Apple and the Scalability of Secrecy 155
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.'"
I PREDICT (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [techcrunch.com] saved the world from tyranny.
May god have mercy on us all.
Yet, as I mentioned in the other [slashdot.org] /. 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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But does that mean the FCC can withhold approval of a cell phone because the maker refused to answer a question the FCC had no authority to ask?
Is that what you mean to imply?
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't they have the authority? They've been tasked by the government to investigate cellphone practices. That includes contracts between hardware manufacturers and cellphone companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FCC: 1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?
Apple: Because they didn't meet our standards for iPhone applications.
FCC: 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications?
Apple: We do what the hell we want.
Re: (Score:2)
Those answers would be surprising.. since Apple has been trying to blame AT&T for rejecting apps like GV and Sling.
sometimes secrecy is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most games would get crucified if they got leaked to the press or the public too early in the dev cycle.
And you know this how?
Id software was great for putting out "Technology previews" which crashed a lot, but sure built sales.
If you produce crap, and people can see its crap, they tend to step around it like a dog-pile on the pavement.
But a good concept demonstrator with wide appeal, even if rough around the edges, will draw customers like flies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know this how?
Because I've been developing video games for over a decade, and I'm well aware of the reactions people have to seeing unfinished games, having seen it many, many times.
Id software was great for putting out "Technology previews" which crashed a lot, but sure built sales.
If you produce crap, and people can see its crap, they tend to step around it like a dog-pile on the pavement.
But a good concept demonstrator with wide appeal, even if rough around the edges, will draw customers like flies.
id's "technology previews" are relatively polished pieces of code, despite crashes (crashes are just indicative of beta code, nothing more). I'm talking more about pre-alpha stuff, very early in development.
Let me give you a real-life example: I'm currently working on *insert name of popular game* version 2. We have millions of fans of ver
Re: (Score:2)
Re:sometimes secrecy is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Apple is no different than game developers justifying its secrecy. This isn't about AAPL's technology. We already know what they use for technology ever since Steve left NeXT and turned AAPL into a BSD Unix shop.
It's all about their marketing arm. Their entire branding is all about total ease of use from every angle from hardware to software and the sleek, elegant design. This is not like MSFT where the entire industry cuts them slack for turning out a totally unfinished, buggy or otherwise complete failure (WindowsME, Vista).
Apple's clique in life has always been young, urban, chic, sexy. Anything that peels away all that makeup and reveals the sausage underneath is seen in Cuptertino as a potential catastrophe to Apple's public image.
Microsoft's culture never painted itself into a corner this way. Bless their hearts, they're still plugging away at the Zune.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Bless their hearts, they're still plugging away at the Zune."
The problem with the Zune is primarily that it has too many competing interests, the same thing that spoils Sony's products these days.
Imagine a product that had to do the following:
1) Compete with an established brand leader (iPod)
2) Start a new proprietary music market, which was different than Microsoft's proprietary old music market (Plays for sure)
3) Make sure it locks down content pretty tightly to appease the record companies
4) Innovate, b
Google products can be beta forever. (Score:2)
They are open about it and people get along fine with products in a beta phase.
The game industry could learn some lessons from that.
Re:sometimes secrecy is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, if you want your hardware to look nice, it needs to have less openings, less buttons. If you want it to work all of the time, you have to take out the ability for human error. Apple gets this, and because of that people get apple products.
Don't get get me wrong - Linux is what I do for a job. I'd still be hard pressed to be recommending it to anyone who didn't know what they were doing, because there's far too many things they could mess with that would break it.
Re: (Score:2)
The database that itunes generates when copying your files across makes the interface respond quicker.
Then why can't the device turn itself on and rebuild this database after the USB mass storage has been disconnected? If you've been an Apple fan for long enough, you could even consider it like "rebuilding the desktop".
Because (Score:2)
Nobody wants to spend hours waiting for their iPod to build something as nebulous as a "database" before they can use their music.
It's not a bad idea if it weren't for the access time/data rate and slow processor.
Re: (Score:2)
[Rebuilding the database on the player is] not a bad idea if it weren't for the access time/data rate and slow processor.
Seriously? I thought iPod touch was more powerful than a Wii [computeran...ogames.com]. I don't think it would take "hours" to scan the ID3 tags in 6 GB of MP3s.
Besides (Score:2)
Who spends 45 minutes looking confused before cracking a manual.
Hell, who didn't know about iTunes. I think we're talking about two different kinds of secrecy here, one of which isn't secrecy, even if it sounds somewhat the same.
Re:sometimes secrecy is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Because attempting to overwrite an entire partition with an mp3 file makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My firends and I used to do it with floppy disks all the time. You could wedge a frew more seconds of audio on those if you dispensed with the file system. We could play them directly from the disk too. It was sorta like a tape deck, but with one song tapes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but expecting an ipod with non-modified software to then play the mp3 is a bit much...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can replace the battery, it's just not simple. No need to throw it out. And all iPods use simple databases maintained by a desktop application (usually iTunes), so you can't simply copy mp3 files to them.
iPods are not open devices. They're usually not the best choice for hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
And all iPods use simple databases maintained by a desktop application (usually iTunes), so you can't simply copy mp3 files to them.
