How Apple Orchestrates Controlled Leaks, and Why 195
Lanxon writes "'I was a Senior Marketing Manager at Apple and I was instructed to do some controlled leaks,' confesses John Martellaro. Monday's article at the Wall Street Journal, which provided confirmation of an Apple tablet device, had all the earmarks of a controlled leak. Here's how Apple does it. Often Apple has a need to let information out, unofficially. The company has been doing that for years, and it helps preserve Apple's consistent, official reputation for never talking about unreleased products. The way it works is that a senior exec will come in and say, 'We need to release this specific information. John, do you have a trusted friend at a major outlet? If so, call him/her and have a conversation. Idly mention this information and suggest that if it were published, that would be nice. No e-mails!'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that they shut Think Secret down, remember?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But that goes to my other point. It was obvious Think Secret from the getgo was getting TRUE insider information, and not controlled leaks, as they leaked products that NEVER made it to market sometimes and it did cause Apple a lot of trouble.
Apple is considering releasing a 40 foot tall robot equipped with lasers and a capacitive touchscreen.
On the off chance this isn't actually released, this demonstrates I have true insider information.
Re:duh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:duh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm caressing my iphone at an oxygen bar, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it help you to believe in the existence of Mac Fanbois?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-1 Troll in 5...4...3...
Yes, but only because there's no "-1 Eeeewww!" mod.
Didn't /. once promise a whole array of new mod selections one time long ago?
A Public Service (Score:3, Interesting)
By fleshing out an implementation, perhaps this pre-empts someone patenting "Controlled Leak, Product" (as opposed to nuclear power plant, hot air balloon, disinformation, tire, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Because in those situations, you KNOW Apple didnt authorize the leak and it makes you snicker."
They certainly wouldn't be sophisticated enough to use that tactic to reinforce a deliberate leak...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"OMG Apple does what everyone else does..."
Not really. Most companies freely brag about their unreleased products in order to gain hype. Apple has everybody else brag about their products to gain hype. That keeps them legit and makes it hard to accuse them of announcing vaporware.
Re:duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, a perfect example can be found here [nytimes.com]. Look how the article says "Microsoft and H.P. to Reveal Slate PC Ahead of Apple", and then proceeds with "The slate will be made by Hewlett-Packard and possibly available by mid-year, these people said."
Possibly available by mid-year. Right. It's the typical Microsoft strategy of announcing a product before the competitor, hoping that this will deter people from buying the competitors product. At least when Apple announces anything, you know you can order it from the Apple store the next day.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
At least when Apple announces anything, you know you can order it from the Apple store the next day.
The iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007. It went on sale on June 29, 2007.
But hey, don't let a little thing like reality get in the way of your faith.
Re:duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:duh? (Score:5, Informative)
The iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007. It went on sale on June 29, 2007.
And on the day it was announced, Steve apologized for this unusual early disclosure and explained why they did it. Of course you remember, don't you? After all, you could remember the date (I couldn't).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Had to do with the application for an FCC clearance, after which all kinds of things were going to become public anyway.
Re:duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the FCC was going to "leak" it first if it wasn't announced. It's part of FCC policy. And heck, the FCC bent to Apple in allowing the documents describing the iPhone (manuals, RF tests, photos inside and out, etc) be held confidential until after the announcement. Then everyone went nuts on the FCC's website downloading manuals and photos and all that.
Hell, there are people whose sole daily activity involve scanning the FCC database for new products and publishing the results - it's how we find out about new cellphones and gadgets way before they're announced.
But hey, never let a little government regulation get in the way of a good argument.
Re:duh? (Score:4, Informative)
They actually said in that case that they were announcing early because they had to file papers with the FCC, which would essentially make the product public knowledge anyway.
The other time that they frequently announce products ahead of release is OS upgrades, but that's usually done around the time they're starting to release developer builds of the OS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In general, Grandparent is right. In the case of the iPhone, they had to announce early or let the FCC do the announcing for them, because the FCC publishes data about the various phones they approve.
But most of the time, a new product is available for purchase within a week, if not a day, of the announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
At least when Apple announces anything, you know you can order it from the Apple store the next day.
