There's not much doubt in my mind that Apple's continuing pursuit of information from web journalists will be a bad thing for the company. It comes at a time when on the surface things look really good for Apple One of the things you learn quickly as an Apple employee is that the worst time to be an employee or to expect reasonable behavoir from Apple is when the company is doing really well.
That's when the well known arrogance comes out. The arrogances begets soem really self-destructive behavoir for the company, but this is Apple, a company that could have been a really viable alternative to Microsoft except for some really bad decisions. As a stock holder it concerns me to see vindictive tactics that will only tarnish the reputation of Apple. Of course I would like to see a different kind of Apple. A customer and employee friendly Apple could take Apple to new heights. Already some stock analysts are being to wonder if Apple has peaked. Yesterday I read the commentary, "There's a Razor Inside Apple," by Monica Rivituso in Techsmart.
The rest of the commentary on Apple's pursuit of the web journalists is of great concern, but there are some good suggestions out there that Apple should listen to before pushing an issue that can only harm the company.
a company that could have been a really viable alternative to Microsoft except for some really bad decisions. As a stock holder it concerns me to see vindictive tactics that will only tarnish the reputation of Apple. Of course I would like to see a different kind of Apple. A customer and employee friendly Apple could take Apple to new heights. Already some stock analysts are being to wonder if Apple has peaked. Yesterday I read the commentary, "There's a Razor Inside Apple," by Monica Rivituso in Techsmart.
The rest of the commentary on Apple's pursuit of the web journalists is of great concern, but there are some good suggestions out there that Apple should listen to before pushing an issue that can only harm the company.
Another cautionary commentary comes from Charles Cooper over at CNET, "Apple lawsuit, Thinking different?," who sees a threat to Apple from this unneeded foray against web journalists. Charles Cooper is the CNET Executive, who wrote the very positive, "Switching to a Mac, -ain't ever going back," article on February 17, 2005. Yesterday he wrote this.
" The real subtext is this: Apple is directed by a collection of control freaks who would have found themselves quite at home in the Nixon White House. The big difference being that reporters had the constitutional freedom to report on the Nixon White House."
"Apple has been an infuriating company for me to cover over the last two decades or so. I adore its technology but can't stomach its overreaching sense of entitlement. Other tech companies deal with leaks all the time."
Charles Cooper goes on to worry about the impact this type of behavior might have down the road on Steve's legacy. My question is, what is Steve's legacy.
"But now you have to ask whether paranoia has trumped good judgment. With today's ruling, Jobs is in danger of leaving a big black blot on an otherwise remarkable legacy."
Well I know what Steve's true legacy is. It's his fame. It certainly is not Apple or even Pixar. It is not even the products. Steve's wants and has gotten fame. The reason that Apple so jealously guards its secrets is so Steve can have his moment on stage. Unfortunately for all of us, imitating Apple's products isn't as easy as someone slipping some information onto the Internet a few days before a product is shipped. As I have said before, Apple's commitment to secrecy is so great that even most Apple employees don't know what is going to be announced until it is announced.
I have seen product literature boxes with labels that indicate opening the box before Steve's announcement would be grounds for termination from your job at Apple. It doesn't matter that you might need to answer some questions from the customers who have seen the announcement the same time as you have. It is all about Steve and his moment on the stage. As long as this little charade can go on, Steve can feel that his fame continues to be greater than Bill's.
A new Apple could still utilize Steve's fame, but it could also fully utilize its great employees and those customers who want to help Apple become part of their enterprise deployments. Opening up Apple is probably something will never happen under current management which can hide under the success of the iPod. The reality is that secrecy is one of the things that has kept Apple at a 2% market share. Enterprises will not do large deployments of products which don't have road maps.
There was a time when Apple was about more than sustaining Steve's fame. Apple had a vision for computing that brought me to the company and continued to sustain me through my nearly twenty years there. Apple was all about providing tools to individuals to allow them to do things that they would not have been able to do otherwise. While there are still glimmers of the old Apple, it has largely been driven out of Apple. There are still people within Apple who know what needs to be done to take Apple to greater heights. Unfortunately they have to get through the Product Marketing people who are very resistant to listening to anyone but themselves and Steve.
Apple only changes in time's of crisis. People have been predicting the demise of Apple for many years. I have a favorite cover with a cracked Apple logo from InfoWorld, "Can Apple Survive." I think it was published over twenty years ago. Maybe I will post it later in the day.
Certainly I worry about Apple's survival under current management. When people like Dan Gillmor start speaking out against Apple, my concern is that the media sentiment is once again starting to turn against Apple. For those of us who have seen it happen before, we know that it can happen rapidly and can cause a precipitous decline in the stock. Dan's post, "Apple's 'Trade Secrets'" is really a bad sign for Apple.
"During the time Steve Jobs has run the company, Apple has been hostile to truly independent journalism about its products and policies. This current attack on journalism -- and that is precisely what is going on here -- reflects the side of Jobs that will someday lead the company back down from its current heights. He is a genius, no question, but he is a control freak who doesn't seem to care whatsoever that he's infuriating some natural allies."
" I'm writing this on a Mac. If I were buying a replacement today, I'm not at all sure I'd make the same choice again."
When people start disliking Apple policies enough to consider buying something else, there is a serious problem. I can only hope that perhaps Steve and his management will come to their senses and take the advice of Mike Langberg of the Mercury News in his open letter to Steve Jobs.
"So it's not too late for you to back down, before the wider world of Apple customers and potential customers begins to see your company as arrogant and overbearing. I recommend you quietly drop the litigation, tighten your internal security to prevent future leaks and move on."
Mike's
advice is good advice, I hope for once that Steve and his team can
listen. Listening to others can actually make Apple a much better
company and one that might be a little easier to love. Who knows a new
Apple might even allow employees to have blogs and do real
non-disclosures for important customers. Otherwise, once I get rid of my last Apple stock, I will start fulltme rooting for Linux so I won't have to deal with the "love the products, hate the company" problem.
For more info the New York Times has a good article, "At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?" which talks about some of the important issues which it turns out that the ruling on leaking secrets really skirted. You can go to CNET for up to date information as more and more organizations comment. The CNET article that reported the judge's decision is "Judge: Apple can pursue fan site sources."
Comments