Log In | Register
37 Comments
PrintSteve Jobs is dying. Oh, wait. No. Jesus Diaz was wrong.
News Type: Event — Mon Jan 5, 2009 1:35 PM EST
advertisement
Last week, I published an article in an effort to call out Jesus Diaz on his use of an anonymous source as the basis for an article about the "dire" health of Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Attempts to contact Diaz went unanswered.
The initial claim, provided by said unnamed source, was as follows:
Steves health is rapidly declining. Apple is choosing to remove the hype factor strategically vs letting the hype destroy apple when the inevitable news comes later this spring.
This strategic loss will be less of a bang with investors. This is why Macworld is a no-go anymore. No more Steve means no more hype. Saying they are no longer needing [Macworld] is the cover designed by the worldwide "loyalty" department.
Diaz took that scoop and used it to purchase a ticket to Fudville:
According to a previously reliable source, Apple misrepresented the reasons behind Macworld and Jobs' keynote cancellation. Allegedly, the real cause is his rapidly declining health. In fact, it may be even worse than we imagined...
Addressing the first sentence, Apple doesn't seem to have misrepresented anything, because the press release in which it was originally announced that Apple would no longer be participating in Macworld and that Phil Schiller would deliver the Keynote in the last ever appearance of Apple at Macworld never offers any sort of explanation for the decision to go with Schiller instead of Jobs:
CUPERTINO, California—December 16, 2008—Apple® today announced that this year is the last year the company will exhibit at Macworld Expo. Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, will deliver the opening keynote for this year's Macworld Conference & Expo, and it will be Apple's last keynote at the show. The keynote address will be held at Moscone West on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Macworld will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Center January 5-9, 2009.
Apple is reaching more people in more ways than ever before, so like many companies, trade shows have become a very minor part of how Apple reaches its customers. The increasing popularity of Apple's Retail Stores, which more than 3.5 million people visit every week, and the Apple.com website enable Apple to directly reach more than a hundred million customers around the world in innovative new ways.
Apple has been steadily scaling back on trade shows in recent years, including NAB, Macworld New York, Macworld Tokyo and Apple Expo in Paris.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone. SOURCE
Yes, a generic explanation is offered about Macworld and tradeshows in general, but nothing is said or written to tie that explanation to Jobs' decision to forego the spotlight in 2009.
Today, Steve Jobs published one of his rare "open letters" in an effort to address the ongoing questions about his health with substantive answers:
Dear Apple Community,
For the first time in a decade, I'm getting to spend the holiday season with my family, rather than intensely preparing for a Macworld keynote.
Unfortunately, my decision to have Phil deliver the Macworld keynote set off another flurry of rumors about my health, with some even publishing stories of me on my deathbed.
I've decided to share something very personal with the Apple community so that we can all relax and enjoy the show tomorrow.
As many of you know, I have been losing weight throughout 2008. The reason has been a mystery to me and my doctors. A few weeks ago, I decided that getting to the root cause of this and reversing it needed to become my #1 priority.
Fortunately, after further testing, my doctors think they have found the cause—a hormone imbalance that has been "robbing" me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy. Sophisticated blood tests have confirmed this diagnosis.
The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward, and I've already begun treatment. But, just like I didn't lose this much weight and body mass in a week or a month, my doctors expect it will take me until late this Spring to regain it. I will continue as Apple's CEO during my recovery.
I have given more than my all to Apple for the past 11 years now. I will be the first one to step up and tell our Board of Directors if I can no longer continue to fulfill my duties as Apple's CEO. I hope the Apple community will support me in my recovery and know that I will always put what is best for Apple first.
So now I've said more than I wanted to say, and all that I am going to say, about this.
Steve SOURCE
I've emphasized the portion of the open letter which would seem to contradict the claims made by the anonymous source who provided Diaz with the dire health scoop. In fact, Jobs even appears to take a not-so-subtle swipe at "deathbed" articles much like the one posted by Diaz.
