What is Digg?176 Comments
- vtnerd, on 12/30/2008, -12/+105Just to play devil's advocate:
If Apple is being dishonest about their reasons for pulling out, they're going to keep being dishonest about their reasons for pulling out.
Asking Apple if there's truth to the rumor is like asking Bush if his presidency is a failure. The answer is known even before the question is asked.
Is he sick? Hell if I know, but an official response from Apple doesn't necessarily mean anything or hold any more water than what Gizmodo is saying. - captainbethany, on 12/30/2008, -8/+75I disagree. Anyone's health information is private, protected information, regardless of whether he's the CEO of Apple Computer, Inc. or not. It should not be public information, regardless of how the stock would react.
- matthewharding, on 12/30/2008, -4/+47Didn't Gizmodo file this under rumors?
- phrozted, on 12/30/2008, -10/+47There are no penalties for not revealing Steve's health. You are wrong, and so is that retarded quote. That's now how it works.
- captainbethany, on 12/30/2008, -1/+30Not revealing Jobs' physical condition has effects on Apple's stock by default, certainly; however, I don't see how not making his condition public is any sort of punishable crime. Health information is completely private. Period. What with all these rumors (almost daily), you would think that people WANT him to get sick.
- msaleem, on 12/30/2008, -27/+53I dunno why people have such a hard time understanding this. If there was a serious issue, Apple would have to tell us or the consequences (penalties) would be much worse than the consequences of telling people that Jobs is sick (less confidence in the company).
FTA: "...if Apple is lying, holding some truth back, manipulating its own stock by manipulating the truth, someone — indeed a lot of people — could be going to jail." - cadmiumpaint, on 12/30/2008, -1/+22This kind of stuff borders on slander. The only reason why anyone thinks Steve Jobs has any health issues is because of baseless rumors being consistently reported as facts.The media, in this case Gizmodo is complicit in trying to manipulate apple stock downwards.
Just because you need to have new feeds in your RSS doesn't mean you can pull ***** out of your ass and call it factual news.
The internet and 24/7 cable news has destroyed journalism.
It giveth: instant access to information, free sharing of content etc etc
it taketh away: credibility, accurate reporting, factual data
every possible rumor must be instantly reported as fact instead of being checked and verified as being true. Its pathetic and i only see it getting worse. - FredFredrickson, on 12/30/2008, -0/+15He has a grimace on his face because he is constantly thinking about how ***** websites like Gizmodo can still make it by peddling trash.
- mrsteve007, on 12/30/2008, -1/+16Apple hid Steve's cancer last time, why not now?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elk ... - mrfreeziexp, on 12/30/2008, -5/+19I'm believing Gizmodo on this one. I mean, why else would Steve not be going to the final Mac World if it weren't something as serious as his failing health? On top of that, last time we saw Steve it looked like he had lost 50 pounds.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/30/2008, -2/+16It doesn't hurt their credibility at all - they never had any to begin with.
- jkirk7msa, on 12/30/2008, -0/+13Gizmodo staff could make a fortune by shorting AAPL stock timed with the publication of their articles.
- dmm219, on 12/30/2008, -2/+15Steve IS sick. He has pancreatic cancer. Research it. He was not "cured". There is no cure. Cure means living 5 years after diagnosis. Cancer always comes back in the end. Its just a matter of when.
- chongli, on 12/31/2008, -1/+12SSAG: Not true. There is no requirement for reporting of the personal health of any employee. However, directly lying about a known health problem is another matter.
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -2/+13Same douchebag that turned off TV's at CES last year.
- waxcrash, on 12/30/2008, -2/+12Jesus Diaz, the Gizmodo editor who posted the rumor needs to be beat with a rubber hose. What a douche for posting such garbage. I wonder if there are any legal repercussions for posting such drivel?
- eternal, on 12/30/2008, -1/+11Wow, this is crazy stupid. In order for Jobs and Apple to keep everyone happy they would have to come out with daily reports on Steve's health.