A lot of people would call it a defect if the device cannot maintain its own database, unlike comparable MP3 players.
iPods are not open devices.
Which comparable open device would you recommend that U.S. residents buy instead of an iPod Touch?
The mount command is your friend. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mount -t auto /dev/sdb1 /mnt/why_do_my_partitions_keep_getting_erased
mount: file system type not recognized
Re:sometimes secrecy is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
"after trying to cp *.mp3 /dev/sdb1"
Let me tell you about a little tool called "mount."
Re: (Score:2)
okay, so I forgot the mount line after being up for 28 hours, having woken up 10 timezones away halfway across the world. Sue me :P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What phone would that be? It's certainly not the iPhone 3G, even by my wife's minimal-moderate usage (very little data, almost never WiFi, and not more than an hour calling a day, usually 20 minutes).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
That's actually a great suggestion. My previous non-Apple phone could go 4 days without charging, and I replaced the battery myself in 10 seconds for $15. My non-Apple laptop runs for 6.5 hours on a user-serviceable battery. Apple's not going to change this as long as they make more money on non-user-serviceable parts--why should they? And can one really blame them?
When you buy an iPhone, for example, you can buy an extended warranty for $70 that covers the battery replacement.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:sometimes secrecy is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why the iPod is so popular is the fact that if you accept the default settings, it takes you one step to sync: Plug in the USB cable.
No, it's three steps:
If Apple helped fix Wine so that iTunes would run, steps 1 and 2 would not be necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize you can sync an iPod in Linux without iTunes right?
Not with all versions of iPod firmware, as I understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the fact that there is no step 2, why stop there?
1. Wake up.
2. Get dressed.
3. Have breakfast.
4. Open door to outside.
5. Step through door.
6. Close door.
7-9. Repeat 4-6, but use car door.
10. Turn on car.
11. Drive to store. (This could easily be another 50 steps or so.)
12-14. Repeat of 7-9.
Phew, that's a lot of steps, and we haven't even entered the store for the proprietary OS yet!
Re: (Score:2)
He also indicated that he tried to write mp3's directly to the disc... this guy lacks clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I've found that if you just hand someone an iPod, the fact that the circle on the front is actually a control you use by running your fingers across it isn't exactly intuitive to many people who have never seen one before. The old ones with the click wheel is actually a lot better in this regard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with the comment that you are replying to?
How about you try gaining root, copying an mp3 directly to your the block device that is your root partition, and rebooting?
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with the comment that you are replying to?"
I was pointing out that the iPod manual doesn't give any operation instructions for Linux. I'm assuming that Entropius's command to write to a raw block device was a typo, that the /dev/somethin
Re: (Score:2)
trying to cp *.mp3 /dev/sdb1 multiple times and wondering why it wouldn't play the files
You were trying to do *what* to an iPod?!
Remember that?
That's Mambodog expressing shock and amazement at someone trying to overwrite the first partition of the second "SCSI" harddisk installed in their system with a bunch of MP3 files. Last I heard, there isn't a lot of software out there than reads MP3s written on to a raw block device.
Windows or *anything* covered by the iPod manual doesn't factor into the situation.
Moreover, *my* "try gaining root" comment was directing *you* to gain root on *your* box and try to overwrite your root partition w
Entropius had already posted a correction (Score:2)
Last I heard, there isn't a lot of software out there than reads MP3s written on to a raw block device.
I still think you're taking this too literally. Entropius already admitted [slashdot.org] that using the device node in /dev instead of the mount point in /mnt was a typo. The lack of "sudo" before the "cp" clued me in, as usually only root can write to the device node without a file system in the way. I was replying to the "read the fucking manual" part of mambodog's post and clarifying the issue that I thought Entropius was trying to raise.
*my* "try gaining root" comment was directing *you* to gain root on *your* box
If I buy an iPod, is it "my" box?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all what MP3 player doesn't require a computer? The files have to come from somewhere. They don't magically appear onto your device. Something has to create the encoded the MP3s somewhere. The $600 dongle? What are you talking about? The original iPods required Firewire 400. By version 3.0 (2003) it could sync using USB or Firewire. The first Mac mini (2005) had both USB and Fire
Re: (Score:2)
He means an Apple Macintosh computer, and the cheapest model (the Mac Mini) is about $600 new, unless you have a student discount.
Computer != Mac or Windows PC (Score:2)
First of all what MP3 player doesn't require a computer?
Computer != computer with one of two proprietary operating systems that Apple has blessed.
The $600 dongle? What are you talking about? [...] The first Mac mini (2005)
You answered your own question. If your main PC runs Linux, then in order to run iTunes, you have to either A. buy a Mac or B. buy a copy of a Microsoft Windows brand operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to use iTunes you have to get Windows or OS X. It's called minimum requires of their software.
And Entropius's point is that such minimum requirements are a reason to return an iPod once they are noticed.
If you don't like it, you are free to write an open source equivalent.
