A thought I had earlier this morning.
I believe the technical term for that is WORST DAY EVER
I believe the technical term for that is WORST DAY EVER
Yes, I just posted the same thing here, on twitter and on Facebook. Why? Because there are three different sets of people reading each one. I’m sorry if you overlap and I’m further sorry if you are offended by my repeated thing but dude, if something like that really irks you then I’m sorry you are irked by such ridiculous things.
Also, I post a lot on here when Todd isn’t around.
I need a “deal with it” gif for this.
I often do the same. If you see links to my Destructoid work in different places, it’d be awesome if you could click each time!
(Source: openareas)
With the news of Netflix becoming available to iPhones/iPads, I thought it was important to post this video of David Lynch talking about the joys of watching films on a 3inch screen.
FUCKING TELEPHONE
The Gizmodo/iPhone 4G/Apple saga has only gotten more fascinating, at least to me — especially in light of the San Mateo County police seizing Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s computers last Friday night, while he and his wife were out to dinner.
One question I’ve been asked repeatedly since this story broke last week, ‘would The New York Times have published pictures of the phone?’
George Freeman, assistant general counsel for The Times, told me the paper would have published images of the phone. “It’s legal to publish information you shouldn’t have as long as it’s newsworthy, it’s accurate and you didn’t do anything illegal to obtain it,” Mr. Freeman said. But, he said, The Times would not have paid for the phone.
“Paying for journalism has a stigma attached to it that might color the case in an unfavorable way,” he added, “but it doesn’t mean it was illegal.”
“Some parts of this case falls [sic] into uncharted territory,” Mr. Freeman said.
At the time of this writing, Gizmodo’s story alone is bordering on 2 million page views.
Now word is leaking out that Gizmodo paid a cool 10 grand for the iPhone prototype, which all things considered, seems like a bargain given Apple’s typically tight rein on product leaks.
$10,000 has undeniably diverted a ton of eyeballs to Gizmodo’s site, and the surge in web traffic probably has Gizmodo editors jumping for joy. But you have to wonder if Gizmodo, in the grand scheme of things, tarnished their “relationship” with Apple for a short term spike in pageviews.
Think about it - Steve Jobs is probably livid right now, and what are the odds that Gizmodo, going forward, gets invited to Apple’s always popular “special events.” And what are the odds now that Gizmodo will get a review unit of the upcoming iPhone 4G? Though, to be fair, they apparently already have one.
Note from Ron: Journalism has evolved into this. Seriously. When you chase a story proper, you get bashed because of your diligence. The author here also doesn’t understand that blogs really don’t have the positive PR power we often think that they do. They do however have a negative PR power. So Apple not inviting them to an event would cost Apple far more in negative PR when compared to a positive reviews impact on sales (which isn’t much).
How deep does this Gizmodo/Apple/iPhone 4G rabbit hole go?
← Older Entries Page 1 of 12