In a new article, Diaz cops to the fact that his source was wrong about Jobs' health, but tries to salvage a bit of dignity by claiming that Jobs (via Apple) lied about his reasoning for stepping out of the spotlight in '09, and by asserting that Apple PR lied to CNBCs Jim Goldman:
But we were right on something almost as important: The reason why Steve Jobs is not doing the Macworld 2009 keynote is his health. Apple PR muscle tried to mislead the public again saying that the reason was the irrelevance of Macworld. They said they didn't want to give importance to a show that Apple was pulling from.
That's a lie.
Again, I've not been able to find a single claim -- made by either Apple PR or by Steve Jobs -- which would seem to provide an explanation for why Schiller is delivering this year's keynote. Diaz is now rushing to cling to any aspect of his initial scoop that may, in some parallel universe, be accurate if the alleged claims proffered by Apple were ever actually made by Apple, but based on quotes that are readily available, the explanation given to Goldman had nothing at all (or, at best, very very little) to do with Macworld '09 and/or Jobs vs. Schiller and everything to do with the decision to leave after '09.
And, on that front, Diaz has no evidence upon which to base the conclusion that Apple's provided explanation regarding the diminishing importance of tradeshows is "a lie" and he certainly offers no evidence that Jobs -- or Jobs' health -- has anything at all to do with Macworld sans Apple after this year's event. Instead, Diaz wants to latch onto the only possible interpretation of existing claims by Apple which will allow him to come out of his initial report looking like anything other than a complete jackass.
Based on this new information, straight from the mouth of Steve Jobs, I once again contacted Diaz to elicit a response only to find that he continues to refuse to fully admit to having been wrong.
This time, Diaz responded, and I'm publishing that correspondence in full, starting with my first email:
On Jan 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Brian Ford wrote:
Looks like your source was wrong.
Does this mean you'll be posting a retraction, or are you just hoping people will forget that you based a bull@!$%# report on the word of an anonymous source?
On Jan 5, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Jesus Diaz wrote:
No, looks like our source was right and you didn't read our article.
j.
On Jan 5, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Brian Ford wrote:
Which part of...
"Steves health is rapidly declining. Apple is choosing to remove the hype factor strategically vs letting the hype destroy apple when the inevitable news comes later this spring.
This strategic loss will be less of a bang with investors. This is why Macworld is a no-go anymore. No more Steve means no more hype. Saying they are no longer needing [Macworld] is the cover designed by the worldwide "loyalty" department."
...is correct against...
"Jobs, 53 and a survivor of pancreatic cancer, said he will undergo a "relatively simple" treatment and will remain as head of Apple."
...given that you also continue to speculate that he's preparing to leave Apple, despite this speculation having now been officially contradicted?
How is his health "rapidly declining" in light of what has now been revealed? Seems as though his health is pretty much what everyone expected -- without needing a secret source or a deep throat -- not great, but not dire, either.
On Jan 5, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Jesus Diaz wrote:
Steve is not doing Macworld because of his health. Apple said he wasn't doing it because they didn't gave any importance to MW anymore. Lie.
Steve health may not be rapidly declining, as our source said. I've also said that in our latest article. But his precarious health is the reason why he couldn't do the keynote and decided to go on vacation instead.
BTW, check John Hopkins University figures on survival expectancy after the operation he went through. I hope Steve Jobs gets to live two more decades, but medicine and statistics are stubborn.
j.
On Jan 5, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Brian Ford wrote:
If your report had simply said: "Steve Jobs not keynoting with Macworld in 09 because of minor health issues..."
I'd not be contacting you.
Your article put Steve on his deathbed (Jobs specifically mentions articles like the one you posted) and the open letter *from* Jobs states outright that he has no intention of leaving Apple, and that he's staying on as CEO even through his recovery.
In short, you got the easy part right, the part no one would need a source to confirm, and got basically every important detail wrong. You're now saying "precarious" health. There's a big difference between saying that and what your source initially claimed. You said "may be worse than we can imagined" despite the fact that this news certainly isn't worse than what you -- or any other doomsayers -- imagined or reported. Staying with Apple vs. "preparing his departure" is also a big difference. The reason why he's not keynoting the '09 Macworld vs. why Apple has pulled out *for good* aren't the same thing either, and there's no indication that his "precarious health" at the beginning of '09 has anything at all to do with their reasons for leaving Macworld, though your source claims that his dire health and his decision to leave Apple explain that away. Yet, again, he claims he's *not* leaving Apple.
