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."

23 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Parts: The Clonus Horror by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  2. Avoid the Osborne Effect by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Avoid the Osborne Effect by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a somewhat interesting question. The fact is is that people know new things are coming out from Apple. Yet they buy the "old" stuff and then bitch and moan when the "new" stuff comes out!

    2. Re:Avoid the Osborne Effect by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bought the G1 months after it came out. I bought it knowing that Samsung, HTC, and about 7 other companies have already announced that they are making new Android phones. At least 1 of them will be better than the one I have, and it'll probably be within 6 months. I signed a 2 year contract with my provider to get the phone as cheap as possible.

      So yes, even knowing that newer, better things were coming out, I did buy the current offerings.

      With computers, this is -always- the case. Every computer will be replaced by a better model the next year. Cars, too. And just about everything that has to do with technology.

      Yes, there are some people who will say 'oh, there's a better one coming' and wait 6 months for it... But most people won't wait more than a month.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Avoid the Osborne Effect by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...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?

      But there's more to it than the Osborne effect. Apple's innovations are often the sort that can be echoed by competitors, diluting the return on their initiative and investment if disclosed too early. In this respect they're no different from any other toy company. I remember it once being said that it was easier to enter the offices of the Pentagon than to acquire a visitors pass to Mattel, so the secrecy may be simply good business.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  3. ...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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*

  4. "Deliberate untruth"? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In plain English, that's called a lie.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  5. Better title would be... by FloydTheDroid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Are people's obsession with conspiracy theories growing?

    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.

    1. Re:Better title would be... by Abreu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is that Apple decided to lie about Steve Jobs health to avoid a stock price crash.

      There is a good reason why stockholders and the SEC should be angry

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  6. Personal Life by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Personal Life by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might not fold, but dramatic shrinkage (massive layoffs, etc.) is very likely.

      What are you talking about? What about Steve Jobs dying would cause massive layoffs and dramatic shrinkage? Because he is the one designing ipods? Because no one else in the company can continue the music and computer business? It's not like Steve makes all this stuff, he approves it, and decides the general direction. And now the direction is pretty clear in the Mac, Phone, and music industries that Apple should have enough to go on for a while, even without any new revolutionary devices. Please explain how exactly Steve Jobs death would ruin Apple, why they can't just keep going on the momentum they have.

      --
      Qxe4
  7. Re:Not everything is money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Steve Jobs very well may die.

    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!

  8. obsession of obsession by avandesande · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about an article about the medias obsession over Apples obsession about secrecy?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  9. Re:Parts: The Clonus Horror by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Comments on secrecy... by More_Cowbell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pro tip: Delete all your cookies that start with nyt. Presto, no registration needed...

    --
    Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
  11. Re:Apple is not a tech company by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  12. Steve Jobs is dead by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 5, Funny

    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".

  13. Re:It's a funny kind of ship that leaks from the t by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  14. Re:Anything is better than Microsoft FUD and whini by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  15. Re:It's a funny kind of ship that leaks from the t by Itninja · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it was a leak, and we'd be fried

    mmMMmm...Delicious Apple Fritters.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  16. Re:isn't the SEC going to come down hard on apple? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would think that the health of Steve Jobs is quite important to the stock price of apple.

    So fing what, are the greed of shareholders and the privileges they hold as shareholders more important than the rights to personal privacy held by Steve Jobs? Is that what this is about? Money money money money, tell me if your liver is shutting down because I need that information to make more money.

    Listen, there are privileges, and there are rights. They are not the same. A lot of things that people go around spouting as "rights" are in fact "privileges", not rights. You have the right to gather with other people in public. You have the privilege, if applicable, to drive a car on public streets. You have the right to say whatever you want to say as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's right. You have the privilege to drink alcohol when you turn 21. You have the right to have your privacy protected. As a shareholder, you have the privilege to know what's going on with the company you invested in.

    If you don't like what's going on in the company you invested in, the solution is pretty obvious. And it doesn't involve getting angry at the CEO because he didn't want to tell you about the biological processes going on in his body. It's his right not to have to do that.

    Your privilege does not outweigh his right, and I'm sorry if you don't like that, and I'm sorry if you lose money because of it.

    Christ.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  17. nytimes blogsafe links by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:Parts: The Clonus Horror by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.