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."
But even by Apple's standards, its handling of news about the health of its chief executive and co-founder, Steven P. Jobs, who has battled pancreatic cancer and recently had a liver transplant while on a leave of absence, is unparalleled.
Indeed, very little of the matter comprising Steve Jobs is still Steve Jobs. The man's like a rebuilt Delorian. Am I the only person that shudders when he closes all of his speeches with "Remember, there's a little piece of all of you inside me"?
I guess if I ran a cult I'd be asking for new organs from my younger zealots too.
My work here is dung.
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
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.
Yes, but according to a leak I heard from a top Apple exec, he will miraculously rise after 3 days and reveal a new iPhone unto his disciples!
How about an article about the medias obsession over Apples obsession about secrecy?
love is just extroverted narcissism
There's a serious question if Apple obeyed the laws for not disclosing more about Jobs' health. There are strict rules about publicly traded companies having to disclose materially relevant information to share holders. Having your CEO, who is known for being extremely influential and essentially responsible for most of your major products, having a severe, life threatening illness and not disclosing it, might very well run afoul of those regulations.
By that argument we should probably require all employees of any publicly traded company to make their genetic sequence available publicly, plus briefs about any potentially dangerous hobbies they may have. Better throw in data about their relationships too. Nothing impairs performance like trouble at home.
This "publicly traded company" nonsense is used to justify too much. "Medical problems" is more than enough for the shareholders and the public.
Pro tip: Delete all your cookies that start with nyt. Presto, no registration needed...
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
"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.
I think the last five months have demonstrated that apple can operate perfectly well without Steve Jobs anyway. Thats much better than having a single point of failure.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
He died in a car accident in 2006. The Steve Jobs you see today is a look-alike hired by Apple. The whole illness story was fabricated to explain the subtle differences in appearance between the the look-alike and the real Jobs. What's left of Steve is being held at a cryogenics facility in silicon valley. It's all true. Don't believe me? Play the latest iphone commercial backwards. You can hear a voice say "Steve Jobs is Dead".
I was with Apple through the late 90's. Yes, that was an era of leaks -- but more often than not, they came from up top, not from the folks down in the trenches.
What was the difference? If I or a colleague said anything, it was a leak, and we'd be fried. But if someone on top said something, well, that was strategic.
See the difference?
At least you got to keep your job!
Apple is pretty good in the sense that they don't appear to criticise the competition (or if they do it doesn't make the news). They get on with what they do best.
Never seen the "I'm a Mac - I'm a PC" advertising campaign?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
Sure...
OK, we have a 1099 dollar MacBook here and a 799 HP laptop here. The Apple is more expensive, one less USB port, same size screen, and IEEE 1394 port on my Mac.
The HP that lacks "selling sex appeal, social status, and "having a good time"' hangs every couple hours, wifi drops hourly and reboots 3-5 times a week. My sexy, social status having a good time Mac has 9 days uptime right now.
I've been using computers for 30 years now, our first computer was a IBM PC XT in April '83, first laptop I used was a Toshiba T1000, so I've been around the sexy and unsexy for a while, I use a Mac because I find them to be more stable and reliable, not because they have cool commercials and neat stores.
Apple is very much a technology company, they invented Firewire/IEEE 1394, pioneered USB and Wifi enabled computers across entire lines.
mmMMmm...Delicious Apple Fritters.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
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?
See the difference?
Despite your attempt at sarcasm, I DO see the difference. Generally people not in upper management making decisions that affect the whole company is frowned upon. Do you also get equally upset when upper management decides to develop some new product, and they don't let you make that decision?
AccountKiller
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.
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.
Really, a right? How exactly was that right bestowed upon them? What gave them that right? Is there some sort of shareholder's bill of rights that I haven't heard about which says that if a company uses its CEO as a PR asset then shareholders have the right to know if the CEO is having medical problems?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
New York Times link generator
For instance Apple's Obsession With Secrecy Grows Stronger
In this case, "?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all" was appended, though at times, other magic keys have been required.
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.