Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Openness where are you?
Android?
I run Linux too. I just "activated" it with a friend's Windows machine. Then you can use it completely without iTunes, including the downloading of songs/apps. Don't give up so easily, it's a good product.
While I admittedly was stretching the technical definition of "scale" when titling my original post that's linked here, the word also has a meaning in non-technical contexts, within which this made sense. I could have gone with something like "Is Secrecy Tenable?" or something like that, but for better or worse we tend to find alliteration evocative in English. At any rate, if your only quibble is with one word from the 2000+ I wrote in the article, then I think I'm pleased that the rest of the message is resonating.
I happen to work in the game industry - there is a lot of secrecy in our industry too, by absolute necessity. Most games would get crucified if they got leaked to the press or the public too early in the dev cycle. Most people are not used to filling in the blanks - ignoring the rough edges, or even disregarding the aspects of an early product that just plain suck. That's all part of the development process, but consumers are used to seeing just the slick, final product (well, even that's not guaranteed nowadays unfortunately).
There's also some other very good reasons not to go blathering on about features that haven't even been developed yet: those features might get cut for budgetary, creative, or technical reasons, and then you look like an ass for not delivering on what you promised.
I'm not defending Apple's business practices necessarily, but I'm just saying that throwing your doors open to the press and public isn't the panacea that this guys is making it out to be.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I'll be the first of the (of course) many people to say I will give my life on the front lines against apples secrecy.
The article seems kind of stupid. For example, he dismisses the motive of withholding information from competitors who might want to create rush knock-offs on the grounds that "no amount of secrecy will stop it." This is a like arguing that nobody should lock their doors, because houses get burgled anyway, and no amount of locks will stop it. He argues that copying is "a normal part of the business cycle," begging the question of whether it is beneficial to the company that is copied--and ignores the fact that trade secrets are also a normal part of business. He implies that Apple might somehow be culpable in the suicide of an employee, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Apple drove him to suicide, and the apparent motive (to the extent that anything is known)--failing in one's responsibility--can be and has been a motive for suicide in many contexts that do not necessarily involve secrecy.
Even if there are some valid grounds for criticizing Apple's policies (and it is hard to defend some of their litigious actions), the obvious bias behind such obviously fallacious arguments undermines the case
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.
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 .
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The day that a blackhat finds a hole on a virgin iPhoneOS image that gets exploited to spread a nasty worm will be the day that millions of AAPL fans will feel sunk and betrayed that Apple didn't coddle and protect them.
For the private domain, that might be the only thing that throws much of Apple's secrecy policy out the window. They would have to in order to save their unblemished reputation.
Either that, or AAPL installs iNortonAV for free on all mobile devices much like what Windows users deal with (an AV client that takes up 2GB of flash and steals 50% of your CPU cycles while it scans for trojans in your 3G packets while taking a call from your grandma)
Get an Archos, a Zen, or any other number of MP3 players that are not only cheaper than the overpriced, underspec'd touch, but also work without any form of stupid vendor lock in software!
Anil,
When I started working at Apple, a colleague in product marketing explained to me exactly what the secrecy was worth to the company, in dollar terms.
Apple got the cover of time magazine when the iMac G4 came out. Apple got that coverage, because they had something to offer to Time, and they had it to offer because of the diligence with which they maintained secrecy. You can't buy Time's front cover as an ad placement. If you could, it's easily worth tens of millions of dollars. Your claim that Apple doesn't get free press due to the secrecy is complete nonsense.
The rest of your list is basically pulled out of your ass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, this is bullshit. You can keep secrets as long as the people involved think secrecy is warranted.
Google have an astonishing track record of not leaking projects to the press. They've worked on some incredible stuff, and the vast majority don't get leaked at all, or get leaked accidentally. Huge numbers of internal/infrastructure projects never get told about outside the company. Sure, some projects are pre-announced because by working with outside companies they assume there will be leaks (ChromeOS, Android).
Internally people get told "Please don't leak unannounced projects. A leak could cause your co-workers to have to launch an unfinished or unpolished project ahead of time, reducing the impact of months or years of their time".
The problem with Apple is that they work with a lot of outside agents, all of whom can leak without thinking of the personal consequences to friends, just financial/legal ones (which can be avoided). Their own engineers have a pretty good track record of keeping quiet about 'important' things.
