Oddly Together

The Future of the PC as Seen From 2003

Sometimes the past feels all the more distant.

In November 2003, Jupitermedia held a small event competing with the then massive and now defunct Comdex. As a senior analyst working for the company, I was asked to give presentation: “Evolution of the PC.” The topic is so broad I griped: “Why don’t you just give me a bag of rocks and tell me to hit one of the great lakes.” So much about computing has changed since that presentation, the content seems simply ancient to me.

During the presentation, I spent some time talking about the importance of cell phones. At one point, I took out my mobile and explained how it had speedier processor, better graphics, more storage and faster Internet connection than my first home PC purchased in January 1994. I observed that the cell phone should be a boon to the kind of lighter-weight applications that ran in the tiny memory space of DOS PCs.

I’ve pulled two slides from the deck, pertaining to the future evolution of PCs. The first slide (above) identifies mobile and entertainment devices as likely successors to the PC (For editorial reasons—analysts aren’t supposed to be wrong—I was compelled to ask a question rather than make the assertion I wanted). The slide’s shortlist of leaders is dated. Apple isn’t among them, because its industry-changing role was a future to come. The iPod was just 2 years old and selling well, but nothing like it would from mid 2004 and beyond; iTunes Store only opened in April 2003.

The second slide’s title asks “Is the PC’s successor here already?” It’s a question I answered for the audience in context of smartphone and iPod—and to a lesser degree game console. I believed then, as now, that mobile phones would replace the PC in the next wave of computing. What I didn’t know then and simply couldn’t guess was Apple’s role. The next wave of computing is here, and iPhone pushed it forward from the June 2007 launch; or so I reflect as the first iPhone 4s arrive tomorrow.

By the way, I want to totally distance myself from the godawful slide designs. They were stock Jupiter issue, and I was compelled to use them. I hated them. Passionately, and I’m glad to say so. I stripped out the corporate header and footer, as the company I worked for is gone.

Do you have computing story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

Editors Shrewdly Handled Gizmodo-iPhone Drama Act II

The toughest challenge for any newsroom is being the story. How should editors report about the news when they’re it, particularly if there are legal matters? That’s exactly Gizmodo’s situation, following a Friday night police raid of editor Jason Chen’s home. Gizmodo waited until Monday to post about the search and seizure of items from Jason’s home, which included four computers and two servers. Gizmodo has responded tactfully from editorial and legal perspectives.

Today, at All Things Digital Peter Kafka writes: “Who knew Act II of the Gizmodo-iPhone story would be as exciting as last week’s news?” Yes, it was exciting storytelling: Apple developer leaves super-secret iPhone on a bar stool while celebrating his birthday. Patron sitting next to him takes the iPhone, rather than turning it in to the bartender. For weeks, the Apple developer searches for the lost “next” iPhone, repeatedly contacting the bar to see if anyone turned in the device. Gizmodo pays $5,000 for the phone, then tells the story over several days (with photos and videos). Media pundits and Macheads take sides for and against Gizmodo’s paying for the device and whether or not laws had been broken.

But from Gizmodo’s side, Act II isn’t exciting storytelling at all. It’s totally dull, and behind that is some shrewd editorial thinking. Gizmodo has brilliantly downplayed the story, rather than milk the pageviews.

What drama! Police executed the warrant on Friday night (April 23, 2010) at Jason’s home, when he wasn’t there. They had already confiscated computers and other devices before he returned home to find the police infestation. The cops on site were part of a joint public-private taskforce called REACT—Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team—on which steering committee Apple reportedly sits. The District Attorney’s office put the case on hold while reevaluating whether journalist shield laws should have protected Jason from the search and seizure. For all the drama, Gizmodo has written little about this, and the tech blog waited nearly three days before reporting about it. Shrewd. Damn shrewd. Here’s why:

