. In any case it would be a net PR loss to make such a decision, since they are presently reaping the benefits of their current policy right here in this thread.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Dracil wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    You know I can't help but sit here reading this thinking "surely Apple should simply roll out it's products with a trending price as more units become available".

    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?

    Tell me, what fucking company have you ever seen deliberately doing this, and why should Apple start the trend now?


    Do you see game consoles rolling out at ridiculously high prices on launch days because "olol too much demand"? Or any other mobile phones or tablets?

    I don't think anybody who sells shit at bricks and mortar uses trending prices.


    I can actually only think of two quasi-examples: One is Intel SSDs on newegg. Intel sells their SSDs for rape$ because the "demand" is so high, but thats mostly because they also aren't producing them in high volumes at the moment either. And Two, the other market you see this happen is in exotic cars, but thats only because when brand new models of supercars are hitting the market the dealers are marking them up like hell, basically acting like scalpers. 3 years ago, if you wanted an Audi R8 you'd be placed on a 2 year waiting list and would have to pay about 60,000-80,000$USD over MSRP for the privilege. Now? If you want one you can have it easily for about 114k$USD in a matter of months.

    1. Sony stated specifically their PSPGo was priced so high to get the olol cutting edge demand while everyone else griped about them pricing something inferior at a higher price.

    2. There's a bus company here that does that that goes between SF and LA. First seat is $1. Then the prices get higher and higher until it's sold out.

    3. I'd say auctions fit as well.

    If companies use trending prices, it's because either that's established precedent in their market, or they think that the short-term gains in revenue make up for the mid-term losses in PR. Sony, eg, doesn't use trending prices for their PSs because nobody does that with consoles and it would piss off consumers. If Intel or AMD can get away with it for their processors, it's because everyone expects prices to plummet on a weekly basis, and they pay a premium for bragging rights, or whatever.

    Basically, defy market norms at your peril.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    By artificial I meant "price the company can sell the product and make a profit".

    gearn seems to be taking the line that there's no possible way the price of something could be lower when its released and the company make a profit, or higher when its released and the company make a profit. You are of course correct - they simply have to pick their demand point.

    EDIT: Also ElJeffe, don't console makers fairly regularly release at one point and then 6 months later announce a price drop on the console? I'd say they do use trending prices (although of course they start selling at a loss and usually deepen it).

    electricitylikesme on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    By artificial I meant "price the company can sell the product and make a profit".

    gearn seems to be taking the line that there's no possible way the price of something could be lower when its released and the company make a profit, or higher when its released and the company make a profit. You are of course correct - they simply have to pick their demand point.

    Ah, right.

    And, of course, when you're talking hardware, there's always the option of selling way under cost and recouping on software or service plans or whatnot. (Which is pretty much a necessity in the gaming world unless you are Nintendo.)

    edit: To answer your edit, yes, to a point. But the price drops are usually few and far between. The first usually takes place after a couple of years, and are typically driven more by lowering production costs than by trying to seriously game the demand curve. It also gets complicated because recently you've seen multiple SKUs and console makers choosing to simply eliminate lower-tier SKUs rather than offering serious price reductions. A 360 will still cost you $300, but now you get a bigger HD and HDMI compatibility and sometimes a pack-in game instead of no HD and a shitty wired controller.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • WazzaWazza Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    If people pay huge mark ups to get an iPad early, then really, how much could this possibly hurt them?
    PR. Whereas the non-controversy about scalping in this thread is the best PR they could possibly imagine. Seriously, anyone with substantial amounts of Apple stock should pop a stiffy when they see a thread like this.

    that's not really true.

    there IS such a thing as bad exposure

    This seems to be getting mixed reactions.
    SEATTLE (AP) -- Authorities seized computers, digital cameras, a cell phone and other items from a technology blog editor who posted pictures and details of a lost iPhone prototype.

    A computer-crime task force made up of multiple law enforcement agencies searched Gizmodo editor and blogger Jason Chen's house and car in Fremont, Calif., on Friday, according to a statement and search warrant documents provided by Gizmodo.

