My Take on Leander’s Piece AKA Apple Is Evil
My reaction isn’t as angry as Jon Gruber’s over at Daring Fireball. However, when you put aside that anger one can’t help but agree with Jon’s assessment of Leander Kahney’s piece in Wired, “How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong.” Leander’s article is a curious one for him, because he is usually so spot on when it comes to Apple. But this article is just....odd, especially as the cover piece of Wired.
Google Isn’t Nice
In Leander’s piece Google comes across as this kind of lah-lah place where no one does any evil (their corporate moniker, after all, is Do No Evil, so that must be so, right?!) Wrong. Google, like Apple is a business, not a philanthropy. Not that they are evil, they aren’t, but neither is Apple for taking a different approach to product development.
In Leander’s world secrecy is somehow a bad thing. But almost every business requires some level of confidentiality in order to function. Is Wired transparent about its business plans? About what features and products it plans to release? Of course not. Indeed the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is defacto standard for any conversation in the corporate world. The reason is is because there is business value in the ideas a company has. There is for Apple, and there is for Google. This is not evil.
Think Secret Wasn’t Just a Fan Site
Leander also paints a picture of Nick Cearlo of Think Secret as victim of Apple evil empire. Not so. Sure Nick may have started out the site as a hobby but it soon grew into a serious business. Anyone with even a basic understand of online advertising knows that given his site’s popularity this wasn’t just a hobby site. He was making some serious money. And he was making it by republishing confidential secrets broken by people who had probably signed NDAs. Notice that Apple has not gone after Jon Gruber or myself. This isn’t because Apple likes the blogosphere, they very may well not. But Jon and I aren’t revealing trade secrets. We are not profiting from people breaking the rules. Nick could have chosen to express his interest in Apple in a way that didn’t breach confidentiality contracts. He chose otherwise. This doesn’t make Apple evil. Yes, we may disagree with the company, but still going after Think Secret was well within it’s rights.
One of Apple competitive advantages comes from its ability to surprise and delight the marketplace. It is a key business advantage (and not only because of all the press it gets) and Apple must fight to preserve it.
As for Leander’s issues with the cliche of Steve Jobs the micromanager, again, this is not evil. Apple is not some sort of prison-camp where people have to work. I know people who work at Apple, and they are energized and excited by what they do. I’m certain there are people who hate working their too, just like any other company. But something tells me that the teams who worked on the iPod, iPhone, and the Mac are pretty darn proud of what they did.
Probably the most unfortunate thing about Leander’s piece is that is, at best, a superficial look at Apple. A cover piece of Wired is such an opportunity. And a piece that panders to cliché’s about the firm is an unfortunate waste of such exposure.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. Leander Kahney’s article was simply ignorant and foolish.
Interesting point of view. Also, who cares if Nick DePlume was revealing trade secrets of Apple’s. That’s part of doing business, especially for a company that is as popular and public as Apple. Don’t agree with me?, so what. That’s your right and your free to say so as protected by our First Admendment; As was Think Secret, and Apple was right to get smacked down in court. So to cast Think Secret in a negative light (as if the site was doing something wrong), is questionable....
I got no issue with Leander’s piece. However, you are right, it doesn’t say anything we didn’t already know or think about Apple.
But it did raise the interesting question in my mind about how will Apple survive without Steve?
Any new CEO is likely to embrace more openness and will that hurt Apple? (It’d be impossible to be less open, and near impossible to maintain the status quo.)
Regards Think Secret,for many people, morally, what it did was wrong. But journalism operates under different morals where if something might have even the slightest bit of “in the public interest”, it is acceptable to publish. Under that code, TS did nothing wrong.
One of the biggest issues I have with the article is a basic error.
He said that Tiger was the latest version of OS X. I had to check the date to make sure it was a recent article.
Really that is just a stupid error for someone who claims to know enough about Apple/Mac to write about it.
BTW, TS was in the wrong (legally and morally)- it published sensitive information (intellectual property) that it had no business having - what gets me tho is those people who violated their NDAs probably also would sell info to competitors.
