Regarding yesterday's Apple news
By Ryan Block 
posted May 17th 2007 7:21PM
posted May 17th 2007 7:21PM
Yesterday Engadget posted an incorrect story about an iPhone delay, and I wanted to go into greater detail about how this happened.
At 9:09am CDT yesterday a number of Apple employees received an email that appeared to be from Apple corporate reporting that the iPhone and the next version of OS X had been delayed. An Apple employee who we trust then forwarded this email to us. Let's be clear that this is someone who we know without any doubt is an employee of Apple, not someone we merely believe to be an employee of Apple. We contacted our source after receiving their email, and they confirmed for us that they had indeed received this email, an email which by all appearances was a legitimate email from Apple corporate. In fact, this Apple employee certainly believed this, especially since the email had also been received by other Apple employees. They gave us absolutely no indication that its origin might be in doubt.
For a reporter, this kind of thing -- an internal memo to a company's employees -- is solid gold. You don't often get inside information more sound than a memo stating plans -- and it is not uncommon to see these sorts of internal emails quoted in mainstream newspapers and magazines -- but we are still aware of precisely how dangerous it would be to leave any story at that. So after verifying that the email was indeed sent to internal Apple email lists -- but before publishing anything -- we immediately contacted Apple PR, trying to reach our contacts on their PR team that handles iPod / iPhone matters. It was before business hours on the West coast, though, so we even called an Apple PR manager via their private cellphone in search of a statement. When no one was immediately available, we left voicemail and email.
The question we faced at that moment was: Do we run with the story without Apple's comment or not? The answer seemed fairly clear there, too, at the time. We possessed what confirmed Apple employees believed was an internal Apple memo that with absolutely no doubt had also been received by any number of other Apple employees. This memo was passed to us in good faith -- our source believed that what they were sending was real because it was exactly like every other email of this type they had received from Apple corporate. And it stood to reason that Apple, which normally holds its cards very close to the chest with this kind of news, would more than likely not comment on these matters. (How many times have you read a news story with "Apple was not available for / declined to comment"?) Even when Leopard was facing multiple accusations of delay from across the media, Apple denied it up and down for weeks right up until the very day it announced the delay.
So we were sitting on news of obvious importance -- the email was circulating, and it was enough to set off the alarms of other sources at Apple who also started forwarding it outbound. (As it happened, we were not the only site that acquired and published that memo, perhaps just the first.) Given the nature of that news, we felt we had an obligation to inform people that Apple had sent out an internal memo in preparation of a delay in the iPhone and Leopard. And so I ran the story; I believe most people in my place would have done the same.
About an hour and 40 minutes after the initial memo went out, a second memo was sent to the same internal Apple lists, dismissing the first. Soon after, our source -- who we'd been in contact with through the morning -- let us know that Apple was dismissing this earlier email; the second memo passed off the first as "fake" and "not from Apple". Fake indeed, but it still came from someone familiar with Apple's internal mail systems, lists, memo composition structure, etc., who found a way to plant a phony memo in the inboxes of who knows how many Apple employees. (Both emails are published in the original post.) Why Apple took nearly two hours to respond to the situation we do not know.
The person or persons behind the phony email had apparently put one over on Apple employees to the extent that those employees who received that memo and passed it along to us and others took it as truth -- as did we. Although we made sure to confirm and reconfirm with our source that this email was legit at the time it was sent out, unfortunately no amount of vetting and confirming sources can account for what happens when a corporate memo turns out to be fraudulently produced and distributed in this way.
So who sent the memo, and why? We don't know, and we're not sure we ever will. Again, it was not a public memo, and it was not distributed outside Apple's internal Bullet News list to employees. Ultimately we did the only thing we felt right in doing after the initial post: leave it up unedited (but struck through), making sure the developing situation was made as lucid as possible for anyone involved in order to minimize the damages the leaked email caused.
Credibility and trust is the currency of our realm, and it's clear we lost some of that. (And to be 100% clear, no one at Engadget is allowed to own stock in any of the companies we write about.) We take what we do very seriously and would never knowingly pass along information that we believed could be false or inaccurate; in this case, as stated above, we had confirmation from within Apple that this was in fact information that been distributed via Apple's internal corporate email system. If we had had any inkling that ANYONE could have exploited that system that would have greatly affected how we proceeded.