    The warrant, issued by a Superior Court judge in San Mateo County, said the computers and other devices may have been used to commit a felony. Steve Wagstaffe, spokesman for the San Mateo County District Attorney's office, confirmed the warrant's authenticity.

    Members of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team took several computers, hard drives, digital cameras, cell phones and other gadgets, plus Chen's American Express bill and copies of his checks.

    Last week Gizmodo had one of the Web's hottest scoops when it posted photos of an Apple device that appeared to be a next-generation iPhone. It had been found in a bar in Redwood City, which is in San Mateo County, and sold for $5,000 by an unknown person to Gizmodo, a gadget blog owned by Gawker Media Inc.

    After Chen, 29, posted photos and details about the phone, Apple acknowledged the device belonged to the company, and Gizmodo returned it.

    Gawker Media said California law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement during a search, should apply to Chen's property.

    "Are bloggers journalists? I guess we'll find out," Nick Denton, who runs Gawker Media, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

    Wagstaffe said the district attorney's office is examining that issue.

    Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment.

    Wazza on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    How is posting pictures/purchasing a stolen item a felony?

    Sam on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Are you seriously asking how knowingly purchasing stolen goods could be a felony?

    Quid on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yes.

    It could be a misdemeanor. An iPhone is worth what, 500 retail?

    Sam on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/TheftCases.html

    Grand theft is $400 or more.

    And let's not pretend that an unreleased secret version of corporate tech is of the same value as released tech anyway.

    Quid on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/TheftCases.html

    Grand theft is $400 or more.

    And let's not pretend that an unreleased secret version of corporate tech is of the same value as released tech anyway.

    yeah, we've likely got some kind of trade secrets issue going on here.

    It likely doesn't help matters that Gizmodo A) Paid $5000 for the device and B) Tore the thing apart to look at it's techno-innards

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    in any case, FUCK Apple, hard for this.

    Seriously. Fuck them.

    Sam on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    For... filing charges against people who knowingly bought stolen goods and exposed trade secrets?

    Quid on
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This shit happens all the time though. Stuff leaks. The 3GS leaked and we had pics of it last year before it came out.

    Gizmodo generates a lot of Apple hype, including in this circumstance. They returned the phone to Apple after Apple confirmed it was theirs, instead of doing things with it that could've really hurt Apple like auctioning it off.

    Gizmodo is a good blog, and this kind of stuff always happens, and will always happen.

    So fuck Apple for this.

    Sam on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Yea.. i'm not seeing how filing a charge against the people who put pictures of your stolen top secret prototype all over the internet is an evil thing.

    If you don't think they aren't going to make an example out of Gizmodo so no one ever even thinks about doing something like this again then you are one fucking silly goose.

    If Gizmodo really gave a shit about Apple's secret they would have asked them if the device was theirs BEFORE putting pictures up all over the internet. But no, everybody is desperate for a story. And now, they got one. Imagine if this becomes the end of Gizmodo.

    gearn on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Sam wrote: »
    This shit happens all the time though. Stuff leaks. The 3GS leaked and we had pics of it last year before it came out.

    Gizmodo generates a lot of Apple hype, including in this circumstance. They returned the phone to Apple after Apple confirmed it was theirs, instead of doing things with it that could've really hurt Apple like auctioning it off.

    Gizmodo is a good blog, and this kind of stuff always happens, and will always happen.

    So fuck Apple for this.

    I doubt Apple wants them to generate hype for them by stealing their tech.

    Quid on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    It's laughable to think Apple even needs Gizmodo to generate hype.

    gearn on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    If you don't think they aren't going to make an example out of Gizmodo so no one ever even thinks about doing something like this again then you are one fucking silly goose.

    And THAT is the part that is evil.

    Trade secrets are Apple's responsibility to keep confidential, not the public's. Journalists report things.

    Apple are basically trying to intimidate journalists in to only reporting what Apple wants them to report. That is what Apple's marketing department exists fore, not independent journalists.

    Gizmodo returned the device when Apple asked for it. That was the extent of their legal responsibility.

    Evander on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Journalists don't get to buy stolen goods to report things.

    Quid on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/TheftCases.html

    Grand theft is $400 or more.

