What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
30 Comments
- notorious., on 10/11/2007, -2/+11@pathy:
Well, the "fake" email did say "Apple issued a press release today announcing that..." Would it have been so hard to wait until this press release was released to the public? They could've easily called Apple PR and asked if this, or the supposed press release was in fact legitimate.
While all blame shouldn't necessarily go on Engadget, they could've done more to verify that this was legit. I know people who actually received the Bullet*News email, and they say that just checking the email headers would've been enough. Hell, just by looking at the first email on Engadget, if it's posted verbatim, I can see at least one error that wouldn't be there if it was actually sent by Apple. - notorious., on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@bobcrotch:
I have to disagree. Engadget is not blameless in this. To be blameless, all Engadget had to do was say "We received an email from a source saying x, y, and z. However, the email refers to a press release that Apple has not released to the public yet, and our calls to Apple PR have not been answered. While we trust our source, we have not been able to confirm this story. When we can, we will let you know." This way, they still break the story first, taking all the journalism glory if the story ends up being true, and being able to play the "We didn't say it was true!" card if it's not.
Instead, Engadget decided to just say "We have it on authority that this is true" when in fact, it wasn't. They proclaimed the story as 100% true when in fact, it wasn't. Because of their declaration, other news sources picked it up, ran with it as being true, and AAPL stock plummeted. Just because they issued an apology, or told their side of the story, does not mean they were not at fault, one way or another. - longofest, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13At first I was pissed at Engadget for posting yet another bogus rumor, and now I'm even more pissed that I can't be pissed at them :-/
That kind of email would have fooled any rumor site I think, as it looked pretty authentic. I hope Apple nails the guy who started it. - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8If they were trying to keep it the (fake) delays a secret, why would they send an email to the entire company about it?
- 10001110101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Who shorted them that day? There's your culprit.
- Hardcase, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4If you think that Engadget is blameless because any other news site would have run the story, then how come no other news site did? The only references to the story that I saw referred to Engadget. Was Engadget the only news blog that received a copy of the email? That seems like a stretch.
The company that I work for sends out confidential emails now and then and it's usually only a matter of an hour or so before they hit the news...and we have neither fanboys nor RDFs. I'd lay pretty good odds that Engadget wasn't the only outfit to get a copy of that email. - heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10I am still pissed at Engadget. You don't run an e-mail like that without verifying it.
- dweeb79, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/regarding-yesterdays-apple-news/
This is Engadget's offical reason - bobcrotch, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Put your self in engadegt's shoes for a minute here.
You receive an internal memo from Apple stating breaking news regarding an unreleased incredibly hyped product. You attempt to contact the PR group responsible for the product and cannot reach them. Instead of letting another competing tech news site or company rumor site in this case break the news you jump on it.
Engadet is still in my opinion not in the wrong at all. They were doing what they do, break tech news before anyone else. - surfing, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Jobs did it
- Palaceguard, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics
- dweeb79, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7@heaintheavy
Any news organization would have run the story. It was a valid e-mail sent to internal users and it was validated as being legit. This is not Engagets fault; this is a fault within the Apple organization. If this was Engagets fault an investigation would have already been launched and heads would have started to roll within hours.
@pathy
They actually did attempt to call Apple, but the reps did not pick up their phones. Guess their new Iphones weren't getting service :) - jgreene777, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2do you always have a hard time keeping up with a conversation?
- esquilax, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2actually, it's my hunch the email was sent by a hedge fund operator to suppress the stock prices for a bit. if so, there's a chance it actually made someone rich.
- fermi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Engadget is NOT blameless. Look, Ryan Block is f**king Veronica Belmont. Would YOU be a responsible journalist if you had that little thing on your mind all day?
- Wilddigi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"The whole thing was a ploy by apple to find leakers within the company."
Okay, but why engadget and no other blogs? Why not macrumors or thinksecret? Why was engadget the only ones printing this email? - rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I would be hesitant to purchase the first versions of either the iPhone or Leopard lest the discredited email be true and the products are rushed before ready.
- jgreene777, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3the fake email was sent out in order to track leaks. engadget said it wasn't sent out to the WHOLE company. most likely, it was sent out to suspect employees in order to root out the secret-selling scum bag who keeps steeling jobs' thunder before an announcement. apple knew the leak couldn't resist blabbing a delay to the press, so they set the person up. they are probably being flogged in steve's underground torture chamber right this very moment.
- Avalontor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1In the wake of the fake iPhone and Leopard delay rumor that hit the web on May 16th...
Oh so cool. So leopard isn't delayed. Allright! - michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3The whole thing was a ploy by apple to find leakers within the company.
- vlobbglib, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0So, someone explain to me something.
XM is transmitted over radio frequencies from a satellite. Why does the FCC not have jurisdiction over that? Because it's coming from a satellite? Makes no sense to me. FCC has jurisdiction over Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) satellite signals.
Further, XM sends radio signals terrestrially. Over repeaters. FCC certainly has jurisdiction over radio signals sent within the U.S. over repeaters. Certainly for Amateur Radio it does.
So what gives? - totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1"It was a valid e-mail sent to internal users and it was validated as being legit."
Really? By whom? - bobcrotch, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Tech Blog.
- pathy, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7How exactly are they supposed to verify it? Phone up Apple and ask if the internal email they just got is true?
- 7of7, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5I don't see any evidence that it was fake. It's not like Apple's "these are not the droids you're looking for" is actually believable.
- dweeb79, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Errr wrong spot.......
- Gee1004, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Why was engadget so special to get an email from Apple. Jobs probably doesn't even tell his mother about product delays.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Somebody please please please..........SUE ENDGADGET!
Get them ***** off the net. - Neiwad, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1It's cruel to play with our hopes...
- orchman, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Someone is always dinking around with good things. The iPhone is a verifiable good thing, therefore it must be dinked around with. Geez...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is