Could things have be done differently? Definitely. We might have waited until the press release the memo mentioned hit the wires. That could have been any time, though, an hour, three hours; we were obviously sitting on a pretty major story, and we believed that would have been a disservice to our readers. We might also have presented it as rumor or whim, although given the information we had at the time, there was truly no reason to believe it was anything but totally legit, and would have been a misrepresentation of the situation.
We also might have waited to hear what Apple had to say, however long it would take for them to get back to us. While we did indeed do our best to get in touch, but we were unable to immediately produce a result, so I chose to run the without comment, as is standard practice for a reporter working on a big, urgent story. (As it happened, we only heard back from Apple after we got the second internal memo.) Of course, had I waited long enough, that second memo would have made its way to me through the pipeline, and the story would have died on the vine, never to be published. (Well, maybe we would have done a story about a planted internal memo at Apple.)
We have learned a very serious lesson yesterday. We will work very hard to earn back the trust we have lost and to do our best to be what we have always strived to be: a trustworthy source for the latest on gadgets, consumer electronics, and personal technology.
At 9:09am CDT yesterday a number of Apple employees received an email that appeared to be from Apple corporate reporting that the iPhone and the next version of OS X had been delayed. An Apple employee who we trust then forwarded this email to us. Let's be clear that this is someone who we know without any doubt is an employee of Apple, not someone we merely believe to be an employee of Apple. We contacted our source after receiving their email, and they confirmed for us that they had indeed received this email, an email which by all appearances was a legitimate email from Apple corporate. In fact, this Apple employee certainly believed this, especially since the email had also been received by other Apple employees. They gave us absolutely no indication that its origin might be in doubt.
For a reporter, this kind of thing -- an internal memo to a company's employees -- is solid gold. You don't often get inside information more sound than a memo stating plans -- and it is not uncommon to see these sorts of internal emails quoted in mainstream newspapers and magazines -- but we are still aware of precisely how dangerous it would be to leave any story at that. So after verifying that the email was indeed sent to internal Apple email lists -- but before publishing anything -- we immediately contacted Apple PR, trying to reach our contacts on their PR team that handles iPod / iPhone matters. It was before business hours on the West coast, though, so we even called an Apple PR manager via their private cellphone in search of a statement. When no one was immediately available, we left voicemail and email.
The question we faced at that moment was: Do we run with the story without Apple's comment or not? The answer seemed fairly clear there, too, at the time. We possessed what confirmed Apple employees believed was an internal Apple memo that with absolutely no doubt had also been received by any number of other Apple employees. This memo was passed to us in good faith -- our source believed that what they were sending was real because it was exactly like every other email of this type they had received from Apple corporate. And it stood to reason that Apple, which normally holds its cards very close to the chest with this kind of news, would more than likely not comment on these matters. (How many times have you read a news story with "Apple was not available for / declined to comment"?) Even when Leopard was facing multiple accusations of delay from across the media, Apple denied it up and down for weeks right up until the very day it announced the delay.
So we were sitting on news of obvious importance -- the email was circulating, and it was enough to set off the alarms of other sources at Apple who also started forwarding it outbound. (As it happened, we were not the only site that acquired and published that memo, perhaps just the first.) Given the nature of that news, we felt we had an obligation to inform people that Apple had sent out an internal memo in preparation of a delay in the iPhone and Leopard. And so I ran the story; I believe most people in my place would have done the same.
About an hour and 40 minutes after the initial memo went out, a second memo was sent to the same internal Apple lists, dismissing the first. Soon after, our source -- who we'd been in contact with through the morning -- let us know that Apple was dismissing this earlier email; the second memo passed off the first as "fake" and "not from Apple". Fake indeed, but it still came from someone familiar with Apple's internal mail systems, lists, memo composition structure, etc., who found a way to plant a phony memo in the inboxes of who knows how many Apple employees. (Both emails are published in the original post.) Why Apple took nearly two hours to respond to the situation we do not know.
The person or persons behind the phony email had apparently put one over on Apple employees to the extent that those employees who received that memo and passed it along to us and others took it as truth -- as did we. Although we made sure to confirm and reconfirm with our source that this email was legit at the time it was sent out, unfortunately no amount of vetting and confirming sources can account for what happens when a corporate memo turns out to be fraudulently produced and distributed in this way.