1. Gizmodo didn’t post about the story until after meeting with law enforcement. First priority should be getting back the computers before any forensic examination. The seized computers contain information about other sources, not just the one selling the iPhone. Gizmodo should seek to protect those sources, which would be better achieved by trying to work with the local DA’s office and law enforcement.
2. Gizmodo posted the story at 4 p.m. on Monday, just as US stock markets closed. Timing was crucially neutral. The events also involve Apple, which is a public company. Gizmodo’s best strategy is to avoid any appearance of trying to manipulate the drama for its own benefit or against Apple’s.
3. The story posted without art and was so small against others on Gizmodo’s home page it could easily have been overlooked. Gizmodo did little to draw attention to the story, which is tactful considering the cops still had possession of the computers. People can debate whether Gizmodo acted to cover its butt or to protect sources. However, Nick Denton, publisher of parent company Gawker, publicly stated that his news organization paid $5,000 for the device; there already is admission of guilt if a crime was committed. 
4. Gizmodo’s story contains little text. The warrant, letter from Gawker’s COO to the police and Jason’s account are all images. That was a simply brilliant tactic, because it discouraged the kind of cut-and-paste journalism that is too commonplace today. Other people reporting the story had to actually read the documentation while retyping it and review the cited penal codes instead of just copying and pasting from Gizmodo’s story.
5. By providing just the barest-bone information, Gizmodo left plenty of room for other reporters and bloggers to extend the story. The tactic actually encouraged them to investigate; everyone wants the scoop, the great second-day take, right? These other reporters then added flavor, details and drama—like Apple’s connection to REACT—and legal analysis that Gizmodo might want raised but without taking the risk of directly doing so. The risk, of course, would be irking the local DA or law enforcement while the San Mateo police still had possession of items seized from Jason’s home.

I can’t see how Gizmodo could have taken a much better approach, from an editorial perspective. Someone acted tactfully and thoughtfully here.

There remains the larger issue of whether or not the police overstepped their bounds. Peter asserts that California’s shield law wouldn’t protect Gizmodo or Jason if law enforcement believes they committed a crime by obtaining the iPhone prototype. “The law doesn’t give journalists the ability to commit crimes,” he writes. Maybe, but as I asserted late yesterday, “shield laws protect sources” and not journalists. The journalist shield laws are there to protect sources’ privacy. Plain, pure and simple. By seizing all the computers, the police trampled on the privacy rights of every other source identity contained on the hard drives. Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a clinical legal analysis of the warrant and application of shield laws.

If Gizmodo editors acted to protect their sources, they should be commended. If editors downplayed the search-and-seizure story to protect Gizmodo and its employees, they should be scorned. A journalist’s most important priority, his or her most valuable asset, is trust. Trust that sources won’t be revealed under any circumstances. Trust that reporting is accurate. Trust that reporting and not some bias, prejudice or agenda drives the storytelling. It is a sacred trust that no reporter, news organization or even law enforcement should breach. 

Photo Credit: Ariel Dovas

Do you have a news media story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

Shield Laws Protect Sources

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding among many bloggers, journalists and the general public about the purpose of shield laws. They are not meant to protect journalists. The laws exist to protect journalists’ sources. The shield extends to journalists so they can’t be forced to reveal confidential sources or to have information about their sources forcibly seized.

This context is vital to understanding the problem with the search and seizure of computers from the home of Jason Chen, a Gizmodo editor. Whether or not Gizmodo, its Calif.-based editor or the person selling the lost iPhone prototype broke the law is immaterial to a potentially huge violation of other sources’ rights.

By seizing all the computers, the cops took much more than the iPhone prototype source information they sought; they collected information on all the sources contained on Jason’s computers. Only one source—seller of the iPhone—should be object of the police investigation.

The other sources, some of whom spoke in confidence to Jason about other things, had realistic expectations of privacy. The police violated their privacy by seizing information about them. Warrants tend to be specific, as laid out by the Fourth Amendment. Surely, no reasonable judge would have authorized seizure of information about unrelated sources. Yet that’s exactly the result. 

According to the search warrant as posted by Gizmodo, the police were authorized to search for “property” that “was used as the means of committing a felony” and “tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person committed a felony”. The language is fairly specific. How then could the police know which, if any, of the computers met that criteria before seizing them? More importantly, how could the police discern which sources might be protected by shield laws without examination? How can the police reasonably sift for one source without viewing information on others?

If a journalist’s home can be raided—while he’s not there, I might add—then cops could do the same when, say, a whistleblower takes documents from a defective nuclear power plant. Removal of the nuclear documents would be theft, too. More disturbing, what would prevent law enforcement from obtaining warrants for information about one source, while actually wanting access to them all for a broader or even unrelated investigation?

Charging Gizmodo or Jason Chen with a crime is far different from raiding a journalist’s home and seizing his confidential files and in process not just exposing one source but many others.

There’s always some lawyer somewhere looking for someone to sue. I wouldn’t be shocked to see some civil libertarian making a civil rights case out of the search and seizure. 

