I agree with you on some points. On most, I don't.

He didn't know. He made a mistake, he got flamed. And yet everyone's taking it as he never removed the images or complied with Panic. You really need to look at this from his point of view, not the point of view of the haters. He emailed Panic and told them that they could ask him to take it down anytime, which happened, and he complied. He made a mistake, and yet still complied with Panic's requirements. So if Panic's not pissed, why even bother?

This article makes me feel like you're posting on behalf of Cabel and Steve and etc, almost speaking for them. Panic isn't pissed at Miles or MacApper, and everything has been settled. I don't understand why you would take the time to even write this flame. If you had a brain, you would realize that this was all taken care of and settled.

And yet, one whole day later after, I would say, almost no one cares anymore, you brought it back up. It's done with. It was a mistake. We complied with Panic and that's that.

On another note, you make yourself and MacUser sound extremely pretentious. "Oh, well we at MacUser have never screwed up and we're just perfect. We actually respect things and probably have never done a single wrong thing"

Seriously, if you're going to flame someone else, don't make yourself sound like you're the absolute best. That's called bragging, and it's usually not tolerated.

When I saw that post from MacApper in my RSS reader, my first thought was "What the hell are they thinking?"

Saying "he didn't know" is a terrible excuse. It should have been obvious to anyone that the review was a very bad idea. It really came across as "lolz! some1 sent me some warez, gues ill post it on teh intarwebs!!11!"

The above MacUser article is much less flaming than stating the obvious truth.

Well guys, I have searched everywhere for your high-and-mighty post condemning MacRumors and Gizmodo (among many others) for publishing leaked photos of Leopard (and many other Apple products) and I just can't find it. I'm sure it's there right? I'd appreciate you sending me a link.

This was a leak by a beta tester under a non-disclosure-agreement. It resulted in a very positive review and plug the day before the software was launched and did not "steal [their] thunder" as you so ominously claimed. Somehow, Panic launched their software to great fanfare today and got lots of links and, I am sure, has sold numerous copies of what is definitely a great piece of software.

You listed four reasons why MacApper shouldn't have released the review and I have the same response to all of them:

So what?

They didn't give us the app to review. Big deal. We got ahold of it and reviewed it.

They haven't released it yet. See above.

We actually did have a license, it comes with at 15-day trial, thanks for the pirate accusation though.

We, nor any other publisher, do not have to get anyone's permission to run a story such as this. The only permission we might need (I think it's Fair Use, but it has to get decided by the courts IANAL) is to use the screenshots which are copywritten by Panic.

We have unmitigated gall? You're the one writing this pompous, ill-conceived "editorial" the day after everything has died down and Panic has released the software. Who's captain self-important now?

Panic was emailed for comment, and we ran the story. When Panic replied, they were disappointed that we had gotten ahold of the software, but were not angry with MacApper, they were instead wondering which of their beta testers had leaked it. This is not a MacApper issue, this is an internal Panic issue. If you should be directing your vitriol to anyone, it should be the beta tester, not us. Panic asked us to remove the screenshots and we complied, putting them back up after Coda had launched

Personally, I think Miles was wrong to apologize and that there was nothing wrong with what we did, but he is his own person and can do what he likes. I will, however, be happy to defend that post against whatever you can come up with.

You mentioned a Code of Ethics. I ask you, which of the Code did we violate? I'd be really interested to hear your response.

Yes, from Panic's POV, it's a big bummer that their software got leaked, but hey, they got some bonus press and excitement out of it (since they didn't really publicize the launch ahead of time, there were people who got pumped from the MacApper review and drama) there was nothing lost on that front.

You're a very big man for "respecting" other companies wishes, and we respected Panic's when we pulled the screenshots. You pretty much gloss over that bit in your hit-piece.

Glass houses, my friend. Glass houses.

Alec and Jordan pretty much covered everything, but I just want to say a few things...

First, although the beta testers were under NDA as you correctly pointed out, it's on their hands if they break it, not ours. We never agreed to any sort of an NDA when we were handed the app by the source. They broke the NDA, it's their problem.

Second, your claim that we had a "pirated" copy of the app is downright ridiculous in the worst way. You may want to research the history of shareware, but just to save you the work, it has the word "share" in the title for a reason. Anyone want to guess what that reason is? Spare me this nonsense, please.

