digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at tuaw.com —

RIP Think Secret

tuaw.com — Always provocative, sometimes right, often wrong, Think Secret was our scandalous favorite rumors site and now it is gone.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • allaboutdatiki, on 12/20/2007, -2/+24Rest in Peace, Alpha Apple Rumor Blog ...
    • linkin2, on 12/20/2007, -23/+7apple is worse than micro$oft.
      • Dotcommer, on 12/20/2007, -5/+16you're so adorable when you act all "we hate apple". Lemme pinch yer cheeks!
    • Lukesed, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2This is about two years before the part that when it comes out the he has started a new apple rumor blog under a different name to get around the settlement agreement.
  • phixed, on 12/20/2007, -1/+14I'm gonna miss this site.
  • scooter72, on 12/20/2007, -8/+3Rest in Prosperity... How much did you get Think Secret?
    • Spytap, on 12/20/2007, -3/+51Considering they're the ones sued into the ground, I'm gonna say "probably not a lot."

      "Hey kid, how about we throw you 5k and you stop this."
      "How about 1 million, assholes."
      "How about we pursue our lawsuit and even if you don't win, you'll be buried by legal fees before you even leave college."
      "5k's fine. Thanks."
  • ScornForSega, on 12/20/2007, -9/+12Comrade Jobs spits on your corpse.

    AAPL! AAPL! AAPL! AAPL!
    • 42Vindictive, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Wait, im confused. Wasn't Think Secret primarily Mac?
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+23Oh well at least we have macrumours.
  • santasing, on 12/20/2007, -12/+9So is everyone going to get their panties in a bunch over this just like people were crying out for lik-sang, or is Apple immune?
    • fkr3, on 12/20/2007, -3/+5Immune.

      Next question?
    • 42Vindictive, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Apple can do no wrong apparently.

      Lik-sang's closing was utter *****.
  • Waskonator, on 12/20/2007, -5/+23This.... didn't tell me squat.
    wtf was this site. and why does it deserve a tombstone the size of my couch?
    • smokewater, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3Yeah, and if it was such an awesome site, how come you wait until its dead to tell me about it?
      • foxhoundadmin, on 12/21/2007, -5/+6we didn't. you and waskonator are just "late-gen diggers," so you never noticed "it."

        basically, you and wask came here for the "OMFG T0TAL1Y FUNNy cat PiC!!1 ROFLCOPTER!!1!1oneoneone" stories, while earlier generations of diggers came here for the think secret and channel 9 stories.
        • brownsound00, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1you still didn't say what it is.
          now im gonna have to scavenge around the comments... or wikipedia it.
          thanks for being so helpful
  • ArchieAndrews, on 12/20/2007, -5/+44I have to hand it to these rumor sites. They have a great thing going:

    1. Invent rumor, post on site
    2. Get Hits
    3. Debunk their own rumor
    4. Get hits

    I am just jealous I didn't think of it myself.
    • Waskonator, on 12/20/2007, -0/+12Thats the new formula they are teaching in web development classes.
      It was called something... 2.0....
  • johnnynapalm, on 12/20/2007, -20/+47I thought this was about PostSecret, and I got sad. Then I realized it was some ***** mac site, and I went back to happy.
    • Readman, on 12/20/2007, -9/+1Same here. I was trying to figure out what secrets would provoke a lawsuit. Like....

      PostSecret taken down because of fanboys posting they really use and prefer Microsoft over Apple.

    • santaliqueur, on 12/20/2007, -12/+12Cool, a Mac basher! Would be funnier if you guys weren't ***** everywhere. Wonder why you didn't use the word 'fanboy' in your post.
      • B1663r, on 12/21/2007, -7/+2Wait a sec... Doesn't apple have a long standing add campaign basically inviting people to bash it? So really, it is to be expected then isn't it?
        • foxhoundadmin, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2when are they going to get started on that "subtract" campaign, already!?
  • britblogger, on 12/20/2007, -8/+18a lot of buzz for a website whose content was based upon non-fact.

    who. gives. a. flying. *****.
  • yanked, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7As this article confirms -- http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command ... --and as you would guess if you had been following the case, Apple essentially lost. ThinkSecret closed, but Apple got nothing of what it was after.

    That said, I'm a bit disappointed with Nick Ciarelli, for having accepted the settlement (and presumably some cash) when it would have been a much greater service to bloggers and journalism to keep at it, defend his rights, and publicize the fact that corporations (at least in California) don't have the right to bully the press (even bloggers). As it is, a lot of people are going to think that Apple won, and the gag Ciarelli accepted as part of the settlement just encourages that.
    • pmac, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Money talks...

      And by that I mean: Apple says STFU or we'll bury you in legal fees.
    • imthe1, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5the guy started it when he was 13. he's graduating from Harvard. he is probably thrilled to get a bucket of cash as he leaves school to fund what ever he decides to do next.
    • mabhatter, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Apple didn't get sources, but they did shut him down. They still "won" under that pretense.

      They could have blown a load of cash trying to out lawyer him, gained messy PR from fans and pissed everybody off. Consider they already spent two years on this, that's a big lawyer bill. They could have chosen to win by "lawyer bill" if they really wanted to and put the kid in bankruptcy like the RIAA seems so fond of doing lately. Sure Apple didn't get what it really wanted, but they got off for probably a tenth of the bill and he's not posting anymore.
  • cmdrNacho, on 12/20/2007, -6/+11for everyone saying who give a f..
    this sets a dangerous precedence. There is no reason why a website, that has no affiliation should be forced to shutdown, because a company doesn't like it.
    • fkr3, on 12/20/2007, -2/+9Except for the bit where the website published confidential information from an employee of the company who broke their NDA to provide that information?
      • cmdrNacho, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

        Theres a reason why journalist are protected. They need to look internally. you punish the person, not the messenger.
        • smacksaw, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2My favourite part of The Jungle is when they all went on strike to protest the NDAs they all signed.