- GalOnDigg, on 12/30/2008, -2/+11Well Gizmodo did say it was a rumor... which some might already consider garbage.
- genericwhiteguy, on 12/30/2008, -1/+10Jesus Diaz hates anyone disagreeing with him. His articles are often full of inaccuracies and he has a habit of proclaiming items are true because he said so.
Anyone remember last spring when he claimed that the new iPhone would be released on June 9th? Originally he said that this was "confirmed by his source" and nobody else should even discuss it anymore because he is the last word. When questioned he would either ban the user or reply "A date is a date. And these dates are confirmed by people working on the launch. End of the story."
After Apple officially set a release date of July 11, he changed the article to make it seem like he was correct, but the date was changed at the last minute.
I like the items that Diaz finds and some of his images are funny, but he's kind of a Douchebag. If you dare mention that something is inaccurate or have a different opinion he freaks out. Kinda insecure if you ask me. - QuackAttack818, on 12/30/2008, -9/+17Is this even news? Seriously, who gives a *****?
- isunktheship, on 12/30/2008, -2/+10let be fair, gizmodo is more like a blackberry's OS, entirely useless.
- tolbs, on 12/30/2008, -2/+10Another instance of blogs jumping the gun..... It really hurts Gizmodo's credibility when they post stories like this.
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -1/+8Oh a reporter was told he's okay by an anonymous source at Apple, well there you have it.
If I'm not mistaken, weren't Apple employees the last to know last time he was sick? - GeorgeCostanza, on 12/31/2008, -0/+7The 700+ people who dugg this, apparently.
- mrBitch, on 12/31/2008, -0/+7@msaleem RE: "... analyst Gene Munster. "As such, we believe that Apple's board has a responsibility to disclose.."
Analysts and what they "believe" do NOT dictate what the board of Apple or Apple's CEO should do.
You do understand this, don't you? - TeamoSupremo, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6What is up with this Death Watch?
- AndrewDB, on 12/30/2008, -2/+8Gizmodo publishing garbage articles?!
Say it ain't so?! I am honestly shocked and amazed. - kanundro, on 12/31/2008, -3/+9Can somebody please shut Gizmodo down? Seriously i don't read their stuff much but this blog has destroyed credibility for itself as well as many blogs in general and perhaps future start up blogs.
First that fiasco with the TV-B-Gone remote shutting down all the TVs and messing with people's presentations. Then this with the Steve Jobs health rumors which may not entirely be their fault but a contributing factor nonetheless for messing with the stock market today.
I'm not a Apple fan boy (at least not anymore) but i really think someone should drop the hammer on gizmodo.
I'm fed up with Gizmodo, even the name annoys me. - Zippo, on 12/30/2008, -3/+9LEAVE STEVE ALONE!
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -1/+7I don't use Apple stuff, I love PC, but I'm glad there is a market with competition. Would hate to see Jobs go.
- dechah, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6You must be very unhealthy then :-) I suggest Metamucil
- phallpdx, on 12/31/2008, -0/+6good call. It is not illegal for them to withhold personal information about their CEO -- such as his health. Jobs could be dying and it would not be illegal for them to keep this information private.
- mjpr, on 12/31/2008, -2/+8Kevin Rose sold all his AAPL today. seriously, dumb move
- FredFredrickson, on 12/30/2008, -2/+8Gizmodo is nothing but garbage, so I don't even see why anyone should give them the honor of debunking their bogus "news" posts anyway.
- StuartGibson, on 06/14/2009, -2/+8Nope, regardless of his position his private health is a private matter. If he's ill and that affects the stock price that is part of the deal in holding Apple stock. If you're not willing to take that risk then don't buy in the first place. It doesn't change the fact that his health is of no business to the stockholders.
- unmarked, on 12/30/2008, -2/+7The point of the CNBC article is that if they are deliberately lying about Steve's health, there are legal ramifications. It's not just dishonesty, it's a potential stock manipulation and/or fraud charges that the board would like face.