So who sent the memo, and why? We don't know, and we're not sure we ever will. Again, it was not a public memo, and it was not distributed outside Apple's internal Bullet News list to employees. Ultimately we did the only thing we felt right in doing after the initial post: leave it up unedited (but struck through), making sure the developing situation was made as lucid as possible for anyone involved in order to minimize the damages the leaked email caused.
Credibility and trust is the currency of our realm, and it's clear we lost some of that. (And to be 100% clear, no one at Engadget is allowed to own stock in any of the companies we write about.) We take what we do very seriously and would never knowingly pass along information that we believed could be false or inaccurate; in this case, as stated above, we had confirmation from within Apple that this was in fact information that been distributed via Apple's internal corporate email system. If we had had any inkling that ANYONE could have exploited that system that would have greatly affected how we proceeded.
Could things have be done differently? Definitely. We might have waited until the press release the memo mentioned hit the wires. That could have been any time, though, an hour, three hours; we were obviously sitting on a pretty major story, and we believed that would have been a disservice to our readers. We might also have presented it as rumor or whim, although given the information we had at the time, there was truly no reason to believe it was anything but totally legit, and would have been a misrepresentation of the situation.
We also might have waited to hear what Apple had to say, however long it would take for them to get back to us. While we did indeed do our best to get in touch, but we were unable to immediately produce a result, so I chose to run the without comment, as is standard practice for a reporter working on a big, urgent story. (As it happened, we only heard back from Apple after we got the second internal memo.) Of course, had I waited long enough, that second memo would have made its way to me through the pipeline, and the story would have died on the vine, never to be published. (Well, maybe we would have done a story about a planted internal memo at Apple.)
We have learned a very serious lesson yesterday. We will work very hard to earn back the trust we have lost and to do our best to be what we have always strived to be: a trustworthy source for the latest on gadgets, consumer electronics, and personal technology.
Ok, K, you can link to a web page, you fail to connect how Engadget is guilty of insider information laws. From the site:
---
Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security.
---
The information being cited was perpetrated to be public and originating from Apple. Now IANAL, but unless Engadget staff colluded to produce this document and then bought stock when it was at its low, I fail to see how Engadget is guilty of anything. This does not appear to meet the bar to be considered an insider trader violation.
I vote that there's nothing you should have done differently. You get a leaked email, you publish it; that's what blogs are expected to do. It's up to readers to use things like common sense and critical thinking and whatnot.
"It was before business hours on the West coast"
"Why Apple took nearly two hours to respond to the situation we do not know."
Maybe you do know. Maybe it was because it was before business hours...
Given that the fake email said that the press release had been released - note the past tense - you might have thought that it would already be on the wires if the internal email were true. Companies have to release information like this to the public and staff at the same time precisely because it can have such a huge effect on stock price.
I doubt it was done deliberately by Apple to find the source of their leaks - they'd have chosen less damaging misinformation for a plan like that - but I'm sure one of the side effects of this spook memo is that they will track down everyone who sent it outside of the company. I hope they also manage to find the source and changed their procedures because you've also now given anyone else who wants to try this a bit more information than had two days ago...
LET'S GET REAL.
The traders who utilize this kind of late-breaking information are in the high-risk, high-stakes game. This is the price one pays for depending on sometimes undependable information. Although this is the new world we're living in, everyone will have to adjust.
Besides, with trading: You win some, You lose some. Consider this a 21st-century-growth-pains learning lesson and move on. They'll make up for it another day.
I see no harm done. You were doing your thing.
When I read the post, you already knew the original had been a prank, and you took great care to explain what had happened. That is worth everything to me!
I see no reason to disregard you as a trusted source.
Keep up the good work!
With all the people blaming Engadget for not checking their sources, why isn't anyone attacking the traders/investors for not checking their sources? If the only basis for selling stock was an online article, I might think about getting a new trader. They traders/investors could easily have waited to verify the delay just as easily as Engadget could have waited to get an official from Apple.
And for everyone sending a letter to the SEC, make sure to send them a complaint about your investor as well for not being intelligent enough to think for themselves.
you got nothing to worry about fellas. I'm still an unconditional fan of Engadget. and don't sweat all of this SEC investigation nonsense. you are a news reporting blog and you have no culpability on any subsequent trading that took place based on your story. if people made trades on apple stock based on reading weblogs, then those people are seriously uneducated in the stock trading world. i say screw the apple investors that "rely" on a weblog for their trading tips.
we love you Engadget!
