[Kerrigan]

Everyone here knows how secretive Apple is, but a WSJ article today went over some aspects of their security policy which makes the company sound like a tin pot dictatorship. To summarize it:

Apple's campus is heavily compartmentalized. Employees are given an electronic tag that only allows them into their specific work area on the campus.

Products in development are given a different codename in each compartment. That way if something leaks they can track it down to a small number of employees.

New employees, at orientation, are lectured about security and are told that they'll be caught, fired, and prosecuted if they leak product information.

Employees are forbidden from walking closely behind other employees, for fear that they might hold the door open and allow unauthorized access to a building.

Big customers, such as NASA and government run research facilities, are denied any information about future products. For instance NASA wanted to place an order for some notebooks so they sent a representative to Cupertino, who asked if Apple would ever put an ADC connector on the iBook, and Apple refused to say anything. This especially irritated NASA as Apple released an iBook with the connector 3 days later.

When universities hire consultants to put together IT systems, the consultants have no Apple product roadmap so they're forced to pass on Macs. Consultants don't like the risk.

The same is true for retailers who don't like selling products without having a roadmap.

The article also pointed out that Apple was at the height of its market share in 1993 with more than 9%. At this point they were also very open about their products and were flexible when dealing with schools and retailers.

[Kerrigan]

great another post intended for the lounge but put in the poli lounge, sorry everyone

[aberdeenwriter]

I think someone in Apple's employ should leak some of their secrets to the New York Times. THAT much secrecy MUST be bad.

[Kerrigan]

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The article also pointed out that Apple was at the height of its market share in 1993 with more than 9%. At this point they were also very open about their products and were flexible when dealing with schools and retailers.

This is a very misleading "fact." Apple was still selling the Apple II until 1993.

The Mac's market share has never been anywhere near 9%. Maybe Mac + Apple II, but not the Mac alone.

Originally Posted by John Gruber

Apple, on the other hand, seldom even attempted (let alone succeeded) to parlay any of their successes into further successes. The Apple II was a phenomenally successful platform. When you hear people state that Apple used to possess 15 to 20 percent market share in personal computers, they’re not talking about the Mac. (Or if they are, they’re misinformed, which is likely.) It was the Apple II that held such high market share, not the Mac.

See: http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay

Apple was at its most "open" when it was bleeding money. I don't think Apple's current secrecy is anything to be concerned about.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

This is a very misleading "fact." Apple was still selling the Apple II until 1993.

The Mac's market share has never been anywhere near 9%. Maybe Mac + Apple II, but not the Mac alone.



See: http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay

Apple was at its most "open" when it was bleeding money. I don't think Apple's current secrecy is anything to be concerned about.

Yes, of course you'd say that. But I think their secrets are suspect and so I'm hoping someone will expose them to the light of day because I don't trust them. I mean, c'mon, has a court said they can conduct business that way???

[Kerrigan]

Who should I trust, the Wall Street Journal or daring fire ball?

I stand by what I said earlier, that Apple's market share reached its height in the early nineties at above 9% To be more specific, I *think* it was about 9.7% according to the article.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Everyone here knows how secretive Apple is, but a WSJ article today went over some aspects of their security policy which makes the company sound like a tin pot dictatorship. To summarize it:

Apple's campus is heavily compartmentalized. Employees are given an electronic tag that only allows them into their specific work area on the campus.

Normal for IT companies that I have worked at.

Products in development are given a different codename in each compartment. That way if something leaks they can track it down to a small number of employees.

New employees, at orientation, are lectured about security and are told that they'll be caught, fired, and prosecuted if they leak product information.

Similar to other agreements I have signed at the inception of my employment at those IT companies.

Employees are forbidden from walking closely behind other employees, for fear that they might hold the door open and allow unauthorized access to a building.

Had this lecture on the first day of orientation. Never hold the door for anyone, make them swipe their card or escort them to security. Normal.

Big customers, such as NASA and government run research facilities, are denied any information about future products. For instance NASA wanted to place an order for some notebooks so they sent a representative to Cupertino, who asked if Apple would ever put an ADC connector on the iBook, and Apple refused to say anything. This especially irritated NASA as Apple released an iBook with the connector 3 days later.