So, I'm still not sure what you correctly predicted?
On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Jesus Diaz wrote:
Minor health issues?
Have you read what he wrote?
Check http://www.pancreatica.org/faq.html
"The survival of patients who received the Whipple procedure in one study (from a very experienced Johns Hopkins team) were reported out in 1995 as a 21% five-year survival rate, with a median survival of 15.5 months."
I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
The fact remains the same: he skipped MW. Apple lied. It was because of his health. Our source was wrong about "health rapidly declining" now. But it was before, and their doctors didn't know.
j.
On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Brian Ford wrote:
Yes, I've read the press release over and over again, trying to find something between the lines other than what is fairly plain to see: He's written this open letter to contrast the reality of his personal health with the sort of FUD that was posted in articles like the one you authored. As it turns out, the reality of his health -- not to mention all the other speculation you've not gotten right -- isn't at all similar to the fantasy your source provided, or the speculation you've published based on that source.
For what it's worth, the initial Apple press release didn't say anything about why he wasn't doing this year's Macworld. It only addressed the reasoning for bailing on all future events:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/12/16macworld.html
Perhaps you can point me to the sentence of that press release which backs up your assertion that Apple put forth an excuse -- of any kind -- for his decision to not appear this year, which would warrant an accusation of lying. You certainly don't have evidence that his health, or the possibility that he may someday leave Apple has anything at all to do with the Macworld exit after '09.
Everything in that press release appears to explain away the decision to back out after this year, but he never makes a single claim about why he's not appearing this year.
The fact is, he's going to retire eventually. It may even be because of his health. With that said, you can't make the same claim year after year and then pretend to have been right all along when he inevitably retires.
On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Jesus Diaz wrote:
Read the article i wrote today again, carefully. Apple has gone on the record with the reasons. Get your facts straight. Your fanboyism is clouding your judgement.
j.
My lastest response, to which I've yet to receive a reply:
Fanboyism has nothing to do with it, though I understand why someone who is now the author of an inaccurate scoop would fall back on that defense. Apple never gave a reason for why Jobs wasn't headlining Macworld in '09. In the press release, and in their response to Jim Goldman, they gave an explanation for why they wouldn't be participating in Macworld after 2009, reasons which haven't been proven false or even misleading. You've no reason to believe that the decision to pull out after this year is tied to Jobs or to his health.
I ask again: Where has Apple made a specific claim about why Jobs isn't delivering the '09 keynote? The only claim Apple PR has made is that his health isn't affecting his ability to do his job as CEO, and that's what they told Goldman. As it turns out, he's still performing his duties as CEO, despite a health issue.
Thus, there's no lie.
It's fair to say we're at the "not going to agree" point of the debate, and very little will be served by adding future correspondence, though if anything of value is transmitted, I'll update accordingly.
It's important to note, as I mention to Diaz in one of my responses, that there's no question that Jobs will someday retire as CEO of Apple. When that day comes, it may even be because his health isn't quite what it needs to be to fulfill his duties. Still, despite what Diaz continues to assert, there's no evidence and no reason to believe that said day is going to be "in the spring" or that Macworld without Apple is the result of Apple without Steve.
And, given that the speculation beyond what has now undeniably been proven to be false is simple guesswork as to when the inevitable will happen, and given that Diaz has been pushing said speculation for months, now, it's not going to be that impressive once he finally gets it right.
Most importantly, even if one were to humor the hypothetical assumption that Apple did indeed lie about why Jobs isn't appearing at Macworld, the idea (put forth by Diaz in his newest article) that this aspect of Diaz' initial scoop is equal to or as important as the part he got dead wrong -- the claim that Jobs' health is rapidly deteriorating and that the truth is much worse than imagined -- is a laughable attempt to save face and grasp at whatever shred of journalistic integrity he can maintain.
