Apple and a Culture of Secrecy

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
The New York Times has an article about the recent speculation in to Steve Jobs’ health and Apple’s stonewalling of the press with the statement: “Steve’s health is a private matter.” Though privacy is a serious matter, when it involves the CEO who is a very public face of the company, corporate disclosure becomes a factor. It’s an interesting read, especially the conclusion.

On Thursday afternoon, several hours after I’d gotten my final “Steve’s health is a private matter” — and much to my amazement — Mr. Jobs called me. “This is Steve Jobs,” he began. “You think I’m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law, and I think you’re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.”
Click to expand...
 
when you choose to represent a person or people, you are choosing to give up some of your privacy.


in regards to politicians, i think ALL of their financial should be public.
 
Mr. Jobs first discovered he had an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor — which is both rarer and less deadly than other forms of pancreatic cancer — in October 2003. This was a full nine months before he had the surgery to remove it. Why did he wait so long? Because, according to a Fortune magazine article published in May, Mr. Jobs was hoping to beat the cancer with a special diet.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I wouldn't have expected anything different from many Mac users. They've got a firm grasp on the retarded hippie market.
 
Apple is a publicly traded company that's run my the biggest ego in technology (yes, I consider Jobs MUCH more egotistical than Gates). The only reason Apple and Jobs want to keep his health such a secret is because the second the public and investors find out he could be in trouble Apple stock will get hit hard. It's funny, as successful as Apple has been since the launch of the iPod they are still a company that is very weak. The entire future of the company seems to balance on Steve Jobs. It's a scary thought to be honest. When Jobs left the first time Apple nearly vanished, and it's to scary for the company to think of him being gone forever. While I don't care for Steve Jobs, not knowing him personally though, I do not wish death on him at all and hope he makes a quick recovery from whatever the problem is.
 
Colt___45 said:
ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be too inconsiderate, because he's obviously a brilliant man and above all else he's another human being, but fighting cancer with a special diet when you've got every medical option at your disposal is just idiotic.
 
The thing is that APPLE IS STEVE, there is no way around that and it is something that while he obviously relishes the fact, he does not want the public responsibility that goes with it.

M$ where there is, and for a long time has been a chain of command that is also know to the public at large, was ready when Bill stepped down, Apple on the other hand may just be waiting for Steves clone to mature before we get the whole rundown on who is next in line (seriously)
 
Jobs is an ass 99% of the times I have seen him not secreting his i juice to his fanboys.

Honestly, people hate on most rich people, but jobs seems to do nothing. Gates on the other hand, who gets made fun of all the time and people hate on, actually seems pretty down to earth in his interviews and does a lot of good stuff for people. He donates tons and does a lot of good.

People argue he donates so little percent in comparison to his weath, but it is still a TON of donated money and Jobs never seems to donate to things much more even care about anything besides his image and his company.

Its the main reason I hate apple to be honest...the fanboys and the fanjobs.
 
and to add to my post, also it bugs me how apples vision seems to only be Steve Jobs vision and opinion on things and he is unwilling to admit anything else is good at all unless it has his companies name on it.
 
Grentz said:
Jobs is an ass 99% of the times I have seen him not secreting his i juice to his fanboys.
Click to expand...
QFT. He might be able to sell stuff on stage, but when it comes to daily dealings, here is a pure ass. I know folks that work at Apple and they all say the same thing.
Take this example... He calls this writer, calls him a slime bucket...

Gates on the other hand, who gets made fun of all the time and people hate on, actually seems pretty down to earth in his interviews and does a lot of good stuff for people. He donates tons and does a lot of good.
Click to expand...
Aside from being an ass, this is the #2 reason I hate Jobs... People spit on Gates more, I think, but considering the VAST MAJORITY of aide that goes overseas comes from Bill Gates- that says alot. When was the last time you heard of Jobs donating any significant sum of money?



Now, Apple as a company, I just hate. Their products are OK (I hate Macs, but the rest is decent... Not the only thing out there anymore though, many other products superior in many ways). I just hate Apple as a company.

