Apple and the Scalability of Secrecy

RobotsDinner writes "Anil Dash has a thoughtful exploration of Apple's notorious devotion to secrecy, and argues that not only is there a limit to its feasibility, but that recent events show Apple has reached that limit already. 'If the ethical argument is unpersuasive, then focus on the long-term viability of your marketing and branding efforts, and realize that a technology company that is determined to prevent information from being spread is an organization at war with itself. Civil wars are expensive, have no winners, and incur lots of casualties.'"

Comments

I PREDICT

[linhares]

That after the FCC probing into Apple's nasty rejection of Google Voice, from now on we're gonna have to live with Michael Arrington proclaiming how, in his modesty and disregard for material things he saved the world from tyranny.

May god have mercy on us all.

Yet, as I mentioned in the other /. submission, here is one tiny shred of reason to think that a government entity might, just might, have a tiny shred of value. And the FCC made it clear that a "blanket" of confidential docs concerning this would not be accepted, which means at least *some* info concerning the latest brouhauha will be public. Seriously, for once, kudos to the FCC.

Re:I PREDICT

[icebike]

I would have rather had the FTC or the DOJ, lauching this probe rather than the FCC.

I doubt the FCC can tell Apple what they can and can't put in their app store. The FCC simply has no standing in this area. Apple may not want to piss off the agency that approves new handsets, but realistically the FCC has little leverage on Apple.

The FCC does have jurisdiction to hold ATT's feet to the flame.

If it turns out that ATT told Apple not to accept these apps, citing some boilerplate non-compete clause in their contract, that would be a Microsoft Moment. (Microsoft ordered Compaq to restore IE to prominence on the desktop, or lose the right to sell windows. Justice department saw it differently).

There is always the possibility that Apple quietly leaked to FCC that ATT was violating some rules/regs. Apple would make sure they too get called on the carpet at the same time as ATT for plausible deny ability reasons.

And we can't overlook the possibility of Google quietly putting its oar in.

Who ever made the decision to block Google Voice, picked the absolute worst time to do so. Congress has already sent the FCC on a slash and burn mission into the cell phone market.

Of late, the FCC has actually seemed to be on the side of Joe Average Citizen, compared to 10 or 20 years ago. Yes, they might come out with another Janet Jackson ruling, but it is equally likely something good will come of this.

We can only wait and see.

Not Scalability, Marketability

[SeaFox]

There has been some recent discussion on Macrumors about Apple's discontinuation of their video composting software Shake. And several of the posters point out that Apple's "cloud of secrecy" around products and their roadmaps is one of the major contributing factors in people migrating away from Shake. In the consumer space, such secrecy is allowable and even generates hype. But in a business where production software needs to be STABLE, both in the technical and support sense, the idea that "we can't tell you what will happen next" simply doesn't fly.

This article misses the point that

[aussersterne]

Apple's customers are not the same customers as those of other computing companies (a silly, obvious statement, but apparently not so obvious that it doesn't need to be said).

Things that are clear:

Apple is doing very well right now.
Apple is doing very well as a very secretive company.
Apple's current customers, which are the reason it's doing very well, support Apple while it's a very secretive company.

Things that have been the subject of much speculation:

Apple's customers buy in many cases for non-technical reasons.
Apple's customers buy in many cases for social, identity, or personality reasons.

Things that are also clear:

It cannot be ruled out that Apple's secrecy contributes to the loyalty of its customer base, which is not congruent to the customer base of other technology companies.
It cannot be ruled out, therefore, that a reduction in secrecy would alienate some current customers.
It cannot be guaranteed that a reduction in secrecy would gain Apple an equivalent number of new customers.

Synopsis:

If I'm Apple, and I'm having the best few years in a very, very long time for the company, I am not . changing. a . thing .

Re:sometimes secrecy is necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason iPhones and new MacBooks don't have easily-replaceable batteries is so they can have more space to hold bigger batteries, and thus have longer battery life. It's a tradeoff, but I for one prefer having a laptop with 5+ hour battery life or a phone that can go 3 days without charging to saving $100 when I do replace the battery in 3 years. If you don't like it, buy another product.