So, let's put these in order of importance, shall we? A little grade school lesson in reading comprehension:
- Steve jobs health is rapidly deteriorating and it's worse than we've imagined.
- This is the real reason Jobs is not presenting the '09 Keynote and why Apple is pulling out of Macworld after '09, once Jobs bows out, this spring.
Assuming you're wrong on the first bullet point (let's not kid ourselves, that was the major scoop) you don't get to retroactively gloat about the second bullet point when you've no hard evidence to back up the claim unless you squint really hard and invent some lines to read between amongst actual sentences in Apple's press releases.
The fact is, what has been "imagined" about Jobs' health is, in many cases, FUD that he's going to drop dead in the very near future and to say that the truth is even worse than that, when it turns out he's going to undergo a "relatively simple" procedure to correct a hormone imbalance, isn't an acceptable way for any serious journalist to be proven wrong, and it should mean that a "previously reliable" source is suddenly no longer a source at all.
Sadly, instead of accepting this and offering a retraction and some sort of offer to be more diligent in the future, Diaz offers "yeah buts" based on vague voodoo journalism. Maybe he should seek a job with Apple PR? Based on his assertions about their conduct, he's highly qualified.
Though, if there's anything at all to be learned from all this, it's that one shouldn't put much weight behind assertions put forth by Jesus Diaz.
13 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Brian Ford's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Journalism on Newsvine, Old viners, Technology Gateway, The Infinite Loop
- Regions: none
| Steve Jobs Skipping MacWorld Because of Health | KRich | Mon Jan 5 | 13 | |
 | Macworld San Francisco 2009 Rumor Roundup - Mac Rumors | MacRumors | Mon Jan 5 | 0 |
 | Text of Steve Jobs' letter to `Apple community' | Associated Press | Mon Jan 5 | 0 |
| Apple cuts copy protection and prices on iTunes | Associated Press | Tue Jan 6 | 50 |
| Apple's Jobs has hormone imbalance, will stay CEO | Associated Press | Mon Jan 5 | 7 |
- Public Discussion (37)
- Journalism on Newsvine
- Old viners
- Technology Gateway
- The Infinite Loop
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
97
11
6.2
{"commentId":4671482,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
Here's what Goldman was told by Apple PR:
I spoke to Apple after these headlines crossed and the company, which officially doesn't comment on rumors, reiterated the reasons it offered two weeks ago: Apple was pulling out of Macworld because the company didn't see the need to continue its investment in the expo, which included Steve Jobs' keynote.
I see nothing there which is necessarily related to why Apple/Jobs chose to go with Schiller in '09.
My reading is that said quote merely states that Apple has decided that the Keynote and the Expo aren't important enough to warrant the inherent expense and hassle of attending Macworld.
The "...included Steve Jobs' Keynote" line seems to refer to the Keynote in general, rather than the '09 Keynote in particular. That's the only reference that can in any small way, through any perspective, be utilized to make a claim that Apple lied. It's not enough.
Diaz can't contradict that, because the only thing he has to go on is a debunked story from a crap source.
{"commentId":4671482,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 6 votes
#1 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 1:43 PM EST{"commentId":4671774,"authorDomain":"tcervo"}
Diaz is just being stubborn. It's his belief that Apple is pulling out of Macworld because of Steve's health. When they say it's because the Expo doesn't make sense anymore, and provide very valid reasons, he believes they're lying. The problem is, he's so full of himself that he passes off his beliefs as fact.
{"commentId":4671774,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"tcervo"}
- 5 votes
#2 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:02 PM EST{"commentId":4671903,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
Apple had better demystify Steve Jobs in a hurry, because if anything does happen to him stocks will plummet.
{"commentId":4671903,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
#3 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:11 PM EST{"commentId":4672020,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}
Its a good start anyway. Apple has become identified with Jobs and his micromanagement, thus the rumors causing temporary drops, they need to work harder at having more than once company face.