And as this article, and others have mentioned, Apple=Jobs and Jobs=Apple.
When he dies, Apple will be in trouble again... That is, unless Microsoft bails them out again ;)
On that note- last time Microsoft did that, Apple was a "humble" company. This new, direct attack, on Microsoft and Windows, doesn't bode well for Microsoft bailing them out again.
 
TechieSooner said:
People spit on Gates more, I think, but considering the VAST MAJORITY of aide that goes overseas comes from Bill Gates- that says alot.
Click to expand...

Gates' philanthropic work is the greatest achievement of his life, not to mention the single greatest act of personal philanthropy in history. That said, don't mistake him for being a saint; like Jobs he is an arrogant bully of the highest order when it comes to work. Just because he acts cute for the press doesn't mean he isn't an incredible asshole; just look at the way he conducted business from the 80s all the way until he passed the reigns over to Ballmer. There's a reason why the DOJ came down hard on MS and why they still have to watch their back (remember, having a monopoly isn't illegal, but abusing it is).

Their products are OK (I hate Macs, but the rest is decent... Not the only thing out there anymore though, many other products superior in many ways).
Click to expand...

Funny, the Mac and the operating system running on it are far and away the best things they make. Everything else Apple makes ranges from WTF to pretty decent.
 
ssratt said:
M$ where there is, and for a long time has been a chain of command that is also know to the public at large, was ready when Bill stepped down, Apple on the other hand may just be waiting for Steves clone to mature before we get the whole rundown on who is next in line (seriously)
Click to expand...

I really wonder if they have succession figured out. Jobs has a bunch of smart guys working directly underneath him but nobody that sticks out as the guy who would fill in his specific role as CEO. Its obviously on his mind as the keynotes are mainly led by the project leads (ie - iPhone demos by iPhone lead, OS X stuff by main OS architect) while he just takes care of the introductions, but Apple is still very much a singular vision of this one guy. Yeah, Jobs delegates a lot to the people that work for him, but ultimately he is the yes/no filter through which everything goes. I mean, Tim Cook could take over as CEO but the micro-level management of the company's operations is a very different skill-set from the "big picture" view on products and consumer trends that Jobs takes.

That said, Apple is a very different place now compared to the company that he left in the 80s (a hostile board that was only interested in the bottom line). It will continue to run under his vision of what the company should be, but it will obviously suffer by not being steered by Jobs himself.
 
Skrying said:
When Jobs left the first time Apple nearly vanished, and it's to scary for the company to think of him being gone forever.
Click to expand...

Apple was actually hugely profitable all the way through the mid-90s (much more so than when Jobs was present). It took only two years of authorizing clones and stagnating product innovation to kill their business and drive them to the brink of bankruptcy, during which period they bought NEXT for the OS which also happened to bring Jobs back. NEXTSTEP became OS X, the rest is history.

Like I said earlier, Apple is a very different company now compared to the one he was forcibly kicked out of. It will suffer greatly without Jobs but it won't be anything like the complete change in business direction it took in the 80s. The OS team are people he brought from NEXT, the operations team that runs the business is his, and the design team has been the same under him for over ten years now. The machinery is in place now and its entirely his, so this case is a bit different.
 
A Cult of Personality is not good for any nation, nor for any business. :(
 
Serpico said:
Funny, the Mac and the operating system running on it are far and away the best things they make. Everything else Apple makes ranges from WTF to pretty decent.
Click to expand...

Its becoming less though IMO.

The hardware is getting more like just your standard PC (but in a pretty package of metal and shiney, which does add some points, but still the insides are not much different...), and OSX is less and less of all its cracked up to be IMO as more people start using it and it becomes more of a target.

I have used it quite a bit, and it is by no means any miracle OS that most of the fanboys pump it up to be. (I had more program crashes in 2 weeks on an out of the box MBP OSX load than I have had on Vista in about 6 months...).

Anyhow, all I am saying is as Apple grows, its flaws will bubble to the surface and it will start to become a target for the underworld that will throw some challenges towards Cupertino just as they have towards Redmond for many many years.
 