Imho the secrecy helped them with new product designs and new product categories (e.g. the iPhone and the putative Mac Tablet), but the radio silence that precedes a little tweak in hardware specs is pretty stupid. People catch on it too -- all the fanboys who clamored for "one more thing" and got nothing did notice -- google for [WWDC boring] and see. But I suppose the continued secrecy helps build the Apple mystique.
Go somewhere random
... (by Sun Tzu) is probably the only holy (non-red) book that Jobbs was/is reading everyday before sleep. Secrecy is a fine weapon. Energy efficient and non-violent too.
I will reluctantly counterpoint ancient wisdom with a quote from the former Greek lunatic dictator George Papadopoulos (1967-1974): "Please allow me to worship surprise attacks, and therefore prepare to get surprised".
Don't get fooled by this 'surprise theater', if I may coin the term. Is it really different from the complementary strategy? "Look! We have nothing to hide, we are together in this, there are no secrets, no hidden agendas, let's live together in harmony" (insert romantic Hollywood scenery sequence featuring a transparent beer summit).
Let me digress a bit: I am not fooled by the staged wars between MS and Apple. These two may well amount to the 90% of all tech customers (and developers), in the same sense that Republicans and Democrats represent the 90% of politically active Americans. However, I firmly believe that totalitarianism (100%) is not very different from 50%+40% or even 70%+20%. Some will say that "divide and conquer" is one of the main lessons we get from History, including civil wars. It's a blatant lie, "divide" does not necessarily mean "divide in two".
Let's not forget that it's the third way, the mutated gene, the remaining 10% that makes the difference and provides new perspectives and hopes for a better future. Anyone ignoring the big picture and arguing pro or against Apple's secrecy without taking into account not only Microsoft but also that tiny 10% (many of us would call it Linux, open source and collaborative production paradigms) is no better than those orchestrating the endless (but never purposeless) mainstream media-induced sagas.
Making technological and other life choices involving money in the 21st century means signing contracts with the Devil. So, make sure to read the fine print. Choose your Devil. Sell your soul for a good price. And make sure all rest suffer in Hell worse than you.
I work at Apple and I know exactly how scalable our system of secrecy is.
:D
Thing is, I can't tell you about it since it is, itself, a secret. Sorry!
This was one of the reasons Apple extricated itself from the major trade shows years ago, and completed the transition last year: Sometimes they have something big to announce, sometimes they don't. The fact that there's a trade show scheduled is not an indicator of one or the other.
What if people simply do not care about sharing what the "next big thing" happening at Apple is.
Then there shouldn't be appleinsider and macrumours and macnn and theunofficialappleweblog and fakestevejobs and all those sites, right?
Same here, I have a mac at work, but I run linux at home. So today, to get the iphone SMS patch, I had to sync at work. I'm lucky I heard about the patch before I left work, otherwise I would've had to go all weekend with a vulnerable iphone.
wow your an idiot.
The apple touch pad supports not only scrolling but multiple mouse clicks, and right click all through ONE button pad.
MSFT is the master of marketing. apple uses secrecy so that when a product doesn't have a certain feature(like WinFS in Vista ) they don't get bad press for years afterwards.
Apple's biggest reason for secrecy is so they don't let down fans with a product that can't pass QA at the last minute. MSFT and Dell will both ship products that fail last minute QA and "fix" them later.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
the radio silence that precedes a little tweak in hardware specs is pretty stupid.
Is it stupid, or is it Apple trying not to Osborne itself to death?
Which helps the consumer.... how?
Making the front cover of Time means your product is better?
If anything, it's a unified ability to get people to "do their best work". And it shouldn't stop there, and that shouldn't be as painful as it has often gotten. It can and should be par for the course, no unpleasantness required. Much research has gone into this area of corporate culture - the unpleasantness isn't required.
It's interesting, you know -- it seems that Apple is Steve, and perhaps vice versa. And Steve has this "thing" for "devices". He's obsessed with the device. The black cube, the sleek sexy all-in-ones, and that's cool...
But did you ever notice how it really wouldn't mean anything if Microsoft wasn't ubiquitous? In other words -- to have that cover of Time magazine (and to have it mean anything significant), Apple has given up 35%-45% of desktop market share (or better). How on earth is that worth it? Price of success? Hardly.