... and have it delivered in three months or so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the point of this article can be summed up in one sentence:
"Blue Horseshoe loves the iSlate"
Another Apple Trick (Score:5, Funny)
So the guy shows up and there's Steve walking along the railroad tracks above Devil's Slough. Well, when the guy approaches him, Steve hands him a cell phone and takes the bottle of liquor. Depending on how much Steve likes the bottle of liquor is how Steve proceeds next. If he likes it, he lets the man realize the cellphone is just an iPhone shell and Steve embraces him as Steve injects him with pentobarbital and gently lets him fall to his death in the slough. Now if Steve doesn't like the bottle, he pulls out his chic white iDesert Eagle and puts one in the back of each of the guy's legs gangland style. Then he usually taunts and complains about the bottle the guy brought him before roundhousing him to the head off the railroad tracks. He usually finishes it with a really bad hollywood-esque pun (ex. "consider your employment terminated!") and holds the gun sideways to look badass. Either way the guy just becomes a faceless statistic of people who drank too much at a bar and were mugged on their way home. And since it was a 'controlled leak' no one knows about it.
It's all true. Reiser tried but failed to open source the model. And that time Jobs looked cancer thin? He had actually just gotten back from a two week stint in Devil's Slough after a botched termination turned into a Most Dangerous Game where the hunter became the hunted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that copy pasta? Because that was good : )
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, does anyone know why these idiot gang members always hold their pistols sideways?? I mean, no wonder they have to spray entire clips when they shoot since they can't possibly aim a damned gun...
That just always puzzled me. That and why the hell criminals like them, who often have a need to RUN from the law, wear baggy oversized pants that drop down to their knees when they try to run off, impeding their speed and agility (having to hold them up with one
More like applie (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth noting that if Apple were a smaller company, this sort of behavior would (or should, you can always find more shills) get doors slammed in its face at media outlets pretty fast. There's two reasons why it doesn't: 1. They're probably well-connected enough that they could always find someone else to leak their supposed "info," either through naievete or just apathy, and 2. They're so big that exclusive Apple news is a big plus, even if it turns out to be false or misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
And by smaller company, I mean a much smaller company. Obviously, any fairly substantial corporation can get away with the same thing (and does).
Re: (Score:2)
and 3. most media houses are big apple shops anyways. Apple has been big in this area ever since they release the apple printer that matched the screen rez, and became even more entrenched thanks to adobe photoshop (first time i actually bumped into a mac was in the local newspapers photo office).
Re: (Score:2)
and 3. most media houses are big apple shops anyways. Apple has been big in this area ever since they release the apple printer that matched the screen rez, and became even more entrenched thanks to adobe photoshop
Riiiight. Because the media is run by the designers, printers, and technical staff. Writers and editors take their orders from some Quark/Indesign/Photoshop monkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, and that's how it works. They go to these sites and give a little taster and then as soon as its leaked, they get their dogs out and tell the rest of the news outlets that "XYZ BLOG IS WRONG WE ARE NOT BLAH BLAH BLAH", when in fact, if it were false, Apple would not comment at all.
Why do I know this? I had it happen to me where I was the source of a posting that caused a half billion dollar spike in their stock (ok...maybe exagerating) and a thousand dollar hosting bill (which was mysteriously paid
Re:More like applie (Score:5, Funny)
It's great how much bigger companies do this, here's a transcript I recorded recently:
for(;;) {
Informant Exec: So online mag, this is totally off the record, but we're thinking about cloning something Apple is doing.
Online Mag: O RLY?
Informant Exec: Yeah, it's going to totally fucking kill Apple.
Online Mag: Wow, that sounds amazing, what is is?
Informant Exec: It's kind of like the iPhone only much more innovative
Online Mag: Sounds like it's really going to change the market, any other projects you're working on?
Information Exec: Yeah, we're also talking about cloning some stuff Google is doing.
Online Mag: O RLY?
Informant Exec: Yeah, it's going to totally fucking kill Google.
Online Mag: Wow, that sounds amazing, what is is?
Informant Exec: It's kind of like Google search only much more innovative
Online Mag: Sounds like it's really going to change the market, any other projects you're working on?
}
Re:More like Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
if Apple were a smaller company
Sure, you are being rather hypothetical as Apple is in fact a huge company with innovative ideas. People do care what they'll come out with. So you don't make much of a point. Note that Google once was a small company. I first heard of them through an industry insider who said: "watch-out for this company called Google" in a web cast, "they have quite an interesting concept." Next thing you know, Altavista and Yahoo lost their leads as web search tools. Why did Google succeed? In my opinion, it was the repu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're assuming I'm saying something good or bad about Apple in general, but in fact all I'm doing is observing that their media strategy would not work for most companies.
Media is a business, and as much as the media likes to portray itself as gung ho and unconventional, you can't play rough unless you're so big (or so influential) that rejecting you is going to hurt them. Again, this is why Apple's size (and influence, more importantly) lets them get away with it.