Third, we followed Panic's requests fully and quickly when they requested certain information be removed from the post. Yes, Miles and others at the site did correspond with Cabel after the fact, and the general feeling he emitted was something along the lines of "these things happen."

There were people who didn't even know the app was coming out until they saw the post on MacApper... if even one person was informed about Coda from our site, then it's positive publicity for Panic. We love Panic, we love the apps they make, and we respected their opinions and requests. Don't try to get all high and mighty and tell us how you would feel if you were them, because the bottom line is you are not them.

Lastly, and most importantly, here's a little suggestion to the entire Mac blogging community: stop taking yourselves so seriously. Shortly after all this happened, I received a quick correspondence from a very prominent Mac blogger scolding me for being a part of something that they apparently thought was akin to collectively killing all the puppies and kittens owned by all Mac users everywhere. Needless to say, there are a lot of Mac users out there that apparently need to get outside more and realize that they are not the center of the universe. Yes, we all have a blogger ego, I'm guilty of it myself. The simple fact that I assume anyone cares about this comment that I'm writing is proof of that.

Don't hate.

It's crap like that that keeps me away from rumor sites. Was it ThinkSecret that was advertising for people to break their NDAs? No, I don't think I'll be visiting MaCrapper.

As someone with an education and professional background in journalism, who also writes for MacApper, I'm wondering where a lot of your claims about breaking the code of ethics are coming from. You do a great job of sounding pompous in this editorial, and I have to ask the same questions about why you have to go after a smaller blog just starting out, yet other blogs and sites do the same thing every day and I have never seen the same type of editorial. The team at MacApper is a really good team of passionate mac users and I think pretty good writers and I hate to see the whole team and site get trashed because you couldn't think up some better content. If anything, I think MacApper's review actually helped get Panic some exposure and buzz for this new app.

Dude, what part of NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT did you not understand? That means no info to anyone wihtout a court order. I didn't see a court order demanding the release of this "glowing review."

"I ask you, which of the Code did we violate?"

This is, of course, subjective, but I would say:

— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

Considering the tone of the original MacApper post, and the subsequent comments, I'm not sure if the recognition of harm or discomfort to Panic was recognized. Even in the above comment there seems to be very little acceptance of the frustration that the post may have caused outside of the term "big bummer."

— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

This applies more to the subsequent posts than the original review.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

The third one may be less obvious, but NDAs are legally binding. Consorting with those who would break such agreements damages credibility.

It should be noted that this Code of Ethics stresses the importance of serving the public interest first. Thus, some ethical guidelines can be stretched somewhat in order to serve this interest. However, I do not feel that what the SPJ views as public interest would apply in this context.

This is particurally relevant in the third point. In some cases, it may be acceptable to consort with those who are breaking agreements, violating contracts, or causing security breaches in an organization when these violations are done to ensure public safety. The information in this instance does not seem to meet this standard.

These questionable practices are not strong enough to lead to removal of credentials (if you have them) nor criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, they may result in either of the following outcomes:

1) A decline in readership of those who feel that the posting of the information was unsavory.

2) A reluctance from some parties to issue privileged information to you based on distrust caused by these practices.

I am certain that many of the beta testers have similar blogs, or access to bloggers of similar content. There are reasons why they chose not to release the information while MacApper chose to do so. I think that it is healthy for the blogging community to relfect on this.

–CP

Jeez... everyone back to their respective corners. My take? When a company takes pains to coordinate a release date with an anniversary, it may not be unethical to spoil it, but it's uncool, no matter which way you slice it. On the other hand, it's also uncool to be the one in a group of people pointing the finger at the guy who got in trouble and snickering at him.

It's getting pretty heated in here so I'll refrain, but I have to say I absolutely love this line...

"...screenshots which are copywritten by Panic."

:)

First of all I really like this blog, I'm a daily reader, and will remain so. Having said that I pretty much disagree with everything you have said about me in this article. While I'm flattered you would bother to write this I guess I should let you know a few things so this doesn't go any further...

Secondly, everything the poster above (Jordan Golson) said echoes my own views on ethics, journalism, or any other coveted codes of conduct. No need for me to repeat that, and thanks Jordan for laying it out.