Do you have a privacy story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

Gizmodo Made the ‘Next iPhone’ a Great Story

I have deeply mixed feelings about siding with Apple and not Gizmodo regarding the iPhone prototype the Weblog paid to acquire. After all, as a seasoned journalist, I should strongly advocate no-questions-asked free speech. Instead, last night I blogged for Betanews: “Apple should sue Gizmodo over stolen iPhone prototype”. I had planned to write something at Oddly Together, but Betanews founder Nate Mook asked for a story, which I gladly delivered.

There is little question in my mind that Gizmodo broke some California law, either under the penal code or the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Then there are questions about the appropriateness of paying for the iPhone prototype and publishing pics and videos, including a teardown. I wrote for Betanews:

Gadget geeks’ desire to know doesn’t supplant a company’s right to protect millions of dollars invested in developing a product or preventing millions of dollars lost by the leakage of product designs or plans to competitors. Gizmodo did more than cross the line here. The blog lept a chasm no less wide than the Grand Canyon. The legal ramifications could, and quite probably should, be as deep.

Eight Reasons to Pause
As strong as that sentiment reads, it wasn’t easy for me to write, because:

1. Supporting Apple risks diminishing Constitutional rights to free speech. Shouldn’t a free press have unfettered free speech?
2. Gizmodo’s editorial handling of the iPhone prototype story is simple brilliance, designed to intrigue readers and maximize pageviews. It’s exceptionally good storytelling.
3. Paying for the iPhone prototype assured Gizmodo exclusive access. It was a gutsy move that shows aggressiveness in news reporting—putting the story first.
4. The behind-the-scenes editorial process clearly was well thought-out. Gizmodo had the smartphone for about a week before posting anything; there was research into the device and planning about whether to publish and when.
5. When Gizmodo published the story, editors chose the risky move of being authoritative. Headline: “This is Apple’s Next iPhone”. Editors were confident of what they had, and asserted it.
6. I respect Gawker publisher Nick Denton. He is an old media mogul dressed up as a new media mogul. He emphasizes breaking news and telling intriguing stories, which is the spirit of great journalism.
7. Nick Denton showed remarkably good judgment navigating Gawker properties through the worst of the economic downurn. Many actions, like putting limits on how readers comment, were counterintuitive but absolutely right.
8. Gawker sites, including Gizmodo, publish under an Attribution-Noncommercial Creative Commons license, a bold departure from old media sites like New York Times or Wall Street Journal. I publish this site under the same CC license.

There’s a quality about the editorial process that reminds of me of the best investigative news organizations of the past. Gizmodo editors couldn’t be sure what they were buying until they closely examined it, including the teardown. Then there were questions about how to proceed. They took the big gamble for the big pageviews (about 6 million, as I post).

While writing this post, one of my regular Betanews readers, Avatar X, tweeted: “10 million views = 30 million ad impressions + “?” number of clicks = anywhere from $250 to $750k already. Excellent business.” It’s not just excellent business but an excellent business decision to publish, regardless of legal risks (I doubt that, based on Nick Denton’s past tweets, blog posts or employee memos, he sees much ethics risk).

Drama Unfolds with Style
The first story was well packaged, including text, pics and videos. It was a “next iPhone” smorgasbord for readers to gorge on—and what a feast. Super secretive Apple never lets out information before a product introduction or launch. The meal was all the more tasty for its rarity, as if Gizmodo served up a rare, endangered species that might never be feasted again.

But Gizmodo didn’t stop there, continuing the storytelling and reporting and wrapping it all together as “The Next iPhone Uncovered: A Gizmodo Exclusive”. Good reporters seek to answer questions who, what, where, when, why. The first story had what (the lost/stolen iPhone prototype), where (left in a bar in Redwood City, Calif.), when (March 18, 2010) and why (left by accident). But what about who? The second story, “How Apple Lost the Next iPhone” explained who, adding some exotic flavor to the feast; Gizmodo quoted the software developer who lsst the smartphone. Run-of-the-mill Apple employees are prohibited from talking to the press (or blogs).

The two stories posted yesterday. Overnight, Gizmodo posted yet another one—”A Letter: Apple Wants Its Secret Phone Back”. There was much InterWeb buzz yesterday speculating that the phone might be a fake put out there by Apple, considering how unbelievable it seemed that an employee would be allowed to remove the smartphone from the premises only to leave it in a bar. The letter seemingly confirmed that the phone belonged to Apple. Gizmodo’s Brian Lam wrote:

I got some interesting calls today. It was Apple. And they wanted their phone back. This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple’s perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it—on record. This formal request from Apple’s legal department is that claim. It proves—if there was any doubt in your mind—that this thing is real.