Most of the time, the business of
Is this before or after... (Score:2, Funny)
you purchased more Apple stock?
everyone does it (Score:3, Insightful)
did you really think all those dumb unboxing youtube videos of the Pre and other cell phones where they don't show anything weren't official marketing? if it really was someone who stole a copy then they would show off every feature on the internet so all the internet peoplez would think they are cool
Re: (Score:2)
Stocks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As long as leaks and product releases are timed with trading blackout periods (usually tied with quarterly earnings reports), there shouldn't be a problem since an insider wouldn't be allowed to buy or sell stock in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do know that insiders only trade on their own account when they have to unload stock options or for other PR reasons.
They make real their money on inside trades through proxies and third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
An insider is anybody with material information about a company that isn't public. Sure, the people on those lists are certainly insiders, but they're not ALL insiders.
If I whisper to a friend that my employer is announcing a new widget next Tuesday, my friend is now an insider. Granted, it is VERY hard to spot this kind of stuff, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
The whole concept of a stock market is that everybody has access to the same information. When one group of people has access to infor
Controlled Leaks (Score:2, Interesting)
"...Senior Marketing Manager at Apple and I was instructed to do some controlled leaks".
Let me be the first to say that anytime you boss wants you to do something "off the record", you need to start doing 1 or all of 3 things:
1. recording massive amounts of evidence(when did he ask you, how, what time, save emails offsite) for your own benefit
2. get an authorization document on company letterhead signed by him
3. refuse to do it.
They are setting you up my friend. You've probably broken some type of law alre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you missed the point.
The Apple guy doesn't leak to the media, the Apple guy consults with a partner. The partner leaks to the media. The partner will likely have a special non-disclosure agreement that will cover his ass in the event that all goes south. It's all well orchestrated, undocumented, and not illegal.
I will need some help with this. (Score:5, Funny)
All we need to do is create a leak for a fictional (but desirable) product. Slowly release blurry mock-ups and specs. Start a few rumors here and there. Then (as long as everyone stays positive) we let Apple deal with the actual implementation.
I'm awaiting my DRM-free ireader. (Apple, you can do it so much better)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I will need some help with this. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because apple wants to release good products at launch time. Sure you can use the latest screen technology hut it doubles the cost comes with unstable drivers and if you sneeze at it cracks. Apple sells the whole widget. Having an easily scratched screen material is just as bad as buggy software.
Most people don't realize that hardware and material science is a major part of product design. Bringing a final product to market is about trade offs.
There havebeen touch screens and tablets for years upon years. But until recently the hardware and software haventbeen ready for mass deployments. Just look at Microsoft. Is windows tablet edition a good piece of tablet software? Ithas all the pieces but they haven't been assembled properly yet. The need for convertible tablets is why. Msft is trying to shove a mouse and keyboard based desktop at tablet users. But that isn't how tablet need to work. They need their own UI
just having the ingredents doesn't mean you can bake cake.
Re:I will need some help with this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the iPod, it wasn't exactly the largest media player at the time, nor did it have the most specs.
In portable music players, largest is not best. The iPod succeeded because it was the smallest hard-drive based player on the market. As far as specs go, you're wrong. It was the most advanced product on the market. It had Firewire for transferring music, while everybody else had USB 1. It had a nice screen and menu navigation system, while everybody else had clunky controls like a portable CD player, and very limited LCD displays.
Re:I will need some help with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're on to something, but the reasons are a little more complicated than, "they want to release gadgets in generations".
First is the fact that their development method is just different from a lot of other companies. Most companies take an idea an idea like a portable MP3 player and say, "Lets put every feature we can into this thing for launch. I want it to have a radio, and have it play lots of games, and maybe have a built-in toaster oven!" So they make a list of features and put them all into a prototype. They polish the prototype until it kind of works, and then release that design as a product. In its first version, it only kind of works, but has lots of problems from having a lot of not-quite-ready features crammed in. They try to fix these problems in the next version.
In contrast, if Apple sets out to design an mp3 player, then there's a decent chance that the product will only have 1 major feature: playing mp3s. Instead of making the first version have loads of features, they'll spend their development time making sure that using the product as an mp3 player is easy, intuitive, and works very well. They'll add features over the next few versions, but they'll do so relatively slowly because each time, they're making sure the new features are integrated well into the existing design.
Those are two different design philosophies which bring different results. In the first way of doing things, you start with a more feature-rich product, but in the second way you start with a more polished product.
Beyond that, there's something else going on in Apple's marketing that is pretty obvious once you notice it, but a lot of people don't notice it. Most tech manufacturers are constantly trying to introduce new products and drive down the price. When Apple introduces a new product, they tend to keep the price stable for a very long time. Watch iPod prices or Macbook prices, and you'll notice that the price very rarely goes down. As new technology comes out, Apple keeps upgrading the product to be smaller, lighter, or more feature rich in order to justify the current price, but they don't really drop the price.
