Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Obsession With Secrecy Grows Stronger
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times has a story on the culture of secrecy at Apple (registration possibly required). Secrecy is not just the prevailing communications strategy; it is baked into the corporate culture that had its origin in the release of the first Macintosh. 'It really started around trying to keep the surprise aspect to product launches, which can have a lot of power,' says marketing veteran Regis McKenna who advised Apple in its early days. Today few companies are more secretive than Apple, or as punitive to those who dare violate the company's rules on keeping tight control over information. Employees have been fired for leaking news tidbits to outsiders, and the company has been known to spread disinformation about product plans to its own workers and sue bloggers who cover the company. Apple's decision to severely limit communication with the news media, shareholders, and the public is at odds with the approach taken by many other companies, and many experts agree that the secrecy that adds surprise and excitement to Apple product announcements is not serving the company well in corporate governance. Some say that recent reports that Steve Jobs may have had a liver transplant, still not confirmed by the company, now makes one of Apple's assertions from January — that Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance — seem like a deliberate untruth."
One of the things Apple learned well by observing others was the Osborne Effect. And its true: Would you buy a "new" iPhone if you were told a better one was 6 months away, and all the cool features it would have eventually?
Test your net with Netalyzr
They want to keep their company secrets, secret. Put a slanted evil spin on the title just a little more please...
[sarcasm]
SHOCK
HORROR
How DARE they keep secrets secret!!! I am entitled to know everything they do, when they do it, and if I don't like it, I am entitled to force them to change it because I am entitled!
[/sarcasm]
*rolls eyes*
In plain English, that's called a lie.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
So we realize that instead of it being something mild, Steve Jobs very well may die. Does it really make sense to go after someone who is dying for not being completely honest about well, their mortality? I mean, I'm a shareholder of Apple, and I just don't find myself furious at someone who is dying from illness.
It's quite possible that they knew of the likelihood of cancer at the time of the announcement, but that only the hormonal imbalance had been officially diagnosed. I mean, I think that Jobs has done a great job since his return to Apple, but there's more than one way to skin a cat, and it's possible that someone like Cook could take over and take the company even further into the stratosphere. I'm just saying, Jobs is only a man.
Combine that with the fact that plenty of perfectly healthy CEOs have been raping and plundering their companies, destroying entire industries with practices ranging from questionable to outright fraudulent. Jobs' health is his own concern, and I wish him good health for its own sake, not the value of my share in Apple.
The CB App. What's your 20?
It seems impossible to me to attribute All Things To Chairman Steve, and at the same time suggest that serious illness of the CEO, Chief Designer, Head Boffin, and the virtual Persona of Apple Inc is not a material event, and is something the company can glibly lie about. http://valleywag.gawker.com/5028508/steve-jobss-health-leads-top-apple-flack-to-contract-common-bug-with-the-truth
If true that Jobs had liver replacement, why is this not a violation of reporting requirements?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The culture of secrecy is not an Apple exclusive. Any company that has an inventory which needs to be sold would be foolish to open it's future product line to the public's eyes.
Any company which has a carefully crafted public image will not suffer just anyone to make public announcements about them. This goes double (well, a few billion times actually) for companies which are publicly traded.
Anyone who is upset about a so called "deliberate untruth" regarding someone's health is a total jackass. This article is almost too stupid to respond to.
There is no reason that every bit of Steve Jobs personal life needs to be on display for the world. Being a CEO of a prominent company does not mean that you need to show your medical records to everybody. All it means is that he needs to make sure there is a plan for the company to continue running if something does happen to him. I have to same responsibility to my company: make sure there is someone else who can take over my projects reasonably well if I happen to get hit by a bus. It doesn't matter if he has cancer, a liver transplant, or is 100% healthy, he still might die tomorrow if the bus comes with his name on it. The only right shareholders have is to know that the company will continue on if he dies. And all signs point to YES.
Qxe4
I (sorta) see where you're coming from; the problem is one of "just because he's a CEO doesn't mean he's not entitled to privacy about medical matters." It was announced that he was having "medical problems;" past that I don't really see as it's the world's business. If it was, we'd not have things such as HIPAA in place.
Nonsense. The rights of shareholders of a corporation to be informed about materially relevant information about the enterprise do not in general override the privacy rights of its CEO, only in very specific instances (e.g., the CEO is forced to disclose his transactions on company stock, and other dealings with the corporations such as pay and benefits). The possibility that the CEO of a corporation you're investing in is secretly very sick and will die soon is, well, just a risk that you have to take.
Are you adequate?
>> Some say that recent reports that Steve Jobs may have had a liver transplant, still not confirmed by the company, now makes one of Apple's assertions from January -- that Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance -- seem like a deliberate untruth."
