VIDEO: Jon Stewart Slams Apple over Gizmodo

[Blessedman]

The facts...

1. An Apple employee lost a prototype 4g iPhone in a german pub.
2. A patron of the pub found the "lost" phone
3. The patron tried to return the phone to Apple (ok not a fact)
4. The patron contacted or was contacted by Gizmodo (Mr. Chen)
5. A settlement of $5k dollars was agreed upon for the phone
6. After an extensive write up about the phone Mr. Chen was contact by Apple, which demanded their phone back.
7. Mr. Chen obliged and returned the phone to Apple
8. Apple unsatisfied with getting their phone back that their employee "lost", asked the police to get involved and probe the actions of Mr. Chen.
9. Police raided Mr. Chen's home and seized personal property belonging to Mr. Chen.

Now you are all caught up on the facts of the case, lets get some popcorn and watch the rest of the show! I bet there is a twist coming soon. 😉

 

[reklatsa]

[citation][nom]filmman03[/nom]Well your previous statement:Gives the illusion that you know THE FACTS by discrediting someone who has a comedy talkshow...[/citation]
No, it doesn't. Engage your brain.
[citation][nom]filmman03[/nom]...you don't know the facts either, why comment and say Jon Stewart doesn't have the facts?[/citation]
I was referring to Stewarts' remarks: [citation][nom]Stewart[/nom]"This whole thing is out of control," he said. "Apple, you guys were the rebels man, the underdogs. People believed in you. But now, are you becoming The Man? Remember back in 1984, you had those awesome ads about overthrowing Big Brother? Look in the mirror, man!”[/citation]
He implies that he knows the facts. If Stewart is so intellectually astute he should know Apple were not alluding to anarchic lawlessness in their ads. They were jibing the IBM drones. Those "awesome" ads were heralding the birth a new computing paradigm "The Macintosh", which so many hereabouts scoff at, but there it is on their monitors... It may be called Windows XP/Visa/7, but it essentially all that those ads envisioned: Freedom from the CLI.
[citation][nom]filmman03[/nom]And your comeback remark is asking a THW reader where the facts are?[/citation]No, I asked if he or anyone here knew what the facts pertaining to the case are.
There are many people (including, it would appear, Stewart) who are deciding the entire case for themselves without being cognisant of the facts. That smacks of a lynch-mob posse.
I never equate slap-stick with comedy. It is shallow and plays to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Blessedman]

Oh and by the way Slap-stick comedy is not what he was doing, he was being facetious.

 

[jecastej]

It is nice to see some comedy about it. And I think it would be a great gesture from Apple to drop charges and sure Gizmodo drop any if there is one from them, and not that this will make them very good suddenly and everybody goes to heaven. But then what is going to happen with all that secrecy policy from Apple about new products. Will be ok to get prototypes anyhow (photos, videos, the real thing) and publish them all over the internet? Is this a one time only event? I don't think so, But who really knows...

 

[segio526]

Isn't that Woz pic real? Didn't he really wear that shirt?

I too would like an Appholes shirt!

 

[reklatsa]

[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]Oh and by the way Slap-stick comedy is not what he was doing, he was being facetious.[/citation]

Which is on a par with slap-stick. As I'm (thankfully) not a US citizen, I can't see the video. But I know enough of American humour to realise sublime is rarely on the comedy agenda. Read some Shakespeare if you want comedy.

 

[christophmcchris]

I hope Jobs watches this and feels like a piece of shit!

 

[filmman03]

*facepalm* seriously? LoL
[citation][nom]Reklatsa[/nom]No, it doesn't. Engage your brain.[/citation]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you stated that Jon Stewart doesn't know really what happened. How would you know this? Just by reading/listening to what he says on TV? Haha, and you believe everything you see on TV huh?


[citation][nom]Reklatsa[/nom]I was referring to Stewarts' remarks: He implies that he knows the facts. If Stewart is so intellectually astute he should know Apple were not alluding to anarchic lawlessness in their ads. They were jibing the IBM drones. Those "awesome" ads were heralding the birth a new computing paradigm "The Macintosh", which so many hereabouts scoff at, but there it is on their monitors... It may be called Windows XP/Visa/7, but it essentially all that those ads envisioned: Freedom from the CLI.[/citation]
He isn't implying any new facts about Apple (especially at what is currently going on with the lawsuit). These "Facts" that he stated refer back to the mid 80's and Apple's marketing campaign.

Why would he bring this up?? He is relating it to WHAT IS GOING ON CURRENTLY WITH APPLE. If you are going to criticize Stewart for "misinforming" the audience about the 80's, you should talk to him and his agent rather than bitch about it on a tech forum.

[citation][nom]No, I asked if he or anyone here knew what the facts pertaining to the case are.There are many people (including, it would appear, Stewart) who are deciding the entire case for themselves without being cognisant of the facts. That smacks of a lynch-mob posse.I never equate slap-stick with comedy. It is shallow and plays to the lowest common denominator.[/citation]
Unless you have close ties with Gizmodo or Apple (not reading a website and a bunch of forums) then no one obviously knows the facts 100% in regards to the Gizmodo-Apple issue. No one gives a damn about the 1984 Apple campaign, so lets go back to the actually discussion, yea?

 

[segio526]

Unless this guy had Steve Job's wife tied up in his basement, I can't think of a legal reason for Apple to have the police raid his house.

 

[robcope1965]

Really? You all realize, John Stewart is just a comedian and as a result he doesn't have to be truthful. he can be funny, but I hope we all get our news elsewhere and just enjoy the comedy. He loosely bases his routine on fact, but spins it to suit his needs.