I can't belive you don't have the courage to admit you made the mistake.
And since when do you not check out and be suspicious of an email that starts "Apple issued a press release today.." when it isn't even business hours in Cupertino yet???
Call it stupid, accidental, whatever. Diabolical, I call it.
You might look forward to seeing that Apple employee fired - this smells like he took the bait in a sting.
And Engadget's lack of apology makes you look like you have no qualms about posting iffy information in the future, so maybe heads should roll there, too.
Boo-frickin'-hoo.
Ryan, I'm glad you didn't "apologize," because Engadget has nothing to apologize for. The blame for this fiasco falls squarely with Apple. Is it "reckless" to print a story before you get "official confirmation" when you already have "confirmation?" No. For 10 years, leaks from inside Apple have served as every bit of confirmation that anyone a) interested in Apple or b) interested in computer/software/gadget news has ever needed (just ask the folks at AppleInsider). Apple created this mess for themselves by locking down their information so tightly that the sector media HAD to rely on inside leaks if it was going to report on Apple at all. What has changed, or what was so special about this information, that anyone should expect you guys or anyone else to act differently in the face of leak-source news about Apple? Nothing. Certainly not the CONSEQUENCES for the stock price -- that should always, always, always be the last thing that a journalist or any ilk (even a blogger) considers.
Bottom line: Apple created this economy for "Apple info," and it clearly has failed to protect its own IT infrastructure. Engadget bears no blame for running with this story unless it knew it was false -- which is clearly not the case. It is Apple that owes a duty to protect its shareholders' investments, not Engadget. Let Apple stew on yesterday's fiasco as it considers revising its public relations plan. You, Ryan et al, did your jobs AND what your readers expected -- nobody should hold you to any other standard.
You are not "just a blog" anymore, you have influence and thus you have responsibilities and accountability. The laws that govern other media may not have you yet, but that is no excuse to be nonchalant about your journalistic duties and integrity.
So i hope you learned well from this lesson. ignore the usual "Yes men" that permeate these comments and take healthy criticism.
Good luck. I will still read this "blog".
The most interesting thing demonstrated by this episope is just how totally fucking rediculous the stock market is. An imaginary 4 billion dollars vanishes because a blog says two products might be delayed. 2.5 billion new imaginary dollars are created because the blog says it had been informed incorrectly. Every analyst and day-trader that dumped APPL at 12:01 is just as guilty of hasty decision making.
While I understand why some would be upset about this(especially the crowd who lost money because of it), I also have to say that the reason we(or at least I) read engadget is cause they usually get really high-profile news out there really fast. Most of the time it's accurate but every once in a while something goes wrong because of the necissary speed. If Engadget sat on every lead they got until it was totally, 100% confirmed then they might as well be CNET or one of those slower news sites. The reason why I read engadget is the speed and if every once in a while that means I get incorrect information for an hour, I'm fine with it.
Blaming the investors who sold their stock is total sophistry and without merit, and I'll tell you why.
First of all, there is no logic to the argument that can spread highly uncertain information and then blame those who act on it. If you don't think anyone should act on it, then what's the point of spreading it? What do you want people to do with this information?
Second, basic ethics. The stupidity or non-stupidity of those negatively harmed by your irresponsibility simply has no bearing on evaluating your own actions. Do you only have a moral responsibility not to screw over clever people? This is a grifter's code of behaviour: not what we should expect from an information source.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, not only those who sold in reaction to Engadget could have been negatively affected by this. News flash: Apple stock is bought and sold every day. Sometimes people just need their money. Because of Engadget's irresponsibility, some of them would either have been unable to realise their money on that morning (perhaps wanting to take advantage of some other opportunity or genuinely needing it), or even end up having to sell for thousands less than they could have had Engadget not shot their wad off prematurely. So even if you believe in the grifter's code of honour: you cannot claim that only those who 'reacted' to Engadget lost money, because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANY PARTICULAR PERSON DECIDED THEY NEEDED TO SELL THEIR STOCK AT THAT MOMENT.
So those you of you playing the 'blame the victim' here: think for a second, will you? Because this is complete and utter nonsense. Ethics are not an exercise in 'buyer beware', and they wouldn't be ethics if they were.
Engadget, your still OK in my book.
The amount of venom directed at Engadget is mind-boggling. Do you guys always shoot the messenger? Are you as angry at Apple for allowing their system to be compromised like this?