Serpico said:
Funny, the Mac and the operating system running on it are far and away the best things they make. Everything else Apple makes ranges from WTF to pretty decent.
Click to expand...

I'd beg to differ.

iPod and iPhone? Those are great devices (That said- I think there are very good competitions (if not better) to the iPod, and the iPhone left much to be desired, but the iPhone 3G is very well polished... I'd even consider one at this point).


But still, the iPhone and iPod are some good solid devices. I give kudos to Apple for design though- Their Nano is a GREAT small package.


The Mac... a regular old PC in a shiny package.
The OS on which is simply fancy looking, and simple.
I'm with the OP above, I have had (and have seen on a weekly basis) more apps crash on OS X in two weeks time than an entire year on Windows.
Two minute hack?? Security is just as an issue on OS X as it is on Windows. Security through obscurity.
All this to mean: Mac is becoming more and more like Windows. Microsoft has already figured out, and luckily... dealt with most of these issues. Apple thought they were immune to them for some reason, and now we are finding much differently.

For SIMPLE uses, a Mac is great. But here is where it fails: Why pay out the ass for a machine you are going to use for SIMPLE things, when you can pay less for a machine to do it all?
 
TechieSooner said:
The Mac... a regular old PC in a shiny package.
The OS on which is simply fancy looking, and simple.
I'm with the OP above, I have had (and have seen on a weekly basis) more apps crash on OS X in two weeks time than an entire year on Windows.
Two minute hack?? Security is just as an issue on OS X as it is on Windows. Security through obscurity.
All this to mean: Mac is becoming more and more like Windows. Microsoft has already figured out, and luckily... dealt with most of these issues. Apple thought they were immune to them for some reason, and now we are finding much differently.
Click to expand...

In my six years using Macs I've had kernal panics during one period of time, and that was in 2002 because of a bad stick of Mushkin RAM. Swapping it out fixed that (same thing with BSODs and one of my PCs, I have the worst luck with RAM...). The only actual application crashes I've had was with Safari in the initial version of OS 10.5, and that was fixed fairly quickly.

Two minute hack is old news, that javascript exploit (found by a security firm) was fixed within days. Any piece of software can be hacked and any operating system has vulnerabilities are found and patched all the time, Unix derived ones included. Security through architecture is where OS X/Linux/BSD shines over XP, and is where Microsoft finally caught up with them in Vista with UAC. Until we have a malware outbreak that takes over armies of OS X machines, it just isn't a problem.

You have it backwards, in that Microsoft finally caught up with everyone else as far as getting their security where it needs to be by limiting root access and requiring passwords or prompting for regular user accounts to make any significant changes. It is one of the main reasons I advocate Vista over XP so much.

For SIMPLE uses, a Mac is great. But here is where it fails: Why pay out the ass for a machine you are going to use for SIMPLE things, when you can pay less for a machine to do it all?
Click to expand...

For simple uses? I used OS X for Final Cut Studio for years before making it my "regular" desktop OS as well (its the only reason I bought one in the first place). Every single offline editing room I've been in has been running a Mac (sometimes older than the 2002 model I gave away last year), whether it is running Avid or FCP.

My friend was the visual effects supervisor on 300 and almost all of the effects on that film were created under OS X and Linux. The Dark Knight (awesome movie btw :D) did its compositing in Shake so Macs were used there too. How exactly are these simple uses? I've known Macs for heavy lifting duties long before they spread into the mainstream.

That it can do this kind of thing yet has usability, OS features, and ergonomics that are also useful for the average user is pretty cool.

As far as price, yeah, while Apple has poor desktop offerings below $1000 (mini, grr...), the Macbooks and iMacs are extremely price and feature competitive with similarly specced offerings by other PC manufacturers. Macbook Pros carry a premium of a few hundred dollars, but that IMO is offset by its superior IPS panel and thin aluminum enclosure (you're getting materially more for the extra cash). Even the Macbook Air is cheaper and faster than similar offerings by Lenovo and Sony. The Mac Pro is far and away the cheapest multi-core Xeon workstation available right now when given identical specs with Dell or HP.

