Apple's Fallen Hero?
[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/comz8F"]Apple “fan boy” hero David Pogue has come under fire of late due to conflicts of interest in his articles in the New York times. This according to an article written in the wake of Pogue’s interview with TWiT’s Leo Laporte. Pogue has been one of the Apple world’s most revered columnists due to his ability to get the inside track on Apple products often in the face of Apple’s secrecy, which is among the best in the tech industry.
The controversy has arisen following a 10 minute interview Apple granted Pogue with Steve Jobs, the company’s CEO, product visionary, marketing mogul, and iron-fisted overlord. In last week’s TWiT (This Week in Tech) podcast, the tech pundits got into a sometimes heated discussion of Pogue asking Jobs weak questions and backing off when Jobs made some seemingly false statements. Apple watchers in the know–most notably Jason Calacanis who is frequently successful in getting secret information including photos of prototype iPods and such–had been speculating that a forthcoming iPod Touch would include a camera. Shortly after the reports, photos of a Touch with a camera installed were circulated. When Steve Jobs made his much trumpeted return several weeks ago and introduced new products during an expo, Apple fans were disappointed to find no camera on the Touch. Steve Jobs quickly asserted that Apple had never considered releasing such a product because a camera would undermine its pricing structure. Engineers at Apple leaked information indicating that there were technical problems integrating the camera with the Touch’s chipset in time for the scheduled release, so Jobs ordered the camera removed. Apple insiders cried foul and seemed dismayed that Jobs would be untruthful, especially since the product that shipped had the camera space intact.
Apple watchers were waiting for the pre-announced NY Times interview Pogue conducted with Jobs to find out what happened to the camera. They fully expected Pogue to get to the bottom of the issue and ask Jobs when they could expect a product including a camera. Jobs reasserted that there had never been any intention of including a camera with the Touch. Pogue politely accepted the answer and moved on. Allegations of a cop out were hurled at Pogue almost universally. Taken in context with Pogue’s recent glowing NY Times review of Apple’s Snow Leopard OS, which even die-hard Apple supporters panned as nothing more than a service pack that should have been free, tech industry writers claimed that an obvious conflict of interest exists since Pogue also wrote a “Missing Manual” book for Snow Leopard. Even Pogue admits that the NY Times column and interview have increased sales of his book. Obviously, people want to know if the glowing review of Snow Leopard and easy interview were quid pro quo for Pogue being granted access.
The question now is: Will the New York times ride out the negative press it is receiving over this incident? Or will it try to contain the perception that its integrity has been tarnished? My guess is that this is not over.
John, you’ve got your facts slightly backward.
My interview with Jobs was the very day he unveiled the new iPods.
The photos of a new Touch with the missing “camera hole” came out AFTER that, by at least a day!
–Pogue
David, I will stipulate to your description of the sequence of events. However while I agree that being factually correct is important, the time-line of the photo release is not finally the point.
Rumors that there would be no camera were circling prior to both the second photo and the interview, just like rumors of the inclusion of a camera had circled weeks earlier prior to the release of the photo showing the camera. Some people wanted to consider the first photo as proof that the Touch would include a camera while others insisted that the photo could have been a forgery. The rumors caused the buzz among Apple watchers (nothing new there), not the photos.
In my opinion, the question to Steve Jobs as to what happened to the camera was a result of the buzz within the Apple user community, not the photo (either of them). That the question was asked is proof of this. The photo with the “camera hole” was considered the smoking gun but in reality, even this could have been photoshopped but no one pointed this out because by this point the proverbial smoke had started to clear.
As I stated in the article, Apple fans were disappointed and perhaps a bit hurt that Jobs was dishonest. Let’s face it though, what kind of marketing genius would he be if he didn’t do that from time to time?
Again, I agree that these are important points but–with respect–the elephants in the room are the conflict of interest and quid pro quo questions.
They’re all in bed with the manufacturers. My complaint is that I’m tired of the media labeling every new gadget as the Ipod/Iphone/IwhateverSteveJobssays device killer. Why does every reviewer have to compare every new gadget in reference to an Apple gadget. Why not just give the pros and cons and leave the personal preferences for Apple products at the door. Is the Palm Pre a good smartphone or not? Is the Zune HD a good MP3 player or not? That’s all I need to know.
Jeramie,
You took the words right out of my mouth. It frustrates me to hear the same lame question about literally ever single device that hits the market. Is this one an iPhone killer?
Of course, that’s mainly in the States. In Europe, the iphone is just another smart phone. Most people choose from the hundreds of other smart-phones on the market. Smart-phones are relatively new in the US which is why people made such a big deal. The American market sadly, gets everything last in the mobile market. That opened a window of opportunity for Apple to debut this to thunderous applause in the US.
John
Nice article, and your facts are good and straight!
Keep on posting more stuff
Jessy
Actually, I think the sequence IS important.
I ask Jobs the question on everyone’s mind: “Why a camera in the Nano, but not the Touch?”
He explains–frankly, I believe–that for “the first year, we didn’t know how to market the Touch. Was it the iPhone without the phone?” And now, he says, they’re going to position it as a game machine. To appeal to the teenagers, they have to make it as cheap as possible–and that means “we’re not going to add things.”
Everyone NOW thinks that’s a disingenuous, fake answer.
But it sounded perfectly truthful at the time. Not because it’s Steve Jobs talking–but because it was plausible. (And it STILL may be the real answer, by the way. Considering the timeline for product development, the “camera hole,” if that’s indeed what it is, was designed a LONG time ago, perhaps for some future Touch iteration.)
So my failing to “nail Jobs’s ass to the wall” on this has (a) something to do with my non-confrontational interview style (which, again, has nothing to do with Jobs in particular–I’m that way with Gates, with Senators, movie stars), and (b) something to do with the fact that it was, in fact, a plausible response.
–Pogue
I agree that we can’t know for sure why the camera space was placed there. Even if it was left over from early design considerations or for ease of implementation for a future version of the product, it STILL means Jobs lied about a camera NEVER having been considered for this product because of its positioning as a gaming device. Clearly, the inclusion of a camera WAS at the very least, considered. I won’t claim that denying this is some gross miscarriage Karmic justice–but it’s still a point and people seem to care about it for whatever reason.
On the sequence, I don’t actually reference the 2nd photo (without the camera). I merely state that Apple watchers privy to the aforementioned “buzz” cried foul “especially” since the shipping version has the camera space intact.
Clearly, you can infer the timeline but I didn’t elaborate with too much granularity because the story is not the timing of the photo but the circumstances surrounding Job’s statement.
For the record, I agree with everything else you said in your response because I can’t imagine I would have been quicker on my feet than you were had I stood in your shoes. It is always easier to armchair quarterback. Furthermore, I heard how difficult it was for Leo Laporte to criticize you “in person.” He clearly respects you and found it difficult to be critical in that forum. I think Leo’s demeanor gave all of us who heard the TWiT piece a small window into what it would have been like for you.