1) No notebook from Apple has EVER had an ADC connector.

2) Never disclose new product to customers, it stops them from buying existing product. If the new product is delayed for any reason, you've now got a drought of sales, which pirates your ability to pay employees to make the new product. Bad.

When universities hire consultants to put together IT systems, the consultants have no Apple product roadmap so they're forced to pass on Macs. Consultants don't like the risk.

The same is true for retailers who don't like selling products without having a roadmap.

Tough. Customers choose products based on a variety of needs and if needing a roadmap eliminates one company, that's tough.

Now that Intel is around and Intel has a roadmap, that should satisfy more customers who can't live without that roadmap.

[Kerrigan]

Right vmarks, I didn't meant to say ADC

Anyways there's no denying that Apple is highly secretive.

MS for instance is very clear about the paths its products will take, and already we know about Windows 'Fiji' and other upcoming upgrades to Vista.

With Apple everything is always a mystery.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Right vmarks, I didn't meant to say ADC

What DID you meant to say then?

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Anyways there's no denying that Apple is highly secretive.

Who is denying it? It has made them a very successful and highly respected company.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

MS for instance is very clear about the paths its products will take, and already we know about Windows 'Fiji' and other upcoming upgrades to Vista.

That's because we are using it in OS X.4.7 right now.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

With Apple everything is always a mystery.

I bet you peaked at your Christmas presents early didn't you?

[Kerrigan]

Actually based on the anal retentive replies to this thread I'm glad Apple's marketshare is at an all time low, god forbid the bitterness of the Mac world spread any further.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

MS for instance is very clear about the paths its products will take

That's all I have to say about that.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Actually based on the anal retentive replies to this thread I'm glad Apple's marketshare is at an all time low, god forbid the bitterness of the Mac world spread any further.

I hear ya.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's all I have to say about that.

Haven't you seen how transparent Vista is?

Anyways we know well in advance of modifications to the XBox, to Office, Windows, etc. Not so with Apple's products.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Actually based on the anal retentive replies to this thread I'm glad Apple's marketshare is at an all time low, god forbid the bitterness of the Mac world spread any further.

Beg pardon?

I replied to point out that Apple isn't unique in secrecy in the industry.
I mentioned that there was an inaccuracy in one product example that you quoted.

nothing more.

[Kerrigan]

Not you vmarks, just lpkmckenna's nitpiking (which itself is innacurate) and railroader's insubstantial rebuttal and insulting tone.

[Wiskedjak]

Having worked at several tech companies, this level of secrecy is not uncommon, especially when it's so easy to copy an idea and get a cheap version out the door before the original.

No, Apple is not unique in it's drive for secrecy.

Where Apple is unique is how it exploits that secrecy to drive interest and sales. Basically, they announce "We've gotta secret ... and we'll tell you in 3 months!). I suspect, in the past, they even enjoyed all the rumoring, until the rumors made the actual product look disappointing and until the rumors started to get too accurate.

[Kerrigan]

Apple exploits the secrecy, that's for sure. They do a very good job generating buzz.

But the Mac's market share continues to decline.

Why can't they just start dealing with large customers like NASA or large retailers in a normal way like other companies? For all the buzz they create, the current method is not helping the Mac platform grow.

[loki74]

Really, I dont think this is that bad. It is Apple's right to function this way. Perhaps they could let us know a little more, but if they don't, they don't. If its that big of a deal, go somewhere else. Enough people cite that as a reason for moving away from the Mac, and I'm sure Apple will do something about it. But for now, I think its just not that big of a deal for a lot of people.

With regards to the catching/prosecution of leakers, that is by no means far-fetched. I mean, at my school there is a Network Admin class where students learn how to maintain the school wide network... and tell teachers how to plug in printers, etc. Anyway these kids (at least the ones who get passwords, that is, grade 12) are under contract and subject to prosecution should they leak information. ...and that's just a high school class.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Apple exploits the secrecy, that's for sure. They do a very good job generating buzz.

But the Mac's market share continues to decline.