Contents of this website are good and appreciative. Recommended to all. http://www.goagifts.com, http://www.calcuttaonnet.com
I got no issue with Leander’s piece. However, you are right, it doesn’t say anything we didn’t already know or think about Apple.
I think the perspective on the article is interesting. The fact is that the policies and techniques touted by Apple’s rabid fanboy defenders, WOULD be regarded as evil by any other company. And that seems to be Kahney’s point. Apple is pretty evil when compared to the supposed morality of the Silicon Valley ideal. The litigiousness, the secrecy, the proprietary and closed systems, the DRM, et al. Would Gruber’s head explode if this exact same article had been written about Microsoft?
“… within it’s rights.”
“… working their too, ...”
“… panders to cliché’s about ...”
Geez, and _I_ did badly in English… though I do agree with the article
I have followed ThinkSecret, as was MacOSRumours back in the heydeys of rumour-mongering.
TS and MOSR, as journalistic outfits, had and will always have the right to publish for the public knowledge sake - thank you CH. If they only had stayed behind that proverbial line by being just the garden variety rumour-mongering, that would have been kosher with Apple legal.
But, and this is a big one, they crossed that line of morality and legality, where they paid people that signed NDA’s to spill the beans. Were you not aware of how accurate they were? Too accurate.
Those proverbial bags of beans are what we call IP’s in the biz - intellectual properties. They are protected by laws - patents, trademarks, copyrights. Just because those IP’s exists as ideas and not physical products does not make it freely available for anyone to share nor publish without restraint.
I’m sure back in the days, as someone up there said, Mr. Nick Whomever used to adhere to the most basic journalism ethics as this was just a hobby. But greed and ego came into play when popularity rush ensued. I wholeheartedly agree with Apple’s take on the matter. Like Hadley mentioned, AM and DF still exists today for these sites are journalism sites - good or bad.
As for Mr. Leander, I am also a fan of his for so long that I can forgive him for this particular piece of trash. It sounds too much of a line-hook-sinker type of journalism more than what I expected of him. I’m neither baited nor filleted.
Articles and content in this section of the website are really amazing. From http://www.puneonnet.com, http://www.tamilnaduonnet.com
The biggest problem with Apple is that Steve Jobs is a dink. He wants everybody to think, act and dress just like him. Except for when it comes to money. He wants all the money for himself.
Didn’t Jimi Hendrix write a song about that?
Think about a kid in high school, who is obsessed with trivial things. What music he listens to, what gear he bought to listen to it with, his car, his clothes, etc. That is Steve Jobs.
We were all a dink at some point in our lives, but most people outgrow it. I think he has a self-esteem problem. All the money and the success in the world won’t change anything, you can’t run away from yourself. At this point, he is so well surrounded by toadies that there is no way for anyone to say an honest word to him. He believes his own lies, and that is the biggest problem with Apple, too. A computer is just a tool, and most people are not using them for much of anything special. Could you imagine this much excitement over new phonograph 100 years ago?
Self-esteem problems tend to travel as a pair with narcissism. It’s funny how the extremes combine.
Mr. Steve Consilvio, after reading your post ^^, I have a pal Bebox to introduce to you. You both would make a great Stevophobicism-hypoallergenic-infected couple.
Steve & co. did not ask or encourage TS from extorting/bribing Apple NDA-consigners for splashy inside infos, or did they? So, why would Steve’s personal mannerism play into this? He runs an honest business. Never mind his temperament, his choice of clothing, and the way he gives his Stevogaze when you ask a st0031d question interrupting his RDF at one of his “Oh, and one more thing...” presentations.
It is and was a business decision. If you were running a pie biz and window gawkers steal your pie-baking secrets to just about every pie bake shops in town for a few bucks, wouldn’t you decide to issue a C&D;(cease and desist) as was the case initially?
When that thief keeps ignoring the warning like TS did for a while attempting to sway the public (rumor mongers’) opinion on Apple.
Biz=Biz and ‘Net-TS=More Dull+Better Honest Journalism.
