Maybe I am tilting at windmills, hoping that some sunshine might change Apple for the better. Having lived inside Apple for nearly twenty years, I was probably just as much under the influence of the reality distortion zone as the most insane of the Mac faithful. I mean I even wrote Steve a nice e-mail after I was forced out of the company in the midst of my team tripling Apple sales in the Federal Government in a four year period. In most companies strong performance is rewarded. At Apple anything that challenges the power structure is a threat and is stamped out. I or at the least the respect that I gave to the people on my team was a threat to some people above me and so I was forced out. As I sit here typing this on an Apple Powerbook, I wonder what would Apple have to do to really anger the faithful. Well if they stop making cool products, obviously it is over for Apple. As a company Apple is far too much trouble to deal with for anything less than extraordinary products.
Is an attack on the Constitution of the United States enough to change people's minds?
Many people are very concerned with Apple's pursuit of the people who provided information to three websites. They see some real dangers. I agree with them. This comes from Michael Malone at ABC in an article entitled "Apple Springs a Leak."
"This news shouldn't be surprising. Belying, or perhaps in congruence with, its revolutionary image, Apple has always been the most totalitarian of computer companies — far better epitomizing its legendary Mac Big Brother commercial than the IBM it targeted. It is the North Korea of the high tech world, forever willing to forgo even greater success to keep a tight grip on the throat of its market base. And like all totalitarian institutions, its true believers are as much in love with the idea of Apple as the messy reality of the actual company. As long as Apple keeps producing cool products — and indeed, it makes very cool products — the Macolytes will ignore (or worse, justify) the worst kind of behavior from the company and its Beloved Leader. And that's fine — until it intrudes on the Constitution of the United States."
Ultimately Apple may be eating its own children. While a lot of the Mac faithful won't see Apple's actions for what they really are, a lot more will. When only two percent of the world buy your computers, you don't need to take legal action on those two percent. That type of behavior unfortunatley is par for the course for Apple
I know a company who notified Apple years ago that Apple was violating its trademark. It was a trademark that had been registered for years. Apple's response was "sue us." The interesting thing was this was an all Mac company. To make a long story short, it was impossible for a small company to win against a company the size of Apple, so they gave up, migrated from the Apple platform and experienced phenomenal success. I guess Apple did them a favor.
An event happened recently to make clear a point of the difference between Apple and a real company like IBM. IBM called up the same company whose trademark Apple flagrantly violated. They wasn't to use the same trademark for a seminar and offered to pay for it. Apple used it for a product and ignored the law. Mathew Rothenberg has article entitled, "Tiger" May Spring in April -- Should Apple Sue? I think he is right on target. It is unlikely that Apple will understand this until it is too late.
"While I don't claim legal expertise, I wonder whether the too-broad application of the “trade secret“ label by Apple and its truest believers will prove self-defeating in the long run."
Perhaps, Michael Malone, had it right from the start in his book, "Infinite Loop."
"This was Apple Computer Inc., and there has never been a company like it. It was founded by two young men, one a genius with no allegiance to any institution but his own mind; the other a protean, inconstant figure who seemed composed of nothing but charm and a pure will to power. The company they built seemed to have everything: great technology, superb products, talented employees, rabidly loyal customers, an arresting vision, even a lock on the zeitgeist. But, like its founders, it lacked character. And because of that, from the first minute of the first meeting of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, a decade before the company's founding, Apple Computer was set on a path from which it could not escape, even after those founders were gone. And that path would in time lead to the company's destruction."
I would agree that the environment within Apple doesn't have the characteristics needed for the company's long term survival. Apple's management team hasn't shown me anything since I left to convince me that they know how to get beyond two percent market share. It's hard not to love Apple products, but we may getting close to the point where buying an Apple product is something that I cannot no longer do in good conscience.
I believe that citizen journalism has the potential to really make a difference in our society. That potential difference means more to me than my Powerbook. I already have bought one Dell and survived to tell the tale, so another Intel machine won't kill me or apparently Dan Gillmor. Of course Michael Malone in his article has one last suggestion for us. I wish it could work, but I know the kind of regime that Apple runs and fear will keep employees from following Michael's suggestion in any great numbers.
"What I'm saying is that if you are an employee, supplier or distributor for Apple Computer, and you care more about the First Amendment than the Little People's Republic, you might think about dropping a dime on Apple, and help pre-announce everything the company's got in the works for the next five years. And if you are a business or tech reporter and you want to preserve the freedom that built your profession, you should take those calls and run with them. Turn Apple into an information sieve for a while. Teach the company a lesson in the Bill of Rights. Bury the legal department in cases"
Well may the force be with anyone who can prevent Apple's attack on the web journalists.
Comments