It's worth understanding that the price points are often chosen by marketing, and then a product is designed to fit that price. I believe the first iPod was $400, and right now that's also the price of the most expensive iPod. There's a reason for this. It's not that Apple couldn't create a really snazzy $700 iPod, but that if they did, Jobs would probably say, "Let's put that on ice until we can make it cheaper." Ultimately, they don't want to release a $700 iPod and then two years later sell the same iPod for $400. Along with everything else, that creates the impression of a product whose value is dropping. They'd much rather sell a crappy $400 iPod this year and then two years later sell you the super-snazzy iPod for $400, so that you have the impression of a product which preserves its value by continually improving.
The reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who don't feel like actually reading the article, here're the specific reasons given for the tablet leaks:
* to light a fire under a recalcitrant partner
* to float the idea of the US$1,000 price point and gauge reaction
* to panic/confuse a potential competitor about whom Apple had some knowledge
* to whet analyst and observer expectations to make sure the right kind and number of people show up at the (presumed) January 26 event. Apple hates empty seats and demands SRO at these events.
I'm especially curious about the first and the third. Who is the competitor? The Google/Alex Reader partnership? The rumoured Chrome OS tablet? And who is the partner, a content provider or an OEM? Were they concerned that there wasn't enough interest in the device to guarantee volume, or was it something else?
Re:The reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Microsoft's pattern. The iPhone was about to be announced. It had touch control. So that weekend, Microsoft announces the Microsoft Table for Business, or whatever they call it. It's always something. This would be the... fourth (?) tablet that Microsoft has done. Three were total failures. Howsabout trying for 4?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tablet is sort of like AppleTV in that it ends up begging the question "Just who exactly is this aimed at?" With netbooks, smartphones, etc. on the low end and full-blown laptops on the high end, I just can't picture a big market for a $1000 tablet PC. Who is going to pay $1000 for an underpowered laptop just because it has a touchscreen? Unless they have some more surprises up their sleeve, I just can't picture the market for this thing.
There's a portion of consumers that don't worry too much about the price. There are a variety of reasons for this:
A) They're relatively affluent and wouldn't likely buy a 'bargain' device
B) They believe they actually save money, through superior return on investment
C) They believe the product is a status symbol
E.g. the $800 iPhone. Comparable devices at that time were around $500. People bought all each of the units made, and iPhones were scarce, back then.
While I don't personally know any of these pe
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one thing, there's a rumor that the screen will be sort of a hybrid LCD/e-paper screen, and another rumor that it will have a built-in modem for mobile broadband. It may be less of a low-end laptop and more of a super high-end Kindle.
But then some rumors seem to indicate that it might be a somewhat new class of device. There's been talk about the input interaction being unlike things that we've seen before, the possibility of docking stations, and other weird stuff. It's really hard to tell at
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of today, I would guess:
the competitor is Microsoft [nytimes.com]
and
the partners are Verizon [computerworld.com] (more [iphonefaq.org]) and TV networks (for content) [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the 'could have been' part. None of these were stated as being the reasons for certain.
Re: (Score:2)
Important caveat, yes. I misread that part.
Ethics (Score:3, Informative)
Ethics (n): The 'optional' set of rules companies occasionally engage when it is a benefit to the company but publically declaire they use at all times.
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
For any publicly-trade company, acting to benefit the company is actually one of the fundimental ethical principles. If you act in a way that drops the company's stock price you're essentially shredding other people's money. Sneaky but harmless media-baiting to improve a product's chance of success is the right ethical choice in that framework. It's not ethical from the journalistic perspective, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely! From our outside ethical perspective, is the net total of the benefit to Apple's shareholders plus the penalty to media integrity greater than zero? Apple's stock price went up three cents around the leak, is that the price of journalistic integrity?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's stock price went up three cents around the leak, is that the price of journalistic integrity?
Considering the current state of journalistic integrity I'd say we're definitely looking at a net gain as a society. Seriously, though, do you really think that Apple orchestrating controlled leaks really has any measurable impact on journalistic integrity?! Even the net effect of every major technology player orchestrating controlled leaks seems barely a blip on the "subversion of journalistic integrity" radar. Now if all these players were involved in behind-the-scenes bidding wars over whose "leaks" woul
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that as a fellow Galt Follower, I am interested in your response.
