Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

adamfishercox · 06:49 PM

The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs

Read recent posts, then weigh in.

On one hand, he's been setting this story up for a while with posts on the EFF, etc.. On the other hand, well, it could happen... and the fact that he's broken the FSJ character is a weird thing.

phantomdragonz · Dec 22, 2007, 06:21 PM

good for him for trying to make it transparent... it allows the public to see it and have it backfire in apples face... hopefully saving fake jobs a lot of $$$... damn shame what lawyers do now a days...

Zach

CMYKid · Dec 22, 2007, 06:59 PM

havent they known who the guy is for a long damn time? an editor at a largish magazine or something?

anyway, the things they're taking about "suing" for arent remotely similar to what Think Secret was in trouble for.

Big Mac · 10:17 PM

I hope it's a joke, but it appears to be very real. And if so, it sends a really negative message about the way Apple and Jobs [deal with non-threats].

Cold Warrior · Dec 22, 2007, 10:13 PM

I've been agonizing over the same thing....is it real or just more blog fiction? If it's real, I don't know why he'd be in the least bit worried. He'd have the backing of a major publication, and Apple's lawyers' tactics are hideous enough for him to wage a public relations campaign to make Apple look like the devil. With the notoriety of his blog, and the pull of his publisher bosses, he could make the rounds on TV shows and do some damage to Apple's carefully-cultivated image.

adamfishercox · Dec 22, 2007, 10:16 PM

I think the one main thing pointing to the joke (if it is) is the fact that it came SO fast after his posts about Think Secret. If he wanted to make it more realistic, I would have waited at least 3 days.

Big Mac · Dec 22, 2007, 10:18 PM

Good points, Warrior and Adam. Intriguing.

adamfishercox · Dec 22, 2007, 11:30 PM

It looks like he is ending the "story arc" already. Whether real or not, this ended really fast...

Cold Warrior · Dec 23, 2007, 03:22 PM

In the latest post, his lawyer is named after an Andy Kaufman character (some comments after the blog entry mentioned it). I think the general feeling now is that it's the author's take on the Think Secret thing.

That said, it wasn't very good. I read the blog for the character of Fake Steve Jobs, not the melodrama of a Forbes senior editor. Also, dropping out of character like this was odd and not enjoyable for the reader.

adamfishercox · Dec 23, 2007, 05:16 PM

yeah, thats the only reason I thought it was real... kinda pissed off.

Chuckit · Dec 23, 2007, 05:35 PM

I thought it was a pretty effective piece of satire. It's obvious that Lyons is pissed at both Apple and Ciarelli for being such whores.

Big Mac · Dec 23, 2007, 05:50 PM

Effective satire, I agree. But what did Ciarelli do, other than dishing secret info?

TheoCryst · Dec 23, 2007, 07:21 PM

I'm not sure if it's real, but I'm pretty sure that it's just satire. I don't like that he broke character to do it, but I understand why he did. His latest post "Breakfast with an Apple lawyer" sprawls into a bit of a diatribe against Apple for what they're doing, which makes me lean towards satire.

He does make some good points though, especially about the Gandhi ads.

Chuckit · Dec 24, 2007, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Effective satire, I agree. But what did Ciarelli do, other than dishing secret info?

He took money for silence. FSJ's already done a couple of entries mocking him for selling out and claiming that he wants to go on to "greater journalistic pursuits."

Big Mac · Dec 24, 2007, 09:12 AM

Taking money to shut down his site is a superior alternative to being bankrupted by endless litigation brought by a multi-national corporation.

Chuckit · Dec 24, 2007, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Taking money to shut down his site is a superior alternative to being bankrupted by endless litigation brought by a multi-national corporation.

Hadn't the EFF taken Ciarelli's case?

Big Mac · Dec 24, 2007, 09:49 AM

Okay, but even then, if you know anyone who's ever been on the receiving end of a lawsuit, it isn't a very pleasant thing to deal with. And Ciarelli may have had other valid reasons to settle. Perhaps he didn't want to endanger his sources, or maybe he secretly felt it was improper to deal in Apple's trade secrets. This wasn't some great journalistic cause; I don't blame him for settling.

Eug · Dec 24, 2007, 10:38 AM

Hey, if somebody offered me a 6-digit figure to STFU about Apple rumours, I'd do it too.

Not good PR for Apple, but I'd be willing to take Apple's hush money.

Chuckit · Dec 24, 2007, 10:55 AM

And that's fine for either of you: You're not claiming to be journalists. When you pay a graphic designer not to do his job, that's called "severance pay." When you pay a journalist not to do his job, that's called a bribe.

Big Mac · Dec 24, 2007, 10:58 AM

Do you really think publishing trade secrets constitutes journalism?

Eug · Dec 24, 2007, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And that's fine for either of you: You're not claiming to be journalists. When you pay a graphic designer not to do his job, that's called "severance pay." When you pay a journalist not to do his job, that's called a bribe.

Yep, it's a bribe, which is why it's not good PR for Apple. Still, it's not as if Apple is killing babies or anything, so there is a difference.

Nick Ciarelli's journalism was publishing Apple's plans in advance.
I consider it journalism yes, but it's definitely not the same thing as the NYT publishing illegal kickbacks to Congressmen or whatever.

Furthermore, Mr. Ciarelli acknowledged publicly that he was getting a settlement. Yeah, the details were not disclosed, but it's not as if he's taking under-the-table cash payoffs.

So, yeah, it's a bribe, but a legal one, and one which I can forgive Mr. Ciarelli for taking. Apple OTOH just looks bad for going down this path in the first place. First they try to sue a site which has done nothing illegal. Then when they realize they can't win in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, they resort to a legal bribe instead.