Shoot the Devil: Gizmodo and the next iPhone
"How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?"
- Verbal Kent, The Usual Suspects
This week, Gizmodo reportedly paid a man $10,000 (I've also heard $5,000) for a device that got left behind in a bar in Redwood City. Within hours, Gizmodo's Jason Chen showed it off on their front page, almost awkwardly giving a tour of the device's case and pointing out things like where buttons are located and how the rounded shape has been eschewed for a flatter design. This, along with a batch of photographs from various angles, was how they showed off their acquisition.
If you were reading just about any tech news website on April 19, you could not have missed this story. Last I heard, CNN was running a piece about Gizmodo's find-of-the-century. Not hard to understand, given the gravitas that comes with prying out what could be one of Apple's biggest secrets.
The mistake that Gizmodo made, however, was the title of their exposé: This is Apple's Next iPhone.
What we know and what we don't
Despite the ethical considerations of what Gizmodo may have done, despite what it says about them as journalists, despite the rumored legal action which may befall Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker Media, the first thing that you're going to want to know if you're even a little bit interested in the iPhone is this: Is it real? Despite what Gizmodo's bold headline says, we just plain don't know.
If you were a person with a love for statistics and probability, you might say the odds are decent that this is, in fact, Apple's new iPhone. Note the word is "decent" and not "good"; surveying the checks in the "yes" column first, this is the kind of device that's hard to fake or mis-identify. When Gizmodo pried it open, what they saw were the internal organs which are characteristic of every iPhone we already know. The components are most definitely what you would expect to see in an iPhone: Even with a battery that's larger than the present iPhone and the moving around of some of the particulars, this bears a great likeness to known iPhone technology. It's entirely possible that it could have been created as a decoy to prank those who would exploit its discovery, but there are easier ways to play "gotcha" with sensationalist media outlets. The odds of this being a non-Apple device are low. Not impossible; just low.
Though Gizmodo likes being able to say "This is the next iPhone", what's under the hood isn't enough to support that statement yet. What Gizmodo doesn't take into account (and, frankly, they should know better) is that - in the tech world - just because something looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck doesn't always mean it's a duck. This is logic that you, as a hopeful next-gen iPhone owner, should bear in mind. And that's what we're going to talk about for a bit.
Not all iPhones are iPhones
Tech devices are a bit like icebergs: What you can actually see is usually only 1/10th of what's under the surface. Even the simplest of logic demands that we consider this may be a prototype of an iPhone device and not the final item itself. Of all the things that Gizmodo should have discussed and didn't, this is the most glaring omission. For a site that prides itself on tech prowess, I'm at a loss for how they let this detail escape their coverage.
About 10 years ago I remember a huge rumor that exploded about how Apple's new design would include transparent cases. Much like this story about "the next iPhone", people were using words like "proof" and "confirmation". What's more, the internet was clogged for a few days with photos of a G3-style enclosure with a transparent plastic or lucite case, backlit and everything. Glorious to behold and, most of all, there was much glee in being the David to Apple's Goliath. In essence, stealing their milkshake right out of the yard.
Embarrassingly, it was soon revealed that Apple historically creates prototypes of their machines in transparent cases so they can look inside without having to open them. What we were looking at was not only "less than the next big thing"... it was revealed that the transparent cases we were seeing were actually for older, discontinued models. Posterity records that we have never seen a transparent Apple device hit the market yet, and the names of those who were using words like "proof" and "confirmation" are gone from our memories. Frankly, I'm sure they prefer it that way.
There's no doubt in my mind that Apple has been developing prototypes and experimental iPhones for almost a decade. The first insider information I ever heard about the iPhone was in 2001 (from a reliable source within Apple). This is how long they've been workshopping this device. As we know, Steve Jobs can be a very exacting taskmaster (hey, who hasn't seen Pirates of Silicon Valley, right?). To suggest that there aren't dozens or even hundreds of iPhone prototypes sealed in a box marked "PLS BURY UNDER THE OCEAN KTHX" is naive. Yes, there most certainly will be another iPhone... and probably another... and another after that. My question isn't whether or not it's coming; my question is, how would Gizmodo be able to tell the difference between a prototype that Apple abandoned six months ago and a final release product? Their checkbook may want it to be the Holy Grail, but wishing doesn't make it so.
This is where your common sense as a buyer needs to come into play, because Gizmodo clearly won't do your thinking for you: The question isn't "Real or fake?" ...the question is "How would we be able to tell?" Yes, the appearance and innards of the device bear the unmistakeable fingerprint of Apple design, but if I were a betting man I would still keep my chips off the table at this point. Gizmodo clearly wants it to be true but, then again, if I had just written a $10,000 check I'd want what I paid for to be worth something, too.
Gizmodo on the naughty step
Though it concerns consumers much less, there is a strange series of questions hanging over Gizmodo's choice to stick it to Apple with such bravado without having the iron-clad evidence to back up a premature iPhone reveal. They may simply have said "We're going to do this, drain it dry, drive our hits through the roof, and deal with whatever down side may come as a result". And that's fair; a website lives and dies over traffic and, maybe, Gizmodo saw a chance to leap-frog their competitors simply by putting a dent in their own journalistic integrity. They wouldn't be the first.
I can't help but scratch my head none the less; Gizmodo is extremely focused and, at times, even obsessed with Apple's technology. Not a week goes by where they aren't falling upon an Apple-related story (big or small) like a pack of hyenas on a wounded rhinoceros. Why, then, would a company that has followed Apple's behaviors and history so keenly put themselves in the position where Apple will cast them out from the Garden of Eden forever and ever amen? Apple is notorious for punishing companies and news outlets that try to ruin their surprise announcements. Certainly if you want to get on Apple's bad side, this would be the way to do it. Rumors are even going around that Apple has officially asked for the device to be returned (and Gizmodo has refused). Gawker Media, will probably never see a press pass to an industry event again; not just Apple's events, but many others as well. Who will will offer a hand of partnership or gratuity to Gawker's outlets now that it's clear that there's no concept of professional reciprocity or trust? You can be certain that Microsoft, Google and many other prominent tech companies are making bold notes to watch their backs for Jesus Diaz and other Gizmodo writers. The wave that Gizmodo will ride on this iPhone story will last a few scant months; after that, they will have a hard time getting their phone calls returned.
Why they would choose this for themselves is, sadly, less of a mystery to me than it should be. Gizmodo is not known for making professional decisions in the field and places little value on industry respect.
See ya in June?
In June we may very well be gathered at an Apple event we haven't heard about yet to see the reveal of a device Apple hasn't announced. On that day, Steve Jobs may hold up the very device that we see now, and Gizmodo may then enjoy something akin to the poor cousin of validation.
The point, however, was never that Gizmodo is wrong. The point is and has always been, a good journalist never tells you they know something when they don't.