Robotech, I didn’t post anything about ThinkSecret, but I hardly think a leak of a soon-to-be-released product qualifies for any form of “espionage” or corporate theft. Everything that has been released was easily predicted, the question was only “when.”
Plus, the so-called “damages” are based on losing control of their marketing message, when in fact the rumor mills enhance the marketing hype, they don’t detract from it.
Does Apple run an “honest” business. That’s a laugh, when three “employees” cashed out $75 million yesterday. But what was Leander’s article about? Was it about Apple corporate, technology, business, or Steve Jobs? Each one in itself is ripe for commentary, I simply commented on Steve the person. I don’t love him or hate him (sorry) I just see him for who he is.
Most of the heavy lifting is not done by Steve Jobs, it is done by the geniuses behind him, for which he takes all the credit. If he were more humble and compassionate, he could have “changed the world,” but as it is, he is just selling “sugar water to kids” (which is what he told Sculley he was doing, when he recruited him away from Pepsi.
I will admit to a personal bias not in favor of oligarchy, but wasting time attacking Think Secret was not a “business decision” by Apple. It was a decision made by proud, powerful and arrogant people, who somehow think their customers (even fanatical fans) deserve no respect.
Steve Jobs is a dink. I am not giving him less respect than he gives to others by saying so, but more. I am telling the truth, whereas he and the people around him just want more money and power, and they accept personal criticism about as well as they accept criticism of their products. Afterall, once you are convinced that you are making the best thing in the world, why listen to what anybody else says? Customers can’t be right, right?
it is done by the geniuses behind him, for which he takes all the credit
Much agree yet regretable, indeed. In the biz world there is no such thing as complementing the layman for his geniuses no matter how sympathetic a gesture it is.
In retrospect, for all of M$ miseries and missteps in recent years can’t be blamed for all of 79,000 employees, can they? No, the blame is to the head honchos Gates+Balmer. These guys are stuck to their original vision rotting in the cellar of the Redmond campus.
I hardly think a leak of a soon-to-be-released product qualifies for any form of “espionage” or corporate theft.
A coerced inside information is “espionage” and this is covered very well by U.S. law as industrial espionage and prosecutable and enforceable. Apple did the right thing within its lawful rights.
Everything that has been released was easily predicted, the question was only “when.”
Sure but that doesn’t justify said theft. I admit I’ve enjoyed reading up on those gossips and curiously wondered how they get their information so fast and so accurate to a date on the calendar. It was too suspicious that it was no longer mere fun and games of spitting the most innovative rumor in Appleland amid many copycat rumour sites.
Spawning predictions is one thing. Anyone with creative passions as a Mac faithful can do that. I know I can and have done my share in the past. But I did not cross the honest journalism ethics unlike TS and MOSR have done.
For a wonderful evidence of “real” journalism go to Ars Technica, AppleInsider, TUAW, Daring Fireball, or RoughlyDrafted. Those Mac sites are the best in the ‘Net. AM is aspiring to be one of those big mojos. I wish these guys well for truthful journalism is key.
Customers can’t be right, right?
For all the attacks on Steve’s personalities and demeanor toward being a “dink”, I truly wonder why Apple’s products are voted on by the masses as “Best Original Design”, “Best Global Company”, “Best Company to Work For”, “Invention of the Year”, and on, on so forth.
If Steve arrogance is so hideous why would people buy Apple’s products by the millions awashing Apple’s coffers in gazillions of the green stuff? I don’t understand.
Doesn’t that vindicate that Steve’s personalities and awkward appearances, however nauseous for some, does not and will not have any adverse consequence on Apple’s business model, ever?
That biz model is being elegantly simple, simplistically useful, and employing the most approachable interface for a modest cost to all comers. This biz model has worked wonders in the past 10 years even when Steve has “dink"ed his way through it all.
And yes, give those 17,787+ employees much credit for those great products from the Bondi Blue iMac to the iPhone/Touch. It was all their blood+sweat+tears, after all.
A pat on the back for “dink"y Stevo for his forthright nurturing and potent vision.