And that continues to mean precisely jack. Nobody cares that Apple isn't doing well in the cash register and ATM market. You bringing it up again and again doesn't make it any more significant. Apple is enormously profitable, more so than almost anyone else in the field. That is what matters.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Who should I trust, the Wall Street Journal or daring fire ball?

Daring Fireball. No question. Second smartest Apple commentator, after John Siracusa.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I stand by what I said earlier, that Apple's market share reached its height in the early nineties at above 9% To be more specific, I *think* it was about 9.7% according to the article.

I didn't deny that Apple's market share was that high. But the Mac's market share has never been that high.

[TETENAL]

May I mention counter-examples:

• Apple announced the switch to Intel processors almost one year ahead.
• Apple always announced new OS X versions 6 months a head of time. In August we will all know how Leopard will be.

[Eug Wanker]

Steve Jobs shows me new versions of Mac OS X all the time. In fact, I can tell you now with complete confidence that the next version of OS X will be called 10.4.8.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

and railroader's insubstantial rebuttal and insulting tone.

Hardly. You just don't like your flaws and mistakes pointed out to you.

And I thought you had me on ignore. Did you peak again?!?!

[Gee4orce]

I blogged about Apple's Invisble Product Roadmap just this week.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Apple exploits the secrecy, that's for sure. They do a very good job generating buzz.

But the Mac's market share continues to decline.

Why can't they just start dealing with large customers like NASA or large retailers in a normal way like other companies? For all the buzz they create, the current method is not helping the Mac platform grow.

do you have some numbers regarding their market share or are you just towing some bizarre party line?

guess what - ferrari sells literally millions fewer cars than GM (in 2004 they sold 4900 cars compared to GMs nearly 9 million. they're still in business. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by scaught

do you have some numbers regarding their market share or are you just towing some bizarre party line?

guess what - ferrari sells literally millions fewer cars than GM (in 2004 they sold 4900 cars compared to GMs nearly 9 million. they're still in business. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

Perhaps because they make a specific product that appeal to a niche market, and is wildly popular within that niche?

[Monique]

Of course they are like most companies. And the Apple employees I think are more than happy to keep secrets because they love that company as much as their leaders. At Telus, there was always this threat you shut up or you get fired, actually at some meetings they would tell us to remain quiet or they would fire us.

[production_coordinator]

IMHO, the secrecy is necessary. It's a major part of their marketing... and permits them to "compete" against Microsoft and Dell.

If you have a clear roadmap, your competition can use that against you. I do think they go overboard from time to time, but most of the time, it's warranted.

Name another company with a 2% market share that demands such attention in the consumer field.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by scaught

do you have some numbers regarding their market share or are you just towing some bizarre party line?

guess what - ferrari sells literally millions fewer cars than GM (in 2004 they sold 4900 cars compared to GMs nearly 9 million. they're still in business. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

Name a car company that sells 4K cars a year, AND has a price comparable to the GM models?

[Railroader]

RE secrecy: When I worked at a GM experimental research facility, it was against federal law to remove any unreleased product or even mention it's existence outside the facility. It was a violation of customs laws and considered a matter of National Security.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

RE secrecy: When I worked at a GM experimental research facility, it was against federal law to remove any unreleased product or even mention it's existence outside the facility. It was a violation of customs laws and considered a matter of National Security.

Somehow, that law makes me think of the 40s and 50s.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Somehow, that law makes me think of the 40s and 50s.

When did the Asians start making cars? That's when it should remind you of. Or at least when we started taking the seriously (which was too late).

[Dakar]

I have no idea when they started making cars. It just seemed like a war inspired law to me.

[Railroader]

Some people consider national economic security as a characteristic consider worth protecting.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Some people consider national economic security as a characteristic consider worth protecting.

I'd argue you don't need a law for common sense and that laws like that don't stop the stupid.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'd argue you don't need a law for common sense and that laws like that don't stop the stupid.

I'd have a weak argument if I went against you. However, I have worked with engineers with doctorate degrees and I have learned you can never put a limit on stoopid.

Laws are kind of like locks. They don't keep out thieves, but they keep honest people honest.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I However, I have worked with engineers with doctorate degrees and I have learned you can never put a limit on stoopid.