So yeah, they don't offer a lot in the low-low end desktop (again, mini, grr...) and a headless Core 2 Duo machine with PCI-E expansion would fix this in a huge way, but everywhere else in their Mac product line compares extremely favorably in price and performance with Dell and HP.

If we're talking DIY that is obviously a different story, but you don't see me buying my gaming rig from Dell or HP. ;)
 
Just want to say while I ADMIRE apple for what they have done, and led the field in, I keep going to other products because they offer more for the same price (Ipod, went with Creative since it had FM+recording built in at the same price) Iphone 3G apart from the fact I do not need a cellphone at this point unless you turn OFF the 3G you get cruddy battery life but you can NOT put a new battery in if you run out during the day

Same thing with the Air, a laptop without a spare battery (I know, 2nd laptop) and ONE USB port (look at the EEE and their clones 3USB, replacable batteries (on most- not the same size but the idea...)
 
Serpico said:
Apple was actually hugely profitable all the way through the mid-90s (much more so than when Jobs was present). It took only two years of authorizing clones and stagnating product innovation to kill their business and drive them to the brink of bankruptcy, during which period they bought NEXT for the OS which also happened to bring Jobs back. NEXTSTEP became OS X, the rest is history.

Like I said earlier, Apple is a very different company now compared to the one he was forcibly kicked out of. It will suffer greatly without Jobs but it won't be anything like the complete change in business direction it took in the 80s. The OS team are people he brought from NEXT, the operations team that runs the business is his, and the design team has been the same under him for over ten years now. The machinery is in place now and its entirely his, so this case is a bit different.
Click to expand...

You just proved what I said. When Jobs left and a few years after no one had a clue what to make next they nearly vanished... Jobs could die tomorrow and Apple could live off of their current products for a few years but what next?
 
TechieSooner said:
iPod and iPhone? Those are great devices (That said- I think there are very good competitions (if not better) to the iPod, and the iPhone left much to be desired, but the iPhone 3G is very well polished... I'd even consider one at this point).

But still, the iPhone and iPod are some good solid devices. I give kudos to Apple for design though- Their Nano is a GREAT small package.
Click to expand...

The iPhone is great, the Touch is good but I am so spoiled by cellular internet on the iPhone that I'd go nuts being restricted to wifi, I'm not a fan of the HD based iPod (I can't wait until everything is flash based), and the nano is very nice. I would go blind watching video on that thing but it has a nice screen nonetheless. Great size and 16GB will be awesome when it finally comes out. One of my major issues with those devices is that while iTunes is great in OS X, it still sucks on Windows. If you use Windows only and have a large library that isn't being managed with your iPod on Mediamonkey, good luck.

Also, the iPhone 2.0 firmware is pretty wonky and it needs to get updated stat. I know these are all issues that will get fixed but yeah, for my money their best overall products are still their computers, especially the 24" iMac (fast, awesome H-IPS display, nearly silent, takes up ridiculously little space, and runs OS X, its pretty nice).
 
Skrying said:
You just proved what I said. When Jobs left and a few years after no one had a clue what to make next they nearly vanished... Jobs could die tomorrow and Apple could live off of their current products for a few years but what next?
Click to expand...

I can't tell the future and this could very well happen. That said, maybe I didn't make the point strongly enough but it can be argued that he is leaving the machinery in place (industrial design team, operating system engineers, etc) to continue on without him. Jobs is obviously a huge driving force in the direction of the company and its products but you can't take away too much from the talented teams that he has assembled there either. This stuff doesn't get conceived or created by one person; the original Mac, the iMac, and the iPod were all internal projects that existed prior to Jobs latching onto and focusing his energies on them. He is currently the driving force as to what the company focuses its resources on but him passing away wouldn't presumably be like chopping the head off the chicken either, considering the talent that he has assembled there and would be leaving behind. I hope that it wouldn't turn into a situation like Microsoft where (with the exception of the XBox) literally billions in research either goes wasted on products with weak commercial focus or completely to waste while the MBAs steering the boat ride the monster franchises of Windows and Office.