{"commentId":4672020,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"Boothby"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":4673471,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Apple has ginormous cash reserves. Steve could drop tomorrow, Apple could never make another dollar in revenue every again, and Apple would have enough cash to operate for something like 18 months to two years, at least.
they need to work harder at having more than once company face.
There are plenty of company faces--the press just refuses to publicize them. That's not really Apple's fault so much as it's the fault of the press for not acknowledging properly who's actually up there. Schiller is just one, but Forstall is another major presenter. In the new MacBook unibody intro video, it wasn't Steve Jobs talking about their new manufacturing process, it was Ives.
{"commentId":4673471,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4673550,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4673756,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Well. Sure. It's partly their fault in two ways: For a long time Steve Jobs was the public face of Apple, and that inertia is what's still carrying through a lot of the coverage. Also, I get the impression that almost no one at Apple really likes dealing with the press, and that stand-offishness combined with their famous penchant for secrecy surrounding products and releases acts like a kind of catnip for journalists.
{"commentId":4673756,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":4671992,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
My favorite part of the ongoing back and forth via email is that Diaz starts to bring up a lot of completely irrelevant information about past surgeries, etc.
{"commentId":4671992,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 5 votes
#4 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:17 PM EST{"commentId":4672205,"authorDomain":"whyren"}
Interesting...this morning I noticed the article/block lead-in proclaimed "We were right," as opposed to the current "Looks like our source was partly right."
{"commentId":4672205,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"whyren"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:33 PM EST{"commentId":4673560,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4673876,"authorDomain":"enigmaobscura"}
Everyone is dying. Who cares?
{"commentId":4673876,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"enigmaobscura"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:22 PM EST{"commentId":4674039,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4682152,"authorDomain":"theindiearmy"}
Amen enigma, I thought it was pretty crystal clear that the reports of him dying were untrue. Didn't think someone had taken it this seriously.
{"commentId":4682152,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"theindiearmy"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4682327,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4682390,"authorDomain":"theindiearmy"}
Ummm yea, obviously. I heard the initial report, read it, knew it was clearly false, and didn't bother wasting my time with anything else to do with it, until now, because this is kinda getting funny.
{"commentId":4682390,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"theindiearmy"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4682573,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4683247,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Except, the initial report wasn't clearly false.
Wellllllll, I would say the initial report, even ignoring the anonymous sourcing, should have induced a very high level of skepticism.
If Steve Jobs were dying and he were determined to keep it from the public, who would be likely to know the facts? Steve Jobs, his wife, his doctor, probably a few other trusted family members, and maybe the board of directors, yes? Would any of those people talk to a source for Gizmodo who has previously passed on hardware tips? It's easy to see how hardware details leak out; a lot of people see prototypes, support documents, price sheets, etc. etc. etc., from people inside Apple to suppliers to retail buyers. It's less easy to see how someone not immediately within Steve Jobs's immediate sphere of confidants would actually know anything about the details of his health, were he genuinely interested in keeping it quiet.
{"commentId":4683247,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4683360,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4683520,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Did the person make it up?
Possible, but if this person is really a reliable source on other matters, I tend to doubt it. I have a feeling it was more a real-life example of a telephone game, where speculation got passed around among a group of people, and eventually morphed from speculation into a pseudo-certainty.
{"commentId":4683520,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4683586,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4683804,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}
Oh, I'm not arguing that Diaz is a douche for running the rumor, at least without profoundly better caveats included in his reporting. It doesn't seem to me based on Diaz's description that he asked the appropriate probing questions required to determine the credibility of this information.
I just doubt the source made this up from whole cloth. The source may have actually, genuinely believed the information. But people believe all kinds of crazy things (as any quick tour of Newsvine will verify). :-)
Part of being a journalist (even a journalistic blogger) is learning how to filter out the genuinely-held-but-wrong beliefs of sources with likely-to-be-true tips.