As to who I'm going to believe more, CNBC or Gizmodo -- I'm going with CNBC right now. They are not in the habit of spreading rumors, where Gizmodo seems to be a bit less concerned with verifying facts. - pinchduck, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5I think the rumors of his ill health are anticipated by anyone who looks at his walking skeleton visage and think "that dude looks ill". That is why they catch fire so quickly. Those are compounded by his brush with pancreatic cancer, which is a serious bitch and almost always lethal. The final piece of kindling is the fact that the last time he left Apple, the company became moribund and staid. I'm not saying that these rumors have any credence at this time, but at some point in the future, he will die. If he is still running Apple at that point, their stock will tank. Everything else is just a prelude, like a kid's sparkler before a fireworks show.
- BrendanSheehan, on 12/30/2008, -2/+7Gizmodo got tired playing with remotes, so they are now playing with the web. This time they thread in dangerous waters though. Legally speaking this could be very serious if they are found to be purposefully lying.
- gianpo, on 12/30/2008, -1/+6@Nauree Have you ever used an apple computer in the real world not just a quick test run I doubt it because if you had you would know what you just said is *****.
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -1/+6zombie!!
- Leonffs, on 11/20/2009, -1/+6Picture in the article is enough to make me think he's falling apart. He looks like a holocaust victim with a black shirt on.
- unmarked, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5@ostrym I spent 10 years writing software on Windows and it sucks in a major way. It sucks to develop for it, it sucks to use it. Windows is constantly running interference with the task you want to do. And Vista is the worst of the Windows family.
For me, Mac gives me all the power I want (UNIX) but has a consistent and reasonable behavior. What you call dumbed down is probably just Mac OS X doing what seems obvious because it was developed to be intuitive.
From the development standpoint, Windows is a nightmare. Their structure is so global based (read registry), that it makes for an extremely fragile system. Sure, they've got all kinds of things to work around the problem -- but the fundamental problems remain. - Dymphna, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5"Steve sneezed today, might be coming down with a cold" *stock drops 5 points*
"Steve went for a jog* "Stock raised 2 points*
"Steve slept in today* "Stock dropped 3 points*
"Steve got accepted to the Olympic team today" *stock raises 20 points*
I mean, do you really think anyone wants something that volatile? - suprchunk, on 12/30/2008, -4/+9Can we finally start burying anything from Gizmodo? That site is such garbage, and does nothing but get horribly written articles ('borrowed' from other sources at that) spammed to digg constantly.
- theOster, on 12/30/2008, -1/+5incontheevable!
- milkmage, on 12/30/2008, -1/+5was he sick when Apple pulled out of MWNY?
was he sick when Apple pulled out of MW Paris?
did Jobs regularly keynote at either of those trade shows?
so MWSF is next. big deal.
hell, Adobe isn't even going to be at MWSF (significantly reduced presence) - zigunerweisen, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4You can't possibly believe that there are 32000 people in the world that can accomplish what Steve Jobs did. I can maybe name a handful of others on the same caliber. I am actually an Apple hater, but I can't deny the fact that Steve Jobs is an exceptional individual.
- Rudegar, on 12/30/2008, -2/+6unless they would think you would think they would lie
and tell the truth to put you off
or unless they would suspect you expected a double bluff and pulled off
a triple bluff :O - pinchduck, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4History doesn't bear that out, though. Apple had a dry run without Jobs before. It almost ruined the company.
- unmarked, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4Yeah, this gets on the ridiculous side. The rumor sites won't be happy with anything less than daily proof that he hasn't died yet. I mean come on.
I think Apple is trying to reposition itself to be much less dependent on Steve's input. Fact is, Steve probably doesn't play as critical a role as some report -- Apple is just to big for that to be a reality. He may have a pet project or two, but that's not the entire company. I mean, there are a lot of groups. I'm guessing that many of these are separate: iTunes Music Store, iPod, iPod touch, iPhone, Touch/iPhone SDK, Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook/Pro, AppleTV, Mac OS X, Apple Retail Stores. Do you really think that Steve Jobs is driving every single one of the projects in all of these groups? Really? -
Show 51 - 100 of 191 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is