          Oh wait, they didn't have NDAs back then. My bad. I mean your bad.
        • fkr3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2They were after the person, the "journalist" was just a dick.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1That is between the employee and the company. A third party that gains access to trade secrets is free to do anything they want with that information. Once other people know it, it's not a secret anymore.
        • Smoozle, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3*****! A third party that gains access to trade secrets and disseminates them may be liable for doing so. Also, such third party is perfectly subpoenable to divulge the identity of the source of the trade secrets.
    • DonLapre, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5There is no precedence set because this did not go to court. No one would be able to go to court and claim this as legal precedence.
    • zioxide, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8Err.. they didn't have to agree to the settlement. If he wanted to keep running his website, he could have. He could have fought them in court and he most likely would have won.

      But if some company is offering me a bunch of money to close a website that I was thinking about moving on from anyways, I would take the money and run too.
  • CapitalIdea, on 12/20/2007, -10/+5Never heard of it.
  • macmonger, on 12/20/2007, -6/+1How is it gone. I was just there.
  • neiltc13, on 12/20/2007, -3/+5Buried as blogspam. This story has already been on digg and that time was linked to directly.
  • Mark7r0n, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6"Always provocative, sometimes right, often wrong..." What a lame cheap shot. To be the focus of Apple legal the way they were says a lot about how right the OFTEN were.
    • johnpaul191, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1well TS was not as much of a rumor site as a site with good sources. we all know that Apple will come darn close to releasing a product and then pull it. it's possible that the people seeing the prototypes leaked it, or with things like the iPhone, the individual parts were in different mules for testing so a lot of people had no idea what they were really working on.
  • johnpaul191, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Dupe! the other one links to Think Secret itself... go figure?
    http://digg.com/apple/In_settlement_with_Apple_Thi ...
    • dansmeek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1aww... but this one has a link to a nice site that has a bunch of adds. thus it's superior?
  • baalzebub, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5shame on Apple, instead of suing Think Secret Apple should look within their own ranks, obviously Think Secret could not get trade secrets & secrets about undisclosed future products without an Apple employee leaking it...
    • chongli, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Apple sued in order to reveal the source of those leaks!
  • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2This was already on the top list of the day, dupe.
  • MYarms, on 12/20/2007, -7/+4Who cares about some dumb apple rumors site. Get on with your lives people!
    • imthe1, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3for someone who doesn't care about apple rumor sites, why are you wasting your time clicking their links and commenting. Get on with your life!
  • hasslinthehoff, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3This just gives any corporation more of a justification to try and shut down blogs that criticize or publish rumors with lawsuits and endless litigation. Ciarelli had every right to publish this information and he really should have taken this to the Supreme Court as an issue of free speech instead of shutting ThinkSecret down. Apple's real problem is their employees who leak the information in the first place, not some stupid blog that puts it up on their site.

    Boo to Apple. Boo to Ciarelli.
  • LeeSoong, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Ha HA HA HA !

    Now nothing, NOTHING Can stop the master plans of Lord Jobs!

    Kneel ! Earthlings, Kneel before your new King!
  • digitallysick, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7Time for the priatebay to buy the domain and take over!
  • iMoth, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2bazooka!
  • ctour95, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I'm not happy with Apple for driving them out of business, I would boycott them for this but there is no good alternative to OS X or iLife at the moment.
  • kreatre2007, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I am very disappointed that Apple pushed and pushed until ThinkSecret got shut down. I love Apple but, they need to understand that the real root of their problem of information leaks is their EMPLOYEES.... not the websites that report the leaks.
    • tomis, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1And the problem with the Nazi's wasn't the people who followed orders, but the people who gave them? Yea... right...
  • constantin, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1The King is dead - long live the new King: 9to5mac.com
  • clove86, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0everyone follows the smell of green these days ... =/
  • jron, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Go Apple! ermm... wait a minute...
  • indiepenguins, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2:(
  • DeepNarcosis, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1More proof to my conspiracy theory that Apple is just Microsoft in hippie clothing....and Google is the one ring to rule them all....
  • east1337, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0Apple has always been like this. They never learn or do any good for you.
  • angrykeyboarder, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Bummer
  • truspect0r, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0You see, if Apple does it, it's ok?
  • xenon221, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Automator workflow action > open www.apple.com/thinksecret > rinse and repeat > run same action
  • tomis, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1They weren't even a good rumor site, imo. Then they went through a few different business models and weird site redesigns. I didn't really get it. MacRumors, AtAT, MacNN, etc ftw
  • MrViklund, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yupp. Now it's gone. Don't mess with Apple.
  • alansky, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1" it would have been a much greater service to bloggers and journalism to keep at it, defend his rights, and publicize the fact that corporations (at least in California) don't have the right to bully the press (even bloggers)." --yanked

    Bloggers do not have the right to publicize company trade secrets just to get their rocks off! The public interest is not served by the indiscriminate publication of this kind of information. Only the public's appetite for gossip is served. Good riddance, ThinkSecret!
  • CNeovitch, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I vote for ThinkSecret2.com and for it to be hosted in Sweden.
  • Codee, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I like surprises anyway. They make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
  • fundi245, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0fsj is next
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.