{"commentId":4683804,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4674023,"authorDomain":"masternav"}
Unmitigated speculation, based on some sort of wish-fulfillment I suppose. As I mentioned elsewhere, where is the swirl of concern about all those other tech CEOs who may or may not be having health problems, may or may not be speaking at various conventions like:
Eric Schmidt (Google)
Larry Ellison (Oracle)
Michael Dell (Dell)
Jeff Bezos (Amazon)
Greg Brown (Motorola)
Narayen Shantanu (Adobe)
Nabeel Gareeb (MMC)
John Chambers (Cisco)
Mark Hurd (HP)
Jen-Hsun Huang (Nvidia)
Sam Palmisano (IBM)
Wendell Weeks (Corning)
Joe Tucci (EMC)
Will Sullivan (Agilent)
Paul Otellini (Intel)
Jon Schwartz (Sun)
In fact if you check out Forbes listing of CEOs, Steve Jobs ranks a lowly 120th overall (thanks also to Forbes for the list of tech CEOs). How many of these guys have polyps, or prostate cancer, chest pains, arthritis, dementia, Alzheimer's, etc.? Why waste this much electron flow around Steve Jobs? There are many more "important", more highly paid CEOs around the world to focus on than Mr. Jobs. Some of these candidates are older, and thus more prone to issues than Steve, but I'll bet the media and blogs have no clue about their health.
Topping their shenanigans last year at Macworld the Gizmodo descent into bottom-dwelling continues unabated.
{"commentId":4674023,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"masternav"}
- 3 votes
#7 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:31 PM EST{"commentId":4674091,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":4675830,"authorDomain":"masternav"}
Obviously, that and perhaps on a more sinister conspiracy note, maybe someone gains from having Apple's stock depressed for a while like this, and feeding the rumor mill helps that. Just sayin' - as long Gizmodo is flinging around unfounded speculation, why not feed the fire a bit? *grin*
{"commentId":4675830,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"masternav"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4674104,"authorDomain":"kyleb"}
Gizmodo claims that Apple lied about why Jobs is not doing the Macworld keynote this year. But the problem is, Apple's PR release which announced that they were pulling out from Macworld and Schiller would deliver this year's keynote does not address why Schiller is delivering the keynote, only why Apple is pulling out of Macworld.
Moreover, Apple's response to Jim Goldman doesn't address it, either -- only why Apple is pulling out from Macworld.
So, because as far as I can tell Apple never even explained why Schiller is delivering the keynote this year rather than Jobs, they literally could not have "lied" about why Jobs is not doing Macworld this year, because they never spoke on it. Go read the PR release and Goldman's article. It doesn't come up. Gizmodo is making the "lie" up.
Moreover, we know that Apple's decision to pull out of Macworld is not something that was decided upon in the last few weeks, the result of Jobs's "rapidly declining" health as Gizmodo claimed. Apple has addressed why they are pulling out from Macworld, and their reason, that trade shows are increasingly irrelevant, seems to be true -- considering how many special events we have seen in the last few years, and how many other trade shows they have pulled out from, it is apparent this is a strategy decided upon quite a while ago.
So when Gizmodo says:
The reason why Steve Jobs is not doing the Macworld 2009 keynote is his health. Apple PR muscle tried to mislead the public again saying that the reason was the irrelevance of Macworld. They said they didn't want to give importance to a show that Apple was pulling from.
That's a lie.
It's a joke, because 1. in their cited materials and my own reading, I can't find a source for the statement, and 2. they're basing their claim that Apple lied on their own suspicions that Jobs isn't doing Macworld 2009 because of his health, which isn't a slam dunk conclusion, because it fits with their strategy of disengaging from Macworld. They moved from making one completely false claim, that Jobs's health is rapidly declining, to making another baseless claim that Apple lied.
Perhaps it is true Jobs isn't doing Macworld 2009 because he'd rather take the holidays to rest and recoup. But Gizmodo certainly doesn't know that, not near enough to make as strong a claim as "Apple lied," so this is my conclusion:
Gizmodo couldn't give two @!$%#s about getting the initial story wrong, because they are not using more diligence in their resulting claims. And for that, Gizmodo deserves to lose any respect they had as being a source of good journalism.