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, then its probably a duck. Internet media does not wait around to send the duck off for DNA testing. Engadget does far more fact-checking than the rest of the tubes, and for I find great comfort in that.
Some people lost some money, sure. But I'm willing to bet those people who lost money and are complaining about Engadget's roll in it aren't really prepared for the risks that come with the stock market. (Stop loss on less than 5 percent? Here's a free tip: stop using programs to manage your money and get an advisor, because you clearly don't know what you're doing.) Someone already pointed out that Tuesday was just as scary for Apple stock as Wednesday, and - get this - for no apparent reason. See, the stock market is fickle and -get this - it involves some risk. No such thing as free money, folks. If you can't handle the risk, I understand that your bank offers CDs at a nice, comfortable rate.
To those who say Engadget should have waited: Look, these guys had every reason to believe this was legit. Here's a little scenario: let's say the email WAS real, and Engadget sat on it to confirm while other blogs published it. The stock value starts to drop, so by the time Engadget tells you about it, you're already selling at a loss. You would be just as pissed if they sat on it.
You get your tech information from the inter-tubes because it's instantaneous. You want time wasted for what would usually be overkill fact-checking? Read the newspaper. The rest of the world will be making their financial decisions hours and hours ahead of you.
Ryan, all you had to do is explain yourself, not apologize. That's been done. You did your duty Wednesday, yesterday, and today, and I'll look forward to what you've got for us tomorrow.
BTW - Well said, Josh.
You're right in pointing out that "Blogs != Newspapers". And it is also correct to say that in a proper news organisation, mistakes like this can be made. By rookie reporters.
In a proper newspaper, a managing editor has to go through years of training and experience before he/she gets to that post. In the instant culture of the Web, anyone can call himself an editor and not have to apologise for making a simple error like not checking a website to see if the mentioned press release is indeed there.
Face it: other sites got the same info and chose not to publish. Engadget wanted the glory. Now they should revel in it.
I think that Apple should nail your ass down to the floor right next to your mouth where it belongs since you were so damn eager to nail them by publishing this article before confirming that indeed it was a FACT!
You know your web statistics better than anyone, and it seems that you have quite a lot of readers. Did you think of the consequences of releasing this article before confirming it? Do you think that Apple would be unfair in targeting you and other blogs that have spread the rumor?! I don't think it will be. As a matter of fact, I actually hope they do.
we all understand and all those internal email could have went out to people apple thought was leaking information and you just proved apple right.
I don't get it. How do you guys want us to believe that you wrote your article in good faith when the apple memo starts with "Apple issued a press release today announcing ..." and there was no press release? Didn't that ring any alarm about the credibility of the news? When a company issues a press release, it immediately hits the wire, so without this press release, how could you still believe the news was real?
As an Apple fanboy, I can say that you are obviously in the clear. You took all the correct journalistic steps in vetting it and as far as you could tell, it was legitimate if you go through the checklist. If anything, in today's times, you showed a lot more integrity and for the journalism process than a lot of "real" press. And really, if you trade on info or you use an eletronic triggering system that simply buys or sells based solely on price regardless of moronic panicking ... who is to really blame ... though this might just be an Apple way of sweeping out your friend at Apple ... the equivilient of putting someone you suspect of leaking in a room with others, dropping some bombshell info and see who sprints out of there ...
is this "apology" really necessary? i dont see the point, you people did nothing wrong, it seems. and the part at the end about earning back our trust...i mean, come on, who do you think you are. you guys are a whitty news source for gadgets and electronics and such, not the republican party.
Funny, but I've always felt that Engadget tends to be pro Mac. Sure, they balance it out in the long run, but their coverage of Apple keynotes and Jobs' burps and farts was a turn off when I first started reading the site. I felt like they had a mild case of the fanboy syndrome. Now I appreciate the news like that for what it is. I get my daily dose of tech news and get a pulse on the industry.
Seriously? This is the web; it is an electronic medium. With print media, you only get one chance to say the right thing, so you take longer to get the news out there. Electronic media, gives you the opportunity to disseminate information quickly, but at the greater risk of inaccuracy. There might be more noise, but you get the good and bad reports that much faster so that you are willing to accept the risk. There is some onus placed on the readership -- perhaps more so than with other mediums.
no worries.... not like I'm buying the iphone anyway. LOL.