Gizmodo could have coughed up the device after the first few phone calls. Instead, editors pressed for a formal letter, editorially for the purpose of confirming Apple’s ownership.

The fourth story is a Twitter screenshot that pours salt on wounds, by sucking more out of a joyous day gone bad: “It was Gray Powell’s Birthday”; he was the unfortunate Apple developer. A fifth story, “Why Apple Couldn’t Get the Lost iPhone Back”, posted while I was writing. Because I must run off to cover Apple earning for Betanews, I can’t take the time to summarize story No. 5. You can read it. :)

Tweet Me, Tweet Me Not
Gawker played out the story on more than just Gizmodo. There were tweets from Nick Denton and other social media meanders that played important minor roles in the ongoing drama. Gawker played the story on multiple stages but with single narrative. Each act revealed just a little more information. Some of the best commentary came from Nick Denton tweets:

• “For people who want to know the backstory to Gizmodo’s iPhone exclusive, it’s coming. And it’s a corker”.
• “@kensweet Yes, we’re proud practitioners of checkbook journalism. Anything for the story!”
• “iPhone update. We think we’ve identified the sorry Apple engineer who left the next-gen phone at the bar. Calling in a min”.
• “A few clueless geeks believe ‘real journalists’ wait for Steve Jobs or his publicists to make an announcement. Screw that”.
• “Andy Ihnatko, dean of Apple journalists: ‘I’ve never really been interested in breaking a news story’. Exactly. http://bit.ly/aq1DFs”.
• “Does Gizmodo pay for exclusives? Too right! For background on web checkbook journalism, here’s All Things D: http://bit.ly/cNdOaG”.

From the perspectives of good news reporting, excellent storytelling and breaking news, Gizmodo has delivered handsomely. It’s an example for others to follow, although I still quibble with the ethics and/or legal sensibility of publishing Apple trade secrets. It’s not like Gizmodo uncovered great harm to the public good, such as Watergate.

The tone and approach of the reporting and storytelling comes from the top. In an employee memo released last week, Nick Denton outlined eight attributes that drive pageviews: “Scandal sells”; “the pseudo exclusive”; “drama”; “visuals”; “explainers”; “don’t rubbish the headline”; “parody”; and “inside baseball.” This post is already overlong, so I’ll save for later a blow-by-blow explanation why his advice to Gawker bloggers is good for reporting and storytelling. Meanwhile, you can read the memo—don’t wait on me.

Wrapping up, yesterday I razed Gizmodo. Today I praise it. There are often two or more sides to a story. The side I told yesterday laid out why Gizmodo acted improperly by acquiring stolen property (and trade secrets) and freely posted without regard for journalistic ethics or even legal consequences. But there is another side: Smart editorial processes, storytelling and packaging. Gizmodo isn’t just getting the big pageviews for the content but for its presentation. That is excellence in journalism (or blogging).

Do you have a journalism, new media or news media story that you’d like told? Please email Joe Wilcox: oddlytogether at gmail dot com.

iPhone’s Chinese Disconnection?

Yesterday, several Wall Street analysts swallowed their pride and iPhone sales projections after the first four days of official iPhone sales in China amounted to 5,000 units. Whoa, 5,000? I’m stunned China Unicom sold that many. At $730 to over $1,000 price range, iPhone goes oddly—seemingly quite badly—together with average Chinese incomes.

Apple’s mobile costs way too much for the market—or does it? Several blogs, including All Things Digital, described iPhone’s China debut as a failure, feeding off analysts’ glum reaction. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, one of Apple’s biggest cheerleaders on Wall Street, described sales as “soft.”Soft, eh? Assuming, $730 a unit, somebody collected $3.65 million in iPhone sales in a market where, according to PayScale, the median salary in Beijing is 200,000 yuan (US $29,000). Hell, if $3.65 million is soft, please, give me merely 1 percent. That’s hard currency.

Continue reading…

Microsoft, Don’t Hang Up Windows Mobile

August is the month of punditry. With many workers on vacation—this year, many are unemployed or on unpaid furlough, too—tech companies tend to hold back big announcements. So news and blog sites have to fill the space with something, seeing as how there is less news. Five minutes before Midnight EDT, yesterday, Business Week posted analyst Jack Gold’s Windows Mobile-ending prediction. It’s Microsoft punditry at its scariest.

Continue reading…