Filed under: TUAW Business
About the 1st generation iPhone/push notification post: an apology
On Tuesday evening, in the leadup to the release of the iPhone 3.0 firmware update, TUAW ran a post that included wrong information. The post stated that first-generation iPhone owners would not be able to use the push notification feature of 3.0 and receive phone calls at the same time. This was incorrect with respect to the final 3.0 release. Although the post was well-intentioned, the conclusions stated came from a source who had experienced a conflict between push notifications and incoming calls while testing a beta push-enabled application, and the source did not adequately confirm the issue with other iPhone developers or other push-enabled applications. Furthermore, the technical information in the post about how push notification works was not accurate.
As editors, we can blame the lateness of the hour and the excitement over the iPhone 3.0 OS release on not catching the mistakes pre-publication, but in truth, we made an error in judgement. Based on our confidence in the source, we didn't assign the same level of scrutiny to the post that our readers have come to expect (and that we have come to expect for ourselves), and for that we are sorry. Had the post been framed differently as "one user's story" rather than as a blanket technical explanation, that would have been a better choice; however, due to the NDA status of participants in the iPhone developer program, it was not possible to directly credit the source at that time; the 3.0 firmware had not yet been released.
Although we amended the post as soon as the mistake was realized and removed it from the front page within minutes, the nature of the Internet means that this misinformation is hard to erase. Our editorial policy dictates that we not "unpublish" or delete posts, once they appear on the site. Still, even removed from our front page, and even with our editor's note atop the post, we are aware that the post continues to be a point of confusion for readers.
TUAW's bloggers and editors strive to provide accurate information and to clearly distinguish conjecture or rumor from fact. In this instance, we got it wrong.
We are truly sorry for this situation. We understand that it reflects poorly on us as a site, to readers and to the community at large. As a result, we have strengthened our editorial resolve to do more vigorous checking of the technical details of posts, so that this sort of misinformation does not get published in the future.
As always, thank you for reading TUAW. Without your support, we wouldn't be here, and we are very much aware how important our credibility is to your continued readership and participation.
We look forward to continuing the conversation on this issue and responding to your questions and concerns. While comments on the initial post are closed, we welcome your feedback in comments here, via our tips line and on Twitter and Facebook.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Readers said 12:35PM on 6-20-2009
Apology accepted
Reply
Sax25 said 12:47PM on 6-20-2009
awww.. someone needs a hug.. come here you! *hugs*
Reply
josh said 1:11PM on 6-20-2009
Aweeee. Someone needs a hug!
Reply
OSXleopard2 said 12:53PM on 6-20-2009
Thanks for the apology. You guys do a great job around here! Love your blog!
Reply
the old man said 12:54PM on 6-20-2009
Huzzah!
Reply
fablloyd said 12:55PM on 6-20-2009
Everyone messes up sometimes. It's the way you handle a mistake that defines your integrity.
Well handled, integrity intact.
Reply
Hawkman said 2:13PM on 6-20-2009
I agree; thanks. You've all gone up in my estimation, despite the original story being rather... suspect. A certain other Weblogs, Inc. site could do with a lesson from you in how to admit mistakes.
JAQ said 7:45PM on 6-20-2009
Now if only they'd own up the mistake of misreporting that iPhone Classics with prepaid plans were all going to be forced to switch to a more expensive contract if they upgraded to OS 3.0. Then maybe I'd think that TUAW had integrity. Patching the article with "updates" in which the author tried to cover her ass with protests that it was unclear (when it wasn't) doesn't really cut it.
Steve said 12:57PM on 6-20-2009
How about not publishing data based on beta products that are under NDA, thus encouraging people to break NDAs? Sure, someone else will do it anyway, but that doesn't make it right.
Anyway, thanks for the apology. Send it to Apple, the engineering staff there and whomever else you harmed with your carelessness and disregard for NDAs.
Reply
Kai Cherry said 1:46PM on 6-20-2009
Overstated and exaggerated. Nothing posted was "under NDA"...unless Push Notifications were some sort of secret, unannounced feature of the new os release (as opposed to an announced but never delivered 2.0 feature ;)).
The problem was, besides being wildly inaccurate, no one *authoritative* could be referenced....due to the aforementioned NDA
Apple's superfluous NDA wasn't "harmed" in any way here, sheesh. The biggest harm done was to and perhaps, by TUAW...and they've paid for it, methinks.
Steve said 2:14PM on 6-20-2009
Kai,
Superfluous? It is not up to you to decide! When a developer signs a **non-disclosure agreement** it means just that, NO DISCLOSURES. Not about how well something works, how poorly something works, or if something is not even in a build anymore. "non-disclosure" means NONE.