And lastly I did email Panic shortly after the review was published. I'm not sure why so many people get this part of the story wrong. Cabel did not want me airing our correspondence on MacApper (and rightly so), so I removed them. I sort of doubt he would want you airing his email correspondence here as well in this assassination piece on me, but who knows.

Anyways, what's done is done. One good thing is I sure learned a lot in the last 48 hours. I think faced with the same dilemna I might not have behaved the same, but then again maybe I would have. It's a tough call.

In the end how much do you really think this affected the outcome for all involved? A great piece of software was released to a frenzy of support and praise. Does Panic's birthday cake taste sour? Somehow I doubt it.

By that logic, isn't the fact that MacUser wrote about MacApper (and made it the center of a minor controversy) good for MacApper? Now more people know about MacApper...

— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.

This is mostly a reference to refering to disasters such as the Virginia Tech shooting. Does not apply here.

— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

This applies to stories such as the Anne Nicole Smith paternity/custody case and not this one.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

This means "don't own stock in the companies you report in", not "don't use sources that are under an NDA." If a source violates an NDA, that's their problem, not mine.

@Jason: Well probably. There is no doubt in my mind the word linkbait was running through my head when I wrote the review, but I seriously did not expect my character would be attacked for writing it.

When I saw the digg post on Sunday about MacApper's jumping of the gun, I was pissed (and I voiced that anger in their comments). However, what's done is done, and hopefully they learned a lesson. When their actions were identified as wrong, they took the appropriate actions to rectify them to the satisfaction of Panic. If it's good enough for Panic, it's good enough for me.

However, one final comment. Just because you aren't aware something is wrong doesn't make it right. When you write/publish/blog, there are certain codes to follow. Just like when you get in a car you have to adhere to the rules of the road (some are laws, others are just really good ideas to follow). Claiming ignorance of what's in bad taste doesn't excuse you from it.

Look's like MacApper's all riled up. It hurts your credibility to spoil a company's big planned software release. It hurts your credibility even more to keep saying that nothing you did was wrong. Sure, you can't really get in trouble for it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a downright stupid move.

MacApper folks:

As someone who's reviewed a slew of products over the years, here's my perspective -- take it or leave it ;-)

Let's put aside for the moment whether or not the MacApper review was "good" or "bad" for Panic. (That debate is like the neverending argument about whether or not Apple product-info leaks are good or bad for Apple.) The real issue here is the ethics of posting a review of an NDA product without the express permission of the vendor. Obviously, whether or not doing so was "right" or "wrong" is a matter of opinion, but from where I stand, as someone who reviews products for a living, it clearly violates the "way things work." NDAs exist for a reason, and if a publication wants to be taken seriously, by both vendors and readers, I think the publication should honor such agreements, even if the publication isn't one of the parties legally named in the NDA document.

Saying "the NDA covers the testers, not us" is a rumor-site cop-out. No, you personally didn't violate an NDA. But if something is under NDA and hasn't been released, you don't review it unless the vendor has given you permission. Some vendors will actively solicit reviews of a not-yet-released product by offering that product for review. But if the company hasn't done this, getting the unreleased product from someone who's under NDA and then reviewing it before it's even released is questionable, at best.

The other aspect of this that no one's mentioned is the issue of what you were actually reviewing. Until a developer publicly releases a product, there's no guarantee that any "test" -- or even "final" -- version of that product is actually what is going to be released. Developers have been known to change things at the last minute. Perhaps in this case, what you received was the same as the official release, but what if it wasn't? What if you had criticized particular features of the app, or experienced issues, and it turned out those things were fixed in the official release? This is another reason why working with the vendor on a review and not reviewing pre-release or unofficial versions are so important.

To be clear, I've got nothing against MacApper; I'd never actually visited the site before seeing this post (free publicity for you ;-) ). It looks you've got an interesting site, and I'm all for getting the word about about cool software. And I don't get the impression that the author of the review meant to harm Panic, instead getting caught up in the idea of an "exclusive first review." But all of this brouhaha could have been avoided by simply waiting a day until the software was officially released, and *then* posting the "exclusive review"; you still would have been the first. Or emailing Panic about your review and then waiting until the company responded before publishing.