Hmmm, I would not classify that as a deliberate untruth since having a malfunctioning liver will indeed cause a hormonal imbalance. I would classify it as a good 'ol half-truth instead.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
"Oh, and that whole ease of use thing."
Don't confuse the marketing tricks with the product. Miller Lite is beer (sort of). They're selling beer. They're suggesting you'll have a good time if you drink it, but they're selling beer.
Apple is selling a computer system. Not a computer, a computer system. They're an integration company. You're perfectly correct, the hardware is not particularly special. Rather, it's the way it's put together and runs. Like pretty much any other company, they use commercials that promise you'll have a good time and be popular if you buy the product.
Job's health is absolutely his business and no one else's. Who cares if it's a publicly traded company. Did he agree he and his families lives would be an open book to shareholders by virtue of them investing a few dollars? NO.
His professional actions are absolutely subject to scrutiny, after all a public company does not work for it's customers, it works for it's shareholders. This is established, especially in the US. But read that carefully, his PROFESSIONAL actions. It ends there.
If shareholders view his absence as harming stock they are welcome to replace him, temporarily or permanently. That is their sole recourse. He has done his duty in saying "I cannot preform my function and thus take a leave of absence." but in the end he wasn't even required to tell them it was for medical reasons.
If so, it didn't get them anywhere. Apple's stock price fell a bit in response to the "hormonal imbalance" thing, but it's up quite a bit above that now and holding fairly steady. Particularly so when compared to the rest of the market.
Personally (and as an Apple stockholder) I would have preferred they just said Steve was sick and taking some time off. I don't think owning stock in a company gives me the right to demand personal information about any of their employees.
Yes, their leaks were planned and approved, which makes them strategic. You did not have that right.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Isn't this like withholding info from shareholders?
I would think that the health of Steve Jobs is quite important to the stock price of apple.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Where I might slightly disagree with you is that the Apple, Inc. image is very closely tied to the public illusion that IS Steve Jobs... people don't wait with baited breath for the next press release from Apple... they wait for the next PR demonstration from Steve himself. And yes, to an extent, Steve (though not his family) did agree to be an open book when he allowed himself to become such a big part of Apple's advertising and promotions.
Because of this, I think the shareholders might be due more than "medical problems"... certainly his specific medical records aren't for the public consumption, and obviously don't violate HIPPA (we have enough precedents breaking things like that), but the shareholders probably do have a right in this case to more than just "medical problems". Maybe something to the effect of "on-going treatment with an expected return to his post in 6 months, and full health within the year" kind of thing.
A cold is medical problems... so is cancer. A share holder of a company that uses it's CEO as one of it's primary selling points does have a right to know if that PR asset is about to kack.
--
I drank what?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm not sure HIPAA would apply in this case. It only covers "protected entities" from disclosing medical information -- usually insurance companies, hospitals, etc.
He did have a hormonal imabalnce, they said he had very serious health issues and would return to work in June. All of that is true. The press thinks it has a right to know everything about everyone. Apple provided all of the information any investor would need to make an informed decision.
He has the right for privacy, but investors have the right to speculate -- that's what investors do.
Steve Jobs being at Apple must have some measurable financing impact on the company or else he wouldn't get paid his bonuses.
If Steve wants his privacy, that comes with a share price that's volatile on the basis of speculation. I don't think that's too high a price to pay personally, but he seems very irritable about that reality.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Every business entity has something their coulda/woulda/shoulda done differently. And, every stock holder wants complete transparency for all business dealings and information but their own.
Apple feels it realizes a business advantage from playing its cards a bit closer to the vest than - say - Dell. The only difference, the only difference between the trade secrets Apple holds dear (starting from the very existence of an unreleased product, on down) to those for Dell (a US$0.02 price advantage on sata cables) is that Apple's are vastly more interesting to read about.
Therefore, what Apple considers a trade secret is of great financial interest to writers and publishers who are accustomed to knowing every corporate detail except how the execs are manipulating the company stock this week, and which subordinates they're dicking.
If the press, or more to the point the stockholders, don't think they're feeling enough love, they can sell the other owners on the Transparent Apple, Inc. concept at the next stockholders meeting, and vote a new board accordingly. Until I see signs of a nasty proxy fight over this, the whole thing is made up news, or in the word of the metatags, !news.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I'm a regular citizen, just watching the market like everyone else. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to do that. The major difference between me and a lot of other people in this discussion is that I'm not going around claiming that shareholders have all these rights that they don't actually have.
I agree that Steve Jobs is a major public part of Apple's success, and I can understand that some investors might not be happy that he's not talking about his health problems. But the thing is, he has every right not to talk about that. The shareholders have no right to demand that information from him, regardless of anything having to do with money. His rights as a person supersede anything having to do with people making a buck. A lot of people here don't understand that. People are claiming that shareholders have certain rights that they were never given.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black