We'll see. :)
 
The nail has obviously been hit on the head already.

Apple is currently enjoying their largest inroads into established markets that they are ever likely to enjoy (PC's and mobile phones). They are dancing on the edge of the blade right now. It's going to go one of two ways for them, either they will become a true giant in their industry and compete directly with MS and become the permanent world leader in phones... or they won't.

I'm positive that Apple's board is freaking out right now. When Jobs leaves this world, they could lose both their investors and their morale at the same time. Their biggest battle will be going on without him. Unlike Microsoft, Apple hasn't really become entirely its own entitiy and grown beyond its primary founder.

Jobs can do whatever he wants with his life, but I sincerely hope he can find some peace soon and spend some days not having to worry about his legacy in terms of his business. It would be great for Apple to be reassuring him and not the other way around.
 
Serpico said:
You have it backwards, in that Microsoft finally caught up with everyone else as far as getting their security where it needs to be by limiting root access and requiring passwords or prompting for regular user accounts to make any significant changes.
Click to expand...
I'd agree, but it isn't backwards... it is the same. Microsoft is caught up- that was my point. Apple has yet to get there.
I realize two minute hack is old news, but it just goes to show, like you said, anything can be broken into. Apple has not been big enough target.


How exactly are these simple uses?
Click to expand...
I don't know about you, but I'd consider a machine that can only do one thing well, pretty damned simple. We are talking about the machines here- not the software.
And two can play at that game... The Incredibles, and other movies of it's type? PCs. I know folks who worked on that one as well (as well as government jobs with budgets far beyond any movies...)


Advil said:
either they will become a true giant in their industry and compete directly with MS and become the permanent world leader in phones... or they won't.
Click to expand...
This is where I think they will ultimately crash and burn. IMO they HAVE ALREADY reached their peak.
To compete with Microsoft, they'd have to start selling OS X as a separate software license, like Microsoft. To do THAT, they'd have to support millions of hardware configurations. Microsoft has being doing that for YEARS, and is doing a pretty damned good job at it (like at Linux... They've been doing it for YEARS as well, and just quite simply, aren't quite there yet!).
All the driver issues with Vista, while in the big picture were small, would be compounded a thousand percent if OS X tried to enter the market supporting all the hardware Windows did. Talking about needing more support? Apple would have to increase staffing considerably just to keep up.

That said about the desktop world, I think Apple's already got a hold on the mobile world... Not much to do there... The mobile world is largely consumer-driven, which is why the iPhone sold so well. The desktop world is largely business-driven, and Apple just doesn't have enough brawn to take that on (Look at the MobileMe issues...)
 
TechieSooner said:
And two can play at that game... The Incredibles, and other movies of it's type? PCs. I know folks who worked on that one as well (as well as government jobs with budgets far beyond any movies...)
Click to expand...

I know, running Linux on renderfarms provided by the lowest bidder at the time, whether it is Apple, Dell, HP, whoever, it literally changes every single year. My point wasn't to discount what PCs can do since they obviously do a lot of heavy lifting in the world, it is to dispel the notion that Macs are only good for "simple" things. Just because one platform does something well, it doesn't mean that everyone else does it poorly (and this goes both ways).

I don't know about you, but I'd consider a machine that can only do one thing well, pretty damned simple. We are talking about the machines here- not the software.
Click to expand...

What would that one specific thing be? I'm missing what you are saying here. And isn't software the point of having hardware in the first place?

This is where I think they will ultimately crash and burn. IMO they HAVE ALREADY reached their peak.
Click to expand...

In the last Spring quarter, historically their slowest sales period, Apple managed to sell more Macs than they did during the preceding Holiday quarter, and this is in the middle of an economic slowdown (I say its a recession, some don't, that's a different discussion). They will blow those numbers away this coming holiday season. I won't expect to see anything close to a slowdown in Mac sales until 2010, let along a contraction in sales which is what you are saying will happen immediately.