{"commentId":4674104,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"kyleb"}
- 7 votes
#8 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:37 PM EST{"commentId":8317587,"authorDomain":"vale-1"}
Wow, turns out Brian Ford and all the commenters were dead wrong and PLAIN STUPID. Personal vendetta against Jesus Diaz or the Gizmodo team? This article was poorly written and just bad journalism. Oh, and very, VERY WRONG.
Yeah, that Steve eventually had to have a liver transplant was no big deal. Right?
{"commentId":8317587,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"vale-1"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:52 AM EDT{"commentId":8317598,"authorDomain":"vale-1"}
Calling out Brian Ford! How does it feel to be dead wrong and thinking everyone forgot?! Maybe I should tweet this post so everyone can see the irony in prematurely calling someone out. I have thousands of followers who would lap this up and I'm sure it's great for your credibility.
{"commentId":8317598,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"vale-1"}
- 2 votes
#10 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:56 AM EDT{"commentId":8320904,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I don't really recall being wrong. Let me go back through and look at my claims, real quick.
There's no way that Diaz's sources had any idea that Steve Jobs was planning to have, or was going to need to have a liver transplant, as when he actually *did* have the liver transplant (months and months after this article and its speculation) he managed to have the liver transplant days before anyone found out he had one. Where the hell were Diaz's ironclad sources to break *that* story? Oh, yeah. Apparently, they were informing a real journalistic outfit, because it wasn't Diaz who broke the actual story, when there was an actual story to break, it was the Washington Post.
So, if you want to felate Diaz (seriously, are you his boyfriend?) because he posted article after article making wild guesses about the health condition of an obviously sick man, and if you want to feel like something that happens *months* later vindicates those multiple guesses, more power to you.
So, to recap, Diaz published rumors and vague possibilities about the health of someone with a recent history of Pancreatic Cancer and with obvious ongoing health issues, whereas the Washington Post broke an actual story about an actual liver transplant, which was confirmed days later. Guess which one of those = teh awesome?
News @!$%#ing flash: I have an anonymous source which says Steve Jobs is on his deathbed. Stay tuned, because at some point in the @!$%#ing future Steve Jobs is going to, well, die, and you, Vale, are going to bow at the altar that is my awesome track record in predicting death in a human being.
Until then:
Go the @!$%# away.
(But make sure to tweet this first so that everyone can read my response to your comment, and so I can find out who you actually are.)
{"commentId":8320904,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 2 votes
#11 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:15 AM EDT{"commentId":8321315,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":8321532,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
{"commentId":8336525,"authorDomain":"vale-1"}
Brian Ford, you sir must be a dolt. You don't just magically get a liver transplant after being sick for a month. Gizmodo's report, 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE LIVER TRANSPLANT, turned out to be accurate. Why? You have to wait a long @!$%#ing time and be extremely sick to be a liver transplant candidate. So yes, when Giz broke the news that Steve Jobs was incredibly sick and will miss Macworld, they were absolutely correct. And it was the WSJ, not WashPo that broke the liver transplant news.
Don't tell me you weren't wrong. The title of this post states "Jesus Diaz was wrong." It turns out that he and Gizmodo were right. I'm not his boyfriend, I'm just calling out idiot bloogers, that's all.
{"commentId":8336525,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"vale-1"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:10 PM EDT{"commentId":8336545,"authorDomain":"vale-1"}
"The gist of Diaz's story was that Steve Jobs was leaving Apple, because he was too sick to actually continue, that Apple lied about their reasons for leaving Macworld, because they were covering up for the fact that Jobs was leaving Apple."
OMFG where did you go to college? Did they teach you to read there? No one implied that Steve was leaving Apple; he meant Apple's loss would be Steve's inability to appear at Macworld - that's what he meant by no-go and no Steve. But I love your confidence and how you think you've managed to disprove and upstage this anonymous commenter when you're not man enough yourself to publish a factually correct article.
{"commentId":8336545,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"vale-1"}
#13 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:12 PM EDT{"commentId":8337193,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
You told me you were going to tweet about this, and instead you come and make more dumb-assed comments.
Don't lie to me. I was looking forward to the tweets, and the traffic I'd get from your imaginary "thousands" of followers.