    And let's not pretend that an unreleased secret version of corporate tech is of the same value as released tech anyway.

    yeah, we've likely got some kind of trade secrets issue going on here.

    It likely doesn't help matters that Gizmodo A) Paid $5000 for the device and B) Tore the thing apart to look at it's techno-innards

    As long as Gizmodo didn't try to charge Apple for returning the device, the price they paid is irrelevant. Any statute I've ever seen involving purchasing of stolen property doesn't have any penalties attatched if you return the property to the owner when they step forward to claim it (and Gizmodo definitely can't be accused of trying to hide their possession of the device.)

    Opening the thing up could indeed be and issue, but that would have to do with vandalism or destruction of property. It would have nothing to do with theft.

    Evander on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    gearn on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Journalists don't get to buy stolen goods to report things.

    buying stolen goods one time (and returning them to the owner when they come forward) doesn't justify a raid of the magnitude that occured.

    Really, people buy and sell "found" items all of the time. It is the height of goosery to pretend that the cops do this in every single instance, and that this isn't special treatment for Apple.

    Evander on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    buying stolen goods one time (and returning them to the owner when they come forward) doesn't justify a raid of the magnitude that occured.

    Really, people buy and sell "found" items all of the time. It is the height of goosery to pretend that the cops do this in every single instance, and that this isn't special treatment for Apple.

    So the cops were dicks and it was Apple's fault.

    Just... don't bother. Spout your crazy at someone else.

    Quid on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    apple is not evil for defending their trade secrets. Apple is evil for attempting to intimidate the media in to being silent.

    Apple fucked up by giving the device to a guy who couldn't keep track of it. They should be responding by tightening their policies, not by lashing out at Gizmodo. Gizmodo's job is to disseminate whatever information they get their hands on.

    Evander on
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010
    This goes back to that legal-ethical dichotomy. Apple has the legal right to try and nail Gizmodo to the wall as hard as they can. I do not think it is morally right for them to do so.
    I don't think that what Gizmodo did was legal, but since they bought the product from the actual thief and returned it as soon as Apple came forward, it's kind of murky. It does seem unethical to reveal trade secrets and possibly give other companies the opportunity to steal Apple's work. Other than that, I generally condone a reporter reporting what's what.

    Edit: Also, agreed with Evander re: Apple is not evil for defending trade secrets, but trying to intimidate the media into silence is evil.
    Still, I don't know whether I can condemn Apple's actions when the point is to do both, particularly the former.

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    Like someone said, it's not Gizmodo's job to protect Apple's secrets. Was this shady? Yeah. Was Giz wrong for doing it? I don't think so. I hope it was worth never getting an Apple product for review ever again, though.

    a5ehren on
  • WazzaWazza Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This goes back to that legal-ethical dichotomy. Apple has the legal right to try and nail Gizmodo to the wall as hard as they can. I do not think it is morally right for them to do so.
    I don't think that what Gizmodo did was legal, but since they bought the product from the actual thief and returned it as soon as Apple came forward, it's kind of murky. It does seem unethical to reveal trade secrets and possibly give other companies the opportunity to steal Apple's work. Other than that, I generally condone a reporter reporting what's what.

    I had also read somewhere that either Gizmodo or the person who "found" the phone tried contacting Apple prior to the article being published, and hearing nothing in return. I will have to track that down, though.

    Wazza on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    a5ehren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    Like someone said, it's not Gizmodo's job to protect Apple's secrets. Was this shady? Yeah. Was Giz wrong for doing it? I don't think so. I hope it was worth never getting an Apple product for review ever again, though.

    You don't think it's wrong to knowingly buy stolen goods?

    Quid on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It does seem unethical to reveal trade secrets and possibly give other companies the opportunity to steal Apple's work.

    You are kidding yourself if you don't think that Apple and everyone else are all playing games behind the scenes, trying to get their hands on each other's trade secrets. Corporate espionage is a fun little game. Apple lost this particular round, but it is absolutely a game that they are well versed in playing. They are losers, not victims.