Re: (Score:2)
s/companies/humans/g
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How anyone orchestrates leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in politics and government and to give Apple much credit for this is sort of laughable. Let's just say that if they tried to patent it, there would be plenty of prior art.
Some people will look at this and think "that's why Apple is so successful at building buzz." It's only partly true. Every company leaks, but not every company gets a NY Times story and 100 blog echoes. The leaks work so well because Apple is a hot, popular company. They don't, by themselves, make Apple a hot, popular company.
Re:How anyone orchestrates leaks (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I think it is a chicken/egg issue. At this point, the kind of leaking that happens is partly responsible for building the chic, hot, popular. People generally want to be in the "in crowd", and Part of the whole "leak" mentality is build momentum before a product is released.
The leaks accomplish this "in-crowd" mentality, especially when it is accompanied by pictures of people waiting in line at the local Apple store for days, for the latest coolness a few months later when said coolness is released.
Apple has MASTERED this like no other company. Nobody waits in line for the lastest "Dell" or "HP". Why? Because they aren't "cool", and all of the products they release are in fact part of the YAD (yet another device).
Other companies get this kind of response once, or twice a decade. Apple achieves this on a regular and consistant basis.
Apple is cool, because people think it is. People think it is cool, because on a regular basis, they release things that people want because Apple is cool.
It is cool to be Apple.
Have they not heard of tape recorders? (Score:2)
Surely they need to know exactly what was told to them and have proof, so have the reporters not heard of taping the conversation? "No emails" is obviously a "we don't want a paper trail (even if it is obvious)" thing, but even having the conversation directly in t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In many places this sort of recording isn't legal. It is theoretically possible to attach some sort of consequences to breaking a confidence. It would be a different matter if you gave your permission to be recorded, were in a public place, etc, but if you specifically asked to have a private, off the record, conversation things get a little less black and white.
A person may or may not face legal penalty for this kind of behavior, but you can be certain they would never get those kinds of tips again. Sin
Re: (Score:2)
If there isn't any incentive for outing a tipster then why worry about a paper trail? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Because hard evidence, such as email, could be revealed by a third party who wouldn't suffer the consequences of the outing.
Private verbal conversations, on the other hand, are deniable.
Surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)
News?.... (Score:2, Insightful)
More publicity (Score:2, Informative)
News just in.. (Score:4, Funny)
Bears: Wanton woodland defeacation shock
Pope: Catholic?
"Give the press some stories" (Score:2)
This is old stuff. I remember reading it in The Macintosh Way. Guy Kawasaki's thesis was that by making yourself a good source the press were less likely to burn you.
...laura
Uncontrolled leaks (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Still waiting... (Score:5, Funny)
Marketing stunt. (Score:2)
I'm not surprised - this is just a marketing stunt. Most leaks are.
Have you ever wondered why car manufacturers do those maskings of test cars? It's the same thing - draw attention!
Of course - the public opinion is to deny or contradict, but that's just a play to keep the interest up.
If they wanted to be really secret then they would drop a lot of vapor regarding other things and other designs and draw away the attention from the real thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If they were released during the winter i'd say that is the dance you do to keep warm waiting outside in line to buy one.
It's a swipe to the right
type in that PIN
search for your app (there's one for that)
let the fun begin
It's the iPhone Shuffle
Re:Still waiting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Still waiting... (Score:4, Funny)
You mean the phone with one button that dials a random number in your phonebook?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The coverup is far worse than the crime, especially when there might not have even been a crime in the first place.
Ergo, Bill Clinton almost-impeachment. It isn't necessarily illegal for the President to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office. It might have been sexual harassment, and an investigation was tenuously warranted, but lying to the investigators is certainly illegal.
Unlike Martha, however, Bill got basically zero in terms of actual punishment for his crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually he was convicted of 1 of the three counts of impeachment but later acquitted by the Senate. He left office with the highest rating of any president since World War 2.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is dropping, and will continue to drop, and more and more people realize what bullshit he signed into law. DMCA, we all love that and love Bill for that, right? NAFTA's been working out great hasn't it? How about shutting down our research on Integral Fast Reactors? That's some future tech shit right there, and it's not like our nuclear tech was lagging behind the rest of the world already thanks to NIMBY-ism, but hey too bad now. GE's got some reactors based on that they're designing/building th
Re: (Score:3)
This is still something most outside the US can't understand - what was the big deal? For those who get into a righteous froth about ol' Bill, you only need to go and read up on the Nixon administration. The words "ethics" and "morality" simply were not in their dictionary. Nix
Re: (Score:2)
If the word "trading" wasn't in there, I'd have thought you were just speaking some British/Australian slang descibing your night out drinking.