I cold very much see someone casually mentioning something at a dinner party.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Laws are kind of like locks. They don't keep out thieves, but they keep honest people honest.

My main issue is they're making a law for something I would assume the company would already punish you for.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I cold very much see someone casually mentioning something at a dinner party.

Picture the absent minded-professor-type engineer chatting in a electronic hobby store with a bunch of envious hobby store nerds and you have a more accurate picture.

Originally Posted by Dakar

My main issue is they're making a law for something I would assume the company would already punish you for.

It wasn't just a GM thing. Remember, companies want to impress people as well. Slips occur at trade shows and conventions all the time.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Picture the absent minded-professor-type engineer chatting in a electronic hobby store with a bunch of envious hobby store nerds and you have a more accurate picture.

I must have been thinking of that glamorous side of being an engineer Hollywood constantly portrays.

Originally Posted by Railroader

It wasn't just a GM thing. Remember, companies want to impress people as well. Slips occur at trade shows and conventions all the time.

I would consider that their prerogative.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I must have been thinking of that glamorous side of being an engineer Hollywood constantly portrays.

And career counselor office stereotypes as well. Engineering is rather tedious and boring.

Originally Posted by Dakar

I would consider that their prerogative.

And that's why the federal gov't doesn't want the risking national economic security.

Let's pretend my city block is my nation. I'm bored. I am home alone. Humor me.

Across the street is another country.

I go to across the street for a party to say hello and accidentally casually mention that I'm going to open a Starbucks soon because I see a market for it but I don't have the funding right now.

Next day, there across the street from my house is a Starbucks.

My block neighbors are PISSED because those taxes and jobs aren't on our block.

So, our block passes a law where we aren't allowed to discuss product ventures that aren't to market yet that could affect block economic security.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Perhaps because they make a specific product that appeal to a niche market, and is wildly popular within that niche?

my example is sarcasm. i know why apple is still in business.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Name a car company that sells 4K cars a year, AND has a price comparable to the GM models?

while an apple in comparison to a dell is a bit inaccurate in comparing a ferrari to a GM car, the point is still there. compare a mercedes to a gm car? especially now that you can get a brand new apple laptop with an intel processor for a bit over a grand. anyone remember 1600 dollar clamshell ibooks?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by scaught

my example is sarcasm. i know why apple is still in business.

I caught the sarcasm. I was adding to the discussion.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

And that's why the federal gov't doesn't want the risking national economic security.

Let's pretend my city block is my nation. I'm bored. I am home alone. Humor me.

Across the street is another country.

I go to across the street for a party to say hello and accidentally casually mention that I'm going to open a Starbucks soon because I see a market for it but I don't have the funding right now.

Next day, there across the street from my house is a Starbucks.

My block neighbors are PISSED because those taxes and jobs aren't on our block.

So, our block passes a law where we aren't allowed to discuss product ventures that aren't to market yet that could affect block economic security.

I understood what you meant from the get go. I still think its dumb. The trick is to open the better Starbucks, not the first one. That kind of thinking is whats wrong with this country.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I understood what you meant from the get go. I still think its dumb. The trick is to open the better Starbucks, not the first one. That kind of thinking is whats wrong with this country.

Because quality always wins out. That's why Apple is beating the crap out of both Dell and Microsoft.

Your kind of thinking is blind idealism. Most people will shop at an established joint before some little place that just opened up but does it a bit better. You have to do more than just be better.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Because quality ...

I'm hesitant to make this argument with the current MBP/MB issues...

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Most people will shop at an established joint before some little place that just opened up but does it a bit better. You have to do more than just be better.

So what have you got other being first?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So what have you got other being first?

You've got innovation - that brand new coffee blend which the back-room boys have been experimenting with for the last year. We'll you've got that if one of those back-room boys didn't let the details slip while he was at the party over the road. In which case you've got nothing.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You've got innovation - that brand new coffee blend which the back-room boys have been experimenting with for the last year. We'll you've got that if one of those back-room boys didn't let the details slip while he was at the party over the road. In which case you've got nothing.

So basically, so long as you do it first.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So basically, so long as you do it first.

Well, basically yes. You can't compete on price because your block's trade unions demanded a minimum wage, and the guys across the street haven't got that.