Apple plays off of Microsoft's ubiquity and plainness. In a world where 90% is Windows, Apple stands out. In any other world, it would be more like Frank Lloyd Wright or Pininfarina. Nice, interesting, beautiful, but decidedly niche. It's front page material because of everything it's given up to not compete with Microsoft. Of course, then the question is does Wall Street value market share, or is it more important to go after and get 91% of the $1000+ PC market? Passion for the "The Device".
It's the only way to make the concept of a "device" work in the marketplace. Play it off MS's ubiquity. Bounce it off Windows' boring and often generic nature. Migrate the focus to uncharted territories -- wireless, controversial Napster territory, and so forth. Contrast it to ubiquity, blandness, and low-budget compromises, and use your awesome resources to leverage your way into entrenched, stifled areas. Not so much to help the consumer, but to peddle "The Device". Point being, Apple can do better. Apple should do better.
Is it really necessary to make the front cover of time to give stockholders a good deal? To give customers a good deal? Is my consumer experience made better if my device is on the front cover of Time? Or is it purely stroking someone's ego? Could tens of millions of dollars be made by simply COMPETING with Microsoft (something Apple is capable of doing quite well at this point in time)?
Unfortunately, great leaders tend to "go nuts", sometimes, taking down entire leagues of followers with them. It's the nature of genius, perhaps. Seeing things others don't see, while fixated on a narrow goal -- in this case, "The Device". A flying saucer landed in my back yard and left me with this unique, fascinating object. Get over it, man. Apple, essentially, wants to have its "devices" (at least in the PC world) stick out so much, it's willing to give up perhaps 45% market share on the desktop to Windows, perhaps similarly significant market share to Linux on the server side, simply to have its devices "stick out". And the consumer loses choice, the developer gets frustrated, the employee loses significant quality of life. Pointless pain and suffering, unnecessary inconvenience.
To some extent, this "sticking out" is leveraged by gains and innovations with the ipod and the iphone, perhaps the tablet -- but man oh man -- an MSI Wind or Dell Mini 9 running OSX86 rocks. Where's Apple? Do they care about the consumer at all? Or just the image? Exactly how much do they sacrifice to maintain that image?
It's such a shame too. I guess it all boils down to this -- Steve is an inspirational dude, he runs a tight ship, and that tight ship has historically churned out some nice, innovative hardware and software products -- and continues to do so. But... consequently... Apple is CAPABLE of much more. We KNOW Apple can do better than it's doing. You may say it's doing great, but we KNOW it can do BETTER. Much, much, much better.
Apple is capable of doing better. It's the genius student, the teacher's pet. Yes, those are unr
Gee, you must be a self made billionaire with all this business insight you have. Apple doesn't look for market share. A lot of companies such as Honda and BMW, don't. Others, like GM and Toyota do seek to maximize market share. Would you rather invest in GM or Honda? Apple looks to maximize its ROI and that in part means sustaining relatively high margins. They've been wildly successful at doing that since Jobs returned. If Apple played the same game as Dell or Microsoft, they'd not be as successful as they are. They'd be another Dell or Microsoft or they'd be out of business.
As to what is "good for the consumers". That's not what major corporations are about. Their job is to maximize profits/shareholder value. There are many strategies for accomplishing that. Microsoft and Dell have theirs and Apple has its. Doing what is "good for consumers" is sometimes a byproduct, but that is not their primary goal. It's the market and the "invisible hand" that are supposed to deliver an end result that is "good for the consumers".
Business and markets are not about morality or altruism. They are about return on investment. The theory is that this will end up being good for "everyone" and sometimes it works out that way, but it's not the responsibility of the participating concerns to forego their own economic self-interests in order to accomplish that.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Apple has historically BOASTED about their closedness.
The original Macintosh came in a sealed box, and was dubbed 'Hacker Proof' (in the classic sense of people who like access to their stuff) at all the early Press Events. The machine was introduced as a reaction to and against, those of us with our Osbornes and TRS-80's and all the other machines that were thriving in an open community. Then Apple nailed the point down further by suing anybody else who dared adopt a GUI, wiping out all the small players and essentially creating Microsoft's monopoly for them (it took Microsoft and HP's legal heft to come out with a GUI operating system 'for the rest of us.' The small competitors like GEM were run out of the market.)
Congratulations - you managed to link a bunch of applications that support every iPod with the exception of the iPod Touch, i.e. the one the commenter was trying to use. Nice going.
I think jcr was being less eloquent and more fanatic than Anil
I don't see how you can claim that either of us was "fanatic". Do you know what the word means?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."