    Evander on
  • WazzaWazza Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    Like someone said, it's not Gizmodo's job to protect Apple's secrets. Was this shady? Yeah. Was Giz wrong for doing it? I don't think so. I hope it was worth never getting an Apple product for review ever again, though.

    You don't think it's wrong to knowingly buy stolen goods?

    Was it confirmed as stolen? I didn't see that (not being facetious). This is probably more force than is necessary to handle a situation such as this, considering Gizmodo returned the phone right away. On the whole, I would imagine this type of publicity could be seen as negative.

    Wazza on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wazza wrote: »
    This goes back to that legal-ethical dichotomy. Apple has the legal right to try and nail Gizmodo to the wall as hard as they can. I do not think it is morally right for them to do so.
    I don't think that what Gizmodo did was legal, but since they bought the product from the actual thief and returned it as soon as Apple came forward, it's kind of murky. It does seem unethical to reveal trade secrets and possibly give other companies the opportunity to steal Apple's work. Other than that, I generally condone a reporter reporting what's what.

    I had also read somewhere that either Gizmodo or the person who "found" the phone tried contacting Apple prior to the article being published, and hearing nothing in return. I will have to track that down, though.

    The guy who found it claimed to have put in a call to Apple, but Apple wouldn't connect him directly to anyone, just said that some one would call him back, and they never did.

    Evander on
  • CokebotleCokebotle 穴掘りの Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote:
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    I think it's because Gizmodo didn't steal the phone, and they returned it promptly when asked, even going so far as to try to return it to Apple, but they couldn't talk to the right people when they had it.

    Arguing about posting pics of the phone online is a different issue, I'd think, since it's not like the new iPhone tech is going to be a huge secret when it's released this summer, since that's exactly what other websites will do, plus open up the chips more than Gizmodo did to actually see those parts. *shrug*

    Buying the phone itself was a crime. They knew it didn't belong to the guy. They knew they had no right to it. You don't get steal stuff and only give it back when asked.

    Ok, Gizmodo bought it, yes. But they also tried a few times to return it to Apple before they were asked to. They just couldn't find the right people to talk to, so they were left with it until Apple demanded it back, which they fully complied with.

    Was it right for them to buy it? Eh... shady business there. But they DID try to return it fully in good faith before Apple got their panties in a twist.

    Cokebotle on
    工事中
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wazza wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    Like someone said, it's not Gizmodo's job to protect Apple's secrets. Was this shady? Yeah. Was Giz wrong for doing it? I don't think so. I hope it was worth never getting an Apple product for review ever again, though.

    You don't think it's wrong to knowingly buy stolen goods?

    Was it confirmed as stolen? I didn't see that (not being facetious). This is probably more force than is necessary to handle a situation such as this, considering Gizmodo returned the phone right away. On the whole, I would imagine this type of publicity could be seen as negative.

    It was not stolen, it was found.

    Legally, it might as well be stolen goods, but there are absolutely ethical differences.

    Evander on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wazza wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    If Apple is evil for defending their trade secrets, is Gizmodo evil as fuck for exposing them?

    Like someone said, it's not Gizmodo's job to protect Apple's secrets. Was this shady? Yeah. Was Giz wrong for doing it? I don't think so. I hope it was worth never getting an Apple product for review ever again, though.

    You don't think it's wrong to knowingly buy stolen goods?

    Was it confirmed as stolen? I didn't see that (not being facetious). This is probably more force than is necessary to handle a situation such as this, considering Gizmodo returned the phone right away. On the whole, I would imagine this type of publicity could be seen as negative.

    A guy found it in a bar and sold it to them. They knew it wasn't his.
    Cokebotle wrote: »
    Was it right for them to buy it? Eh... shady business there. But they DID try to return it fully in good faith before Apple got their panties in a twist.
    They shouldn't have bought it in the first place. That was illegal. It's not murky territory, it's pretty black and white.

    And if they had trouble finding the right person I'm pretty sure an e-mail with a picture would have done the trick. Or, you know, not have bought it.

    Quid on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    By California law it was stolen. If the guy couldn't get ahold of Apple as he claims, he should have left it at the bar where he found it with the manager/bartender.

    KalTorak on
Sign In or Register to comment.