 

[extremepcs]

Punishment for stealing a little of Jobs' thunder. Same reason they punished the publisher (by not supporting their books for it) that spilled the beans on the iPad before the offical launch. Jobs is an egomaniacal jackass. Stewart hit the nail on the head when comparing him to Howard Hughes!

 

[Dirtman73]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]John Stewart is a liberal piece of crap, enough said.[/citation]

Please keep your loser politics away from this site. Unless you want Tom's to turn into another DailyTech, of course.

 

[coldmast]

Apple has totally become elitist, and they have ruined their once 'friendly' underdog image.

 

[kingnoobe]

Lmao robcope. You do realize the only difference between john stewart and other "offical/legit" media is the fact Stewart lets you know he's full of shit. They all "spin" it to fit their needs. In all reality you can probably find more truth in what John Stewart says then most other media.

"There's a lot of truth said in jest"

 

[reklatsa]

[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]The facts...1. An Apple employee lost a prototype 4g iPhone in a german pub.[/citation] Some say he reported it stolen. Some say it was lost/left behind because (a). he was drunk, (b). he was distracted. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]2. A patron of the pub found the "lost" phone.[/citation] See My answer to 1. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]3. The patron tried to return the phone to Apple (ok not a fact). [/citation]You said it. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]4. The patron contacted or was contacted by Gizmodo (Mr. Chen)[/citation] Which is it? [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]5. A settlement of $5k dollars was agreed upon for the phone.[/citation] Gizmodo have made different assertions about what the "payment" represented. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]6. After an extensive write up about the phone Mr. Chen was contact by Apple, which demanded their phone back.[/citation] The item was certainly autopsied and the contents exposed. Written up? Was it legal to do any of this given that it is uncertain as to how the item came into the possession of Mr. Chen? Anyway, it is a blog with as much editorial worth as a comic. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]7. Mr. Chen obliged and returned the phone to Apple.[/citation] It is alleged he made the return conditional. But, again, was his possession of it legal?
[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]8. Apple unsatisfied with getting their phone back that their employee "lost", asked the police to get involved and probe the actions of Mr. Chen.[/citation] See my reply to 1. Cite your evidence for Apple initiating police involvement? Note you put "lost" in parenthesis. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]9. Police raided Mr. Chen's home and seized personal property belonging to Mr. Chen.[/citation] A warrant was issued pursuant to allegations that a crime or crimes may have been committed. By whom, and what they were, if indeed they were, has yet to be disclosed. Moreover, if Chen claims his computer equipment is a tool of his trade for creating "public awareness" in the "public interest" then surely "the public" have a right to know the contents of his computers just as he believed "the public" had a right to learn of Apple's trade secrets and property. He can't argue both ways. That's unbalanced. A journalist has a duty of care. [citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]Now you are all caught up on the facts of the case, lets get some popcorn and watch the rest of the show! I bet there is a twist coming soon.[/citation]
Your "facts" of the case are about as convincing as Genesis.

 

[reklatsa]

[citation][nom]kingnoobe[/nom]"There's a lot of truth said in jest"[/citation]Perhaps, in this instance, it would be more accurate to state "there is a lot of jest said in truth".

 

[Maxor127]

[citation][nom]someguyperson[/nom]Quite surprising considering that the press normally are the first to come to Apple's defense.[/citation]
You do realize the Daily Show is a comedy show and not "the press," don't you?

 

[kingnoobe]

O but as far as the phone calls that could easily be traced. It's really not to hard to see if somebody called that a certain number from his/her phone.

IMO there really is no "good/bad" people in this story. Just idiots. And in order from greatest to least. Apple could've easily have prevented a bad situation from getting a whole lot worse so easily, yet they completely screwed the pooch their advisers should be shit canned also > guy who took prototype to a bar, takes a real special person who wouldn't at the very least go straight home, and secure something of such nature > cops, seriously a raid.. Way to be consistent this is the type of shit that gives people ammo to bad mouth cops and for good reason. > Gizmodo, hes lesser because I'm sure he did see this coming, maybe not the raid. But in all fairness I can see that. And who knows if he wins, then it totally takes him off the list.

As far as the guy who sold him the phone. I can't call him an idiot, and if he did contact apple which the phone records can show or at least give him more creditability. Then simply good job, 5,000$ for something you found. I would've did it to.

 

[reklatsa]

Contrite Fourth generation iPhone prototype's finder, keeper revealed to be Brian J. Hogan, a 21-year-old resident of Redwood City, California.

His attorney, Jeffrey Bornstein, claims “He made a mistake,” Bornstein added. “He should have just immediately turned that phone in.”

Got that Blessedman?

Read More at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...ired/politics+(Wired:+Politics)#ixzz0mY2SrskV

Wired on Chen's journalistic credentials: "In those earlier reports, Zetter delivered an unflattering portrayal of the iPhone's security credentials based on faulty reasoning and questionable sources, while Chen based his report on the iPhone's supposed failure in Japan upon invented sources who later insisted they never made the comments Chen attributed to them. "

 

[Moshu78]

I think there's an easy explanation for Apple's raid. They wanted to make sure the guy did not have additional pictures/info about the hardware in the iPhone. You know... things that weren't published.
When I read the article with iPhone 4G I wondered why didn't he tear the phone up a bit more, made pics with individual components like the processor, batteries etc.
Maybe he did but were not published in that article in order not to "push the luck" by exposing all Apple secrets behind the 4G. So they waited for an initial Apple reaction 1st.
It is my belief he had additional info/photos and that's what Apple was after.