Dear Engadget:
I look forward to your blog every day. I have a mundane job, and the humor and enlightenment (not to mention the knowledge) that your site offers me on a daily basis are among the few small pleasures that I look forward to every day. I apologize on behalf of the few stupid people that sold their stock in Apple yesterday directly after the drop. I don't know anybody that this effected, and nobody that I know knows anybody that this effected, and I haven't yet read a post on your site that was left by anybody was effected, but according to several users that posted messages here, "People lost money!"
Thanks, Engadget. Thanks, Ryan. Thanks, Weblogs, Inc. You make my life suck a little bit less. You don't owe anybody an apology. You rationalized your decision, and you (as professionals) deserve the right to make and defend your judgment calls; this is something that lemmings (that don't have to make judgment calls) will never understand. Above everything else, these mindless individuals are gifted at blaming their shortcomings (stupidity/shortsightedness included) on others, and for this I apologize as well.
Engadget, you rock. Ryan, you rock. Keep up the good work.
i dont like this. could this be a Apple ploy to smoke out the "rats"? i think that to be more likely than someone hacking the apple mail server to post the fake memo.
People lose money and they need to blame someone for it.
If EnGadget posted something that MADE money and turned out to be false, you'd have the very same people gloating right now.
The only thing i see wrong about this whole thing is that engadget should have somehow marked that story as a "possible rumour" instead of making it sound so solid. Lost in trust? Definitely. Is it there fault that stock went down? Nope, that's the fault of the idiots who can't really trade and even less accept loss. This isn't your middle school playground with rules, this is the fricking stock market, grow up already.
Not sure if anyone already mentioned this possibility (200+ replies to wade through), but it seems like noone has really considered the possibility that Apple employees leaked the information to other people as well, say, investors who have significant holdings in Apple, and maintain contacts within the company.
Unless anyone can actually say that they have proof that the drop in stock price was directly due to investors keeping tabs on Engadget, hold off on pointing fingers or considering this retraction as anything more than a simple retraction. Coincidence does not equate with causation unless you skip significant logical steps.
Yes, yes, that's right ... it's perfectly ok. Yes everything is just fine. Go ahead and be a tool, or puppet if you prefer ( I know Bush does ), for someone’s malicious intent. Don't bother to investigate for yourselves, it's that you caved in to your fear that someone might publish this before you did that counts - right? In the fast paced world of 'speculative reporting' it's just the same as someone yelling Fire! in a theater - There's no time to think and investigate because that moment of doubt could cost you your lives! Thank god you have that to free your consciences - ...oh wait.. that's right you don't have any scruples or consciences - you accept information from those who lie and betray those they work for and who don't value the promise they made when signing confidentiality agreement they made of their own free will. And don't worry about all those thousands of Americans day trading with their retirement funds - it's not your problem anyways - you just 'calls em how we see em' - were just a 'fancy blog' - filling the void of a decimated factual reporting industry - yes... yes... let's all be just like the fake news on television and let unnamed sources and innuendo rule so that eventually, say in about 2 years, all information in this county will be only that which those in control want us to hear. Good work guys! And while your penning your oh so witty and snappy reply do let us know exactly who at Engadget will be resigning over this won't you? yeah that's what i thought.
@bob- You think that news would be better if no one leaked info? Without this sort of "betrayal" (too small and boring to call it that- and if this dropped the stock prices the market's too volatile to be a safe investment for ANYONE's retirement funds) news would be EXACTLY what the people in control want us to hear. Geez, some of you people are thick. First people complain of Engadget being Apple fanboys most of the time, now they complain that they aren't being fanboyish enough. I can't keep out of this argument- it feels like Engadget's future rides on this little memo, and I don't want them to go away. But hey, they're indirectly owned by AOL-Time Warner. They have some pretty deep pockets behind them.
Oh, BTW- you sound like someone I met yesterday, who turned out to enjoy taking panty shots of women. Clean up your grammar and spelling a bit, will you?
Doesn't "dark side of the moon" "Both sides of the story" ring any bells? I am allowed to make this mistake as a regular person. You sir are not allowed "as engadget" to fall for this. You should be protecting me from falling a victim to this kind of fraud not being part of it.
Sir, you should resign from engadget immediately. That's the only honorable thing to do. I am sorry won't set things right. This is the death of a reporter "as you like to call yourself".
Now, it's either "engadget" or "you" and if I were involved, I would surely force you to resign, this will set things right and I hope you have learned your lesson. "The hard way I guess".