No we're not. Apple has used the DMCA to threaten a project [slashdot.org] to document the iPod's iTunesDB.
If you want to sync your iPod with Linux there are options.
As I understand it, those are good for used iPods, not new ones.
I'll be the first (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
seems kind of stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I ignored these because they seemed to have nothing at all do with the author's thesis regarding secrecy--it seemed that the author was so anxious to criticize Apple that he just threw in everything he could think of, whether or not it was relevant or made any sense. What does Google Voice have to do with secrecy? It is clearly an application that imp
Not Scalability, Marketability (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been some recent discussion [macrumors.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
People were forced to move away from Shake. Apple killed the Windows version, and the prices for the Linux version are ludicrously out of touch.
Shake is dying because Apple seems to have given up trying to compete with Affer Effects and Combustion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This article misses the point that (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
> It cannot be guaranteed that a reduction in
> secrecy would gain Apple an equivalent number of
> new customers.
Yes it can be guaranteed.
Its called Advertising. It works.
Please climb down off of your high school debate class pedestal and joint the real world.
Re:This article misses the point that (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Name one tech company that gets the same amount of press. Name one tech company whose press events are always packed. Name one tech company whose press events and keynote speeches are ALWAYS liveblogged.
That's advertising too, and it seems to be working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see Nintendo posts on Slashdot daily.
Secrecy won't protect AAPL forever (Score:3, Informative)
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)
You can keep secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and now we know what happens when they do leak actual secrets Apple cares about -- at least when they work for a Chinese contractor...
Civil War? Really? (Score:2)
From TFS,
"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."
This analogy relies on one assumption: that the natural inclination of people is to be open and vocal.
What if people simply do not care about sharing what the "next big thing" happening at Apple is. What if the only one who really does care is Mr. Steve Jobs himself. Then perhaps the war he is fighting isn't really all that awful. And the employees at Apple may not be at all as interested in their work as the media projects.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen J J Abram's talk on the Mystery Box [ted.com] at Ted.com? Apple is one big mystery box and so long as the box is kept closed, everyone wants a peek inside. But, if we ever did see inside... I'd suspect we'd find that it's not so mind-blowing as we once supposed.
The art of war... (Score:2, Interesting)
... (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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see English words that I recognise, but I can't actually understand what this post is saying.
I work at Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Thing is, I can't tell you about it since it is, itself, a secret. Sorry!
So true. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't a civil war. Remember that America lost the war it fought America itself back in the 1800's
it works for them (Score:2)
Apple's policy keeps details of the upcoming products out of the popular press while simultaneously allowing the blogger / technophile communities to obsess about every rumor and alleged detail that does leak out. So it whets the appetite of the hardcore fans while still allowing Apple to "surprise" Joe Consumer (who doesn't read macrumors et. al.) when it comes out with something "new".
Re:I bought an ipod touch today, it's going back. (Score:5, Informative)
Openness where are you?
Android?
Re:I bought an ipod touch today, it's going back. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
A product that forces me to do things like that... (Score:2)
... is not a good product.
There is no reason whatsoever why I should need a third device in order to use a bloody mobile phone.
Which is one of the several reasons I have not even contemplated getting an iPhone
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 la
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I bought an ipod touch today, it's going back. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't want to Osborne itself to death (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't look for market share. A lot of companies such as Honda and BMW, don't.
Not quite true.
Companies like Apple and BMW do care about market share within their own niche markets.
They care about the size of the niche market as a whole.
You can become trapped in the niche - without enough money to pull out/build out if anything goes seriously wrong.
Think of how many luxury auto marques like Pierce-Arrow and Dussenberg went extinct during the Great Depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
While this is true, Apple doesn't get the front cover of Time for every product they launch. Sure maybe the costs pay off for the times they end up on Time's cover, but what about all the other times they don't?
Your claim that Apple doesn't get free press due to the secrecy is complete nonsense.
Did you actually RTFA? Here's what he said about that: "This isn't true -- for almost every major announcement of the past several years, we've known the major points days, or even weeks, in advance." He went on to say "In fact, they earn the majority of their press from the extraordinary appeal o
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm being too literal but this argument makes no sense. First you say it was explained to you in dollar terms. Then you say you can't buy the front page of Time, so by definition it doesn't have a price in dollars.
Whilst we're comparing things which can't be priced, what did cost did the secrecy have to Apple? I read that Apple keeps its secrets by not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your characterization of Apple employees as "cowed" betrays your lack of knowledge about the company, the culture, or its people.
When Apple leaked like a sieve--when employees eagerly awaited their free issue of MacWeek magazine because it was the best available compendium of the overall status of Apple products, policies, and strategies--it was on a path of steady, inexorable decline. The series of CEO's that led the company in the Jobs interregnum knew nothing about computers and even less about the creat
How secrecy can fail to scale (Score:2)
I am wondering how to measure the scalability of secrecy?
Number of customers you can have while still maintaining a given level of secrecy. It's one thing to keep a secret when your organization is small enough to serve 100 or even 100,000 people; it's another thing to keep it from 100 million.