To compete with Microsoft, they'd have to start selling OS X as a separate software license, like Microsoft. To do THAT, they'd have to support millions of hardware configurations. Microsoft has being doing that for YEARS, and is doing a pretty damned good job at it (like at Linux... They've been doing it for YEARS as well, and just quite simply, aren't quite there yet!).
Click to expand...

Apple isn't interested in selling more Macs than copies of Windows, they are interested in competing with other PC builders. They are a hardware company, not an operating system company (although they make a great OS to run on that hardware). So long as they remain profitable selling computers, they'll be fine.
 
Serpico said:
I know, running Linux on renderfarms provided by the lowest bidder at the time, whether it is Apple, Dell, HP, whoever, it literally changes every single year.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about Linux??? I was talking about Windows... These companies won't touch Macs for workstations, their servers are either Windows or Linux (Linux is a great file server at a great price).


Serpico said:
What would that one specific thing be? I'm missing what you are saying here. And isn't software the point of having hardware in the first place?
Click to expand...
Graphics/rendering.



Serpico said:
I won't expect to see anything close to a slowdown in Mac sales until 2010, let along a contraction in sales which is what you are saying will happen immediately.
Click to expand...
We'll see. Just pure speculation...




Serpico said:
They are a hardware company, not an operating system company (although they make a great OS to run on that hardware). So long as they remain profitable selling computers, they'll be fine.
Click to expand...
I'd agree, however why on earth does Apple push "OS X... OS X... OS X!!!!!!!!!!!!!"????????
They aren't pushing the computer as a whole- they push the OS features.
 
TechieSooner said:
Who said anything about Linux??? I was talking about Windows... These companies won't touch Macs for workstations, their servers are either Windows or Linux (Linux is a great file server at a great price).
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about Windows workstations or renderfarms at Pixar. From what I know they are using Marionette and Renderman almost entirely on Linux (Marionette doesn't even exist on Windows). This isn't some anti-Windows thing, its just that you don't really see the platform used by companies like Pixar or PDI.

Most VFX companies I know and/or work with use Macs for workstations, not just for editing and graphics work but also for compositing with Shake. Almost every big film you see uses this software; OS X licenses for it are cheap compared to Linux, and again it doesn't even exist on Windows. At most I'll see some Windows workstations running Maya, but it really is a mix of operating systems heavily leaning towards Linux at this point.

Again, it goes to my point that OS X is not limited to "simple" tasks as you put it. It was a heavy lifter made for real work long before Apple made such a mainstream push with it.

Graphics/rendering.
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought it was being pushed to the consumer for "simple" things like email, web, and organizing photos. :p

I'd agree, however why on earth does Apple push "OS X... OS X... OS X!!!!!!!!!!!!!"????????
They aren't pushing the computer as a whole- they push the OS features.
Click to expand...

The OS is a big hook to get people to buy the hardware (it is the main reason for me, as much as I like their physical design). That said, the aesthetics and ergonomics of their case designs isn't exactly a subtle point they make either. Show me one other company that makes as much effort to push the industrial design of products like their notebooks, or the simplicity and monitor quality of their 24" iMacs?
 
I've been in many post studios and in my eyes the artists drive that environment. They are experts with certain applications/hardware and so the business purchases the machine based on that preference. Arguing over PC/Mac platforms being best or most powerful is the wrong angle!

Also what does any of that have to do with Jobs? He's the marketing genius of Apple and if he doesn't want to disclose his health matters because it may lead to a free-fall of company shares then he won't do it. Now I'm not defending his childish behavior but I might also be a jerk if random people kept bugging me about something I have said that I don't want to discuss.
 
IMO people hate Gates because of the company he represents, some of which isn't really his doing. As a person he seems rather likable and down to earth and does try to use his influence for a good purpose. Now Jobs is more like the company he represent isn't so reviled because it is seen as the "underdog" against the Msft "goliath". Anyways he himself is definitely an asshole however.
 
Jaerb4 said:
They've got a firm grasp on the retarded hippie market.
Click to expand...

I never can get a firm grasp on the hippie market. They always slide through my hands. Damn greasy hippies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top