This has nothing to do with harming the NDA, it has to do with respecting it. They are there for a reason, and if you can't respect it, don't sign it! How can we make this any more simple for you?
Just because Apple has talked about a feature does NOT release a developer from the NDA to talk about the feature unless directly approved by Apple.
This kind of awful reporting, so bad that they had to apologize, can hurt a company, their stock, etc by mis-reporting the facts. Either good or bad.
For example, if a Developer sees some cool feature in a beta, and leaks it, then Apple pulls it at the last minute because it is not functioning up to their standards, guess what, the stock likely takes a hit.
This is why companies had NDAs, and I just wish both Developers and the "press" would respect them more.
Sure, as users we all love to hear what is coming, and I am sure Apple leaks stuff on purpose to generate hype and demand, but really that should be Apple's call, not some random blogger.
Kai Cherry said 7:19PM on 6-20-2009
The press doesn't sign NDAs...and the "press"...certainly does not. The rest of your "you're hurting Apple" response I leave alone. Apple is a multi-billion dollar multi-national that, judging from the last few days alone, is far from "hurting".
:)
-K
Steve said 7:34PM on 6-20-2009
Kai,
You tell that to the judge the next time you're sued for breaking an NDA. We'll see how well it goes over.
I never said the press is breaking the NDA. You need to read more carefully. I said the developer signs/breaks the NDA, but the press surely doesn't respect the NDA by publishing information knowingly gained by someone breaking an NDA.
Phlake said 1:01PM on 6-20-2009
Sorry for overreacting to the post too. As a reader, I think we handled it rather poorly at times.
Reply
me said 2:40PM on 6-20-2009
I call bunk on this apology. I think even the retraction was as poorly written as the post itself. Claiming "we no longer believe the issue is widespread or will affect most original iPhone users" is a far cry from stating the issue was found by one user running a beta. You should have been up front from the get go.
Reply
josh said 1:15PM on 6-20-2009
Poorly written? WTF it was plain and simple!
Kai Cherry said 1:59PM on 6-20-2009
Wrong. It wasn't in fact "one user using a beta"...some random jackamoe didn't submit the tip and TUAW ran with it.
There is a bit more to it than that. The info was wrong, and as stated, as a policy they don't disappear stories here so there is no "pulling". They correct/retract and ultimately as we see here...apologize.
Nona Me said 2:40PM on 6-20-2009
Kai Cherry said, "Wrong. It wasn't in fact "one user using a beta"...some random jackamoe didn't submit the tip and TUAW ran with it."
TUAW wrote, "Had the post been framed differently as "one user's story" rather than as a blanket technical explanation, that would have been a better choice... The conclusions stated came from a source who had experienced a conflict between push notifications and incoming calls while testing a beta"
Hmmm... Unless I'm missing something it certainly sounds like one user using a beta to me.
Maybe you should re-read the article, the initial retraction, and the apology again. Because the argument most certainly goes from a systemic issue, to "not everyone", to one person.
Kai Cherry said 7:20PM on 6-20-2009
Nona :)
Trust me on this one, I am a *leeeeetle bit more informed than you* on the facts on this one. The retraction that was written was very much written in a terrified panic as this story slipped thru the cracks, so wasn't much better, likely adding to the overall "WTH?!" of the whole thing.
They didn't react on a "hot tip" on a piece of "controversial news" that was dropped on them and ran with it. The information was simply not accurate, and the...overly-passionate style that the piece was written in just made it worse.
Pretty much as soon as it "hit" I contacted at least one member of the editorial staff directly and the others indirectly to inform them of the problem and found out where and how it got published. I believe steps have been taken to prevent this in the future, Victor and the Senior Editors have acknowledge the mistake and really, that is that.
It is far more than most that run some of the most incredible s- on the Mac Web do and in the grand scheme of things more than necessary in my opinion. The fact that it was a Front Page Main Feed "We sucked there and that's sad. We're sorry..." should pretty much make it clear that we are dealing with a sincere group of people.
Usually you get a one-liner (if that) from most of these other outfits...or so much "spin" in what they write that they aren't really "reporting" facts anyway :)
-K
BOK said 1:17PM on 6-20-2009
To read the original post implies there was no source at all. Next time, attribute the story or back it up with factual proof. This is high school journalism-level stuff that was overlooked in a haste to post information that should have set off alarm bells in even the most gullible of editors.
The apology is nice, but such a bad lapse in judgment on multiple fronts speaks to the site's credibility on the whole. Strive to be better than this — for your own sake, if not for the sake of the people and NDAs that were undermined in the process of this article's creation — and that will do more than a thousand sorries ever could.
Your readers wouldn't have expressed such outrage if they knew this site wasn't capable of much better than what happened there.
Reply