Personally I feel the Apple employee/s involved should be outed and fired for a breach of their confidentiality agreement.
Engadget, everything I read that you publish from now on I will take with a grain of salt.
Dan Rather lost his job, and a significant amount of his credibility, for rushing to publish what turned out to be false information on the president.
I think you need to be much more careful in the future. In this case, not rushing to publish without waiting for either a "no comment" from Apple, or perhaps a "This is a forgery" from Apple, in hindsight should have been a deal breaker. In journalism, just one source is NEVER enough to go with on a story. Never. Ever.
Your credibility is all you have, and it is important to protect it.
No journalistic integrity at Engadget, apparently. Ryan can pen 2000 more words of excuse and he won't negate the disservice he did his readers.
I had a stop loss on some AAPL and Engadget's little lapse in integrity cost me $3k as AAPL dipped on the false report and quickly recovered. I can only wonder how much others lost because "getting a scoop" was more important to Engadget than verifying their story was true.
Many people were hurt by selling, stop losses, etc.
by either fraudulent or intentional disregard or misleading info. Someone is accountable. Do not wait for SEC. Join in Class action now against Engadget (Weblogs, INC). We don't need fancy lawyers taking a third either. Contact for more info
Why don't you wait to talk with Apple PR? Why the needs to be the first to publish this information?
You play everyday with the jobs of the pople who works in that company.
Give more attention guys... remember you are a country that is doing a war BASED on lies.......
To the one that lost $5,000, to loose this much on a $5 dollar drop you had to have unvested about $100k. Any one with $100k just in Apple can not whine about $5k. This is very simplistic math, but bought at $105, sold at $100, $5000 loss, 1000 shares * $105 = $105,000. Yes, it does not require a lot of thought and there is more to it then this, but I refuse to believe $100k in a single stock and he is not educated in the way of the market.
The main reason for this is that Engadget is just a blog, slightly higher then the Inquirer and two notches above the Onion.
Any one that would short sell based on blogs is someone that is just minute trading. The talk of $5billion losses is only market losses, not actual value, but the same thing as talking about CD piracy, has no one questioned this value?
Not many companies can live after a $5 Billion (5,000,000,000) loss. Numbers such as these are pure imagination.
It feels good just to write this after wading through 12 pages of comments. He did the thing, posted a rumor that was believed to be true. He was first, he lost credibility, but anyone that thinks Engadget ranks ,weighs, or really carries the same weight as the WSJ, or the Times is sadly living in a made up world.
Thanks
For all those people claiming Apple sent that out to smoke out a mole, do you think Apple would risk the effect it would have on its stock? I dont think so. It was either a joke, a very expensive one at that, or there was some truth to this.
I guess Engadget could have done better to verify the story before reporting it. But i dont trust you guys any less. Unfortunately, i cant say the same for other news sources that regularly "copy" your stories. Maybe a disclaimer that it could be a rumour might have helped.
Next time, in a similar situation, give the benefit of the doubt with a phrase like
"We have reason to believe, from apparently credible documentation, that ...
Remember if our source is false, we are not responsible. Just wait for confirmation before doing anything serious." It would not require an apology.
If apple cares, this should teach them to be a little more responsive in the future.
"we were obviously sitting on a pretty major story"
Obviously you did not.
This is why there is an education for journalists, and editors are generally experienced people that can keep calm in these situations.
You had information from one single source (the e-mail - that it was several recipients doesn't make it several sources), no indications whatsoever on anything else - and you chose to throw the match into the dry weed... surprise, you got yourself a bushfire. And you actually might have helped Apple smoke out a mole in the process.
To your excuse NYT ran into the same wildfire with the Yahoo/MS story just recently... but that case also should have made you even more careful.
"Apple created this mess for themselves by locking down their information so tightly that the sector media HAD to rely on inside leaks if it was going to report on Apple at all."
Jesus, what nonsense. Here's a news flash: Apple has no ethical responsibility to predivulge their plans for the benefit of Engadget. Engadget does, however, have an ethical responsibility to use credible sources. This argument is like the neighbourhood robber saying, 'Well, if only he had given me five dollars when I asked him to, I wouldn't have had to break into his house!' Since when did every company become obligated to hand over whatever anyone asks for?
A moral midget's argument if I've ever heard one.
I call for Ryan Block's immediate dismissal.