Take the above as the perspective of someone who's been around the block a few times when it comes to reviewing products. Even experienced reviewers make mistakes, but if you have the trust of both vendors and your readers -- trust that you're fair, honest, and ethical -- you'll find that both keep coming back. I've had my share of "learning experiences" over the years; in my opinion, you should look at this incident in that light ;-)

P.S. One other comment on what is really a tangential discussion:

"[Derik's] claim that we had a 'pirated' copy of the app is downright ridiculous in the worst way. You may want to research the history of shareware, but just to save you the work, it has the word 'share' in the title for a reason. Anyone want to guess what that reason is? Spare me this nonsense, please."

If have software that isn't yet released and is currently under NDA, and you're not an official tester, you have a pirated copy. Possessing software you don't have a right to possess or use falls under the umbrella of "pirated" -- the distribution method to be used for a particular software title *after* it's released is irrelevant. Technically, I think Derik is right here.

I know that this might be taking a blog too seriously, as suggested by some of the folks above, but my hope is that blogs will one day be taken seriously. If one wishes his blog to be for fun only, that is fine. However, if one wishes to be taken seriously, they must deal with serious criticisms.

Mainly, I am concerned with the following two comments:

"This means "don't own stock in the companies you report in", not "don't use sources that are under an NDA." If a source violates an NDA, that's their problem, not mine."

and

"First, although the beta testers were under NDA as you correctly pointed out, it's on their hands if they break it, not ours. We never agreed to any sort of an NDA when we were handed the app by the source. They broke the NDA, it's their problem."

I find this slightly analgous to purchasing stolen property and then saying that the fact that the property was stolen is of no interest to you.

Perhaps it is their problem, but taking advantage of an unethical and possibly illegal act is, in my opinion, a questionable practice.

If you do not see why this is the case, then I really don't know what to add.
My concern is not the action, but that some people do not realize why the action caused such consternation amongst other bloggers, especially those who had access to the same information at the same time or before those from MacApper.

–CP

Yes, and if someone were really mean about it, a good copyright infringement case could come out of this.

Dan Frakes:

Honestly I am starting to sound like a broken record. One last time: Not only did I not know there was a Coda beta, I did not know there was an NDA, or any other reason not to write that review. It was encouraged.

But this should be obvious as Coda was only hinted at a few hours before I made the entry. Right? Nobody but the beta testers knew what a Coda was.

Charles:

>>I find this slightly analgous to purchasing stolen property and then saying that the fact that the property was stolen is of no interest to you.

Umm well except that stealing is illegal and loathsome and had absolutely nothing to do with what I did.

Are we done yet?

"Umm well except that stealing is illegal and loathsome and had absolutely nothing to do with what I did."

Understood. As mentioned, most of my comments are not directed at all at what was done, but at the posts that followed.

The expalnations given by MacApper seem satisfactory. As has been stated, MacApper did not understand the situation fully. When the situation was made clear, MacApper responded promptly and in an appropriate manner.

I am focusing more on the fact that it seems as though some commenters do not understand why Derik and others have a problem with what occurred. For me, the first sign of this was a post stating that no code of ethics was broken. As if to say those who found what happened to be questionable are just silly old kooks.

The analogy being made in the previous comment was in reference to posts in a similar vein, not to the original action. Specifically, I was calling attention to the the statements that read like "We didn't break the NDA, so it isn't our problem."

My analogy was that this is similar to someone buying stolen goods, then saying "I paid money for the stereo. I didn't steal the stereo. So, it isn't my fault."

True. The person didn't steal. But, he benefitted from the theft.

In this case, MacApper did not break the NDA, but MacApper benefitted from someone else breaking the NDA.

That is the link.

Thus, I think it is fair for people to post criticism of this move by MacApper. Some posts here suggested that questioning the move was unfair for MacApper. Some seemed to defend the move as wholly above reproach or beneficial for all parties.

I was responding to those posts by providing some reasoning as to why I found the practice questionable even if nobody got hurt and MacApper cooperated with Panic's requests. For me, the issue here is much larger than MacApper, MacUser or any other individual blog.

Please do not take any of my posts as direct attacks on MacApper, but rather as a conversation about why some people may be as concerned with these issues as Derik was. I do not agree with everything Derik posted. Nevertheless, I think Derik raises valid points about the responsibility that all forms of media have with respect to information of this sort.

–CP