{"commentId":8337193,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:48 PM EDT{"commentId":8337917,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I changed my mind about deleting your comments, because responding to them will be more fun:
Brian Ford, you sir must be a dolt.
Alrighty. Feel better now? Moving on...
You don't just magically get a liver transplant after being sick for a month.
Great. We agree that magic, most likely, wasn't involved. I never denied that Steve was ill. With that said, this "source" never provided any sort of diagnosis, never gave any sort of analysis that might score them a scoop or provide evidence that they knew *then* that Steve Jobs was going to need to have a liver transplant. No one knows whether *Steve Jobs* knew he was going to need a liver transplant, then. It's worth noting that *this article* was written over 6 months ago, that Gizmodo's haphazard speculation had been ongoing for *far longer* than that, and that it's not even remotely unlikely that his liver issue was decided well after all of that. So, no, if Gizmodo wants to lay claim to a scoop after making claim after claim after claim all concerning a man who anyone who follows tech at all was *well aware* wasn't in good health -- they really needed their "scoop" to provide some details beyond "it's worse than anyone thought". That's not a scoop, it's a vague claim.
So yes, when Giz broke the news that Steve Jobs was incredibly sick and will miss Macworld, they were absolutely correct.
"Giz" didn't break the news that Steve Jobs would miss Macworld. Apple broke that news. Gizmodo's "source" claimed that Apple lied about the reasons they were *no longer* attending Macworld. Did you even follow this story?
Steves health is rapidly declining. Apple is choosing to remove the hype factor strategically vs letting the hype destroy apple when the inevitable news comes later this spring.
This strategic loss will be less of a bang with investors. This is why Macworld is a no-go anymore. No more Steve means no more hype. Saying they are no longer needing [Macworld] is the cover designed by the worldwide "loyalty" department.
I'm not sure how much more clear it can be, other than reposting their own source's claim.
So yes, when Giz broke the news that Steve Jobs was incredibly sick and will miss Macworld, they were absolutely correct.
So, no. Stop being dense. "Giz" (it's so cute that you have a pet name for your boyfriend's website) had nothing at all to do with informing anyone in the world that Steve Jobs wouldn't be delivering the Keynote at Macworld. Get that through your head, because it's fairly important in coming to understand why you're so wrong.
And it was the WSJ, not WashPo that broke the liver transplant news.
I don't care if it was your mom that broke the news, so long as we both agree that it wasn't Gizmodo who broke the news. But, if Gizmodo's source *then* was reporting information that directly related to Steve Jobs's liver transplant *months later* where the @!$%# has that source gone? Why didn't Gizmodo have a continued source of inside information, given that they have an informant who apparently knew about Jobs's condition months before anyone else, and well before (it would seem) Jobs himself knew he would need a liver transplant?
How were they scooped by the WSJ? Is it because they suck that bad?
OMFG where did you go to college?
Why? Are you looking to enroll after you graduate from High School?
Did they teach you to read there?
Yes. I learned to read. In college. After somehow graduating high school without having ever learned to read. Brilliant hypothesis, Einstein.
No one implied that Steve was leaving Apple
Didn't you just @!$%#ing accuse me of not knowing how to read?
Those times, however, were always related to news and images of unreleased Apple products. I can only hope that, in this more personal matter, it is absolutely wrong. And that if he is not, that sentence just means that Steve Jobs is retiring according to his plan.
That is Jesus Diaz's exact words on the issue. He is reacting to his "sources" comment that Apple is no longer doing Macworld because "no more steve jobs". In Diaz's quote, he links to yet another stupid @!$%#ing article that he wrote (since proven wrong -- given that Steve Jobs obviously has not retired) which directly "implied that Steve Jobs is leaving Apple".
Again, I have to ask: Did you follow this all that closely, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to someone calling out Diaz?
Now, perhaps you're not his boyfriend, but if that's the case, I wonder: Does he mind that you've got your dick that far up his ass?
{"commentId":8337917,"threadId":"461192","contentId":"2275654","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 3 votes
#15 - Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:23 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"461192","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
