Secrecy versus openness in communication
Apple may make beautiful products but it resembles North Korea in how it communicates with the world.
Apple is to many the poster child of the Web 2.0 generation. Yet, there are few companies that are as anti-Web 2.0 as Apple. That is if Web 2.0 and social media and all that is about openness and transparency and not trying to rigidly control the message.
“Apple’s silence on Steve Jobs’ health may have broken federal securities rules,” a Los Angeles Times heading stated on June 25. “A Memphis hospital said Saturday Jobs had never been a patient. Then they changed the story,” Forbes wrote.
“If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the Berkshire shareholders about it. I work for them,” Warren Buffett told Bloomberg.
“Speculation over the declining health of Kim Jong Il has intensified after reports that North Korea is trying to buy high-tech medical equipment from abroad,” the London Times wrote on June 20.
In 2007, Joe Wilcox, writing for eWeek, contrasted the styles of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates during a week in which they both gave major speeches. “Gates met with bloggers today, while Jobs traditionally limits accessibility to select press,” Wilcox wrote. “Microsoft is fairly open with analysts, partners and press about its announcements, while Apple keeps everything secret until Jobs’ does the unveiling. Microsoft will stream Gates CES keynote live, while Apple will provide a canned stream hours following the Macworld keynote. Microsoft bloggers will pipe in on the company’s announcements, while Apple will tightly control disclosure through its media department.”
But isn’t Apple the really open, cool company, and isn’t Microsoft the secretive, uncool company? Isn’t Microsoft supposed to be the company we love to hate while Apple is the company we love to love?
Apple makes absolutely beautiful products that are genuinely simple to use. I used Apple computers until I started a company many years ago. We had very little money and we had to buy lots of computers and set up networks and stuff like that. It was a no brainer. We bought PCs.
I’m a big music fan and I love iTunes and the iPod. Apple and Steve Jobs have done more to humanize technology that anyone. They have continuously championed simplicity in an often complexity-crazy world.
What lessons can we take from all this? Some might say that old style command and control communication still works. Apple has proven that by rigidly controlling the message it can shape how people perceive it. Of course, others might say that Apple is a great brand in spite of its paranoid secrecy because it makes great products.
Is there a paradox between simplicity and closedness and complexity and openness? Is the really simple very closed, and the really open very complex? Is Apple proving that secrecy trumps openness even in a Web 2.0 world? We should note, of course, that Microsoft, who has long had a more open, partner-driven strategy, is also much more successful than Apple.
Perhaps the challenge and the opportunity of the modern world is to achieve openness and simplicity.

Henrik says:
Added on June 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pmWell this is the same kind of doublestandards that Google employ. The try to run everything with machines (or at least the tried to) but they ban (or try to) sites that are made by machines.
But I love Apple. And I think their strategy works really well.
Gerry McGovern (blog author) says:
Added on June 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pmHenrik, that’s an interesting point about Google. I hadn’t thought about it that way.
Jo Hughes says:
Added on June 28th, 2009 at 11:45 pmShareholders can always vote with their feet if they aren’t satisfied with Apples way of doing business…
Aaron says:
Added on June 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmI liken it to Will Wonka’s secret candy factory. Everyone wants to copy the Everlasting Gobstoppers. Wonka closing up the shop was necessary to survive amidst the cut-throat, profit-driven competition. A balance needs to be maintained. Wonka did it by offering superb candy that truly appealed to the masses. Apple does the same with technology.
John Page says:
Added on June 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pmSecretive behavior takes on a different moral dimension when you control the lives of millions. “Shareholders can walk”, Apple employees can quit, and no one has to buy an ipod. North Koreans cannot choose their leader.
Steve is an artist. He likes to shape our experiences. Most artists are despots in their studio…
Jacque Harper says:
Added on June 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pmI’d love to spend more philosophical time on this subject, but won’t.
However I do want to add to the discussion the idea that openness has also led to charges of vaporware, delays (that is from ‘announced’ schedules) and user disappointment (from ‘announced’ features being dropped) for Microsoft. Meanwhile, Apple, by keeping a tight lid on official announcements, tends to deliver what it promises — in large part by not making announcements until products are ready.
joan ebzery says:
Added on June 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pmanother enjoyable and informative column. Just thought I would tell you how much I like to read you.
Karina says:
Added on June 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pmThis post makes me upset. Is the only thing that makes them “secretive” the silence or noncommunication about Steve Jobs’ illness? Because I see the product announcements as a marketing ploy as much as anything — the surprise creates a sense of wonder and lust for the product.
As more years pass, I also find myself less and less open to this utopian concept of total openness and freedom on the Web, especially with “2.0″ (hate that term). For example, blog commenters can anonymously lie, slander, and post hateful comments at will. Whether or not they’re 12-year-old pranksters or mental-health patients, I don’t feel obligated to allow their “openness.” I think we have the right to control people’s behavior on our sites if they cannot police themselves, and it’s become pretty clear that they can’t.
Brian Anderson says:
Added on June 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pmI completely understand Apple’s reticence and overall policy of non-disclosure “until the coast is clear.” It is based on history and precedent, as it applies to rival Microsoft.
Back in 1991 or so, IBM spent a lot of PR dollars trumpeting the release of its new OS/2 operating system for microcomputers. What did Mr. “Open” Bill Gates do? He bought up every single piece of magnetic media in North America which delayed IBM’s plans by about 6 months, costing them millions, if not billions.
How do I know? I was working for my brother who ran a cassette tape and disc duplication company - and this is what all his supplier had told him.
So, if Mr. Jobs et al like to play things ‘close to the vest,’ it’s because it’s been proven to them that this is a wise policy. Leopards don’t change their spots but they can camouflage themselves. With Gates in a dominant market position, he can afford to be as open he wishes and gain all that juicy PR.
Web 2.0 is a recent transition and it behooves us to to keep in mind that competition still exists as does predatory competition.
Carla says:
Added on June 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pmIsn’t it more about Enterprise 2.0 than Web 2.0? About how corporations function in today’s world and the latest adaptation of total quality management? I would argue that neither Apple nor Microsoft is particularly great at this. IBM, oddly, supposedly the stodgy old fogey, does a better job of running a more collaborative team environment–has a global, work-from-anywhere infrastructure that supports 300K employees, *really*, working from *anywhere,* at *any* time…try dialing into Redmond during a snowstorm….uses people on teams based on knowledge and background, not title, doesn’t get too hung up on reporting structures and “because I said so” management styles. IBM has its issues with layoffs and the atmosphere of fear that this can create, but in terms of building a competency-based vs charismatic environment in which work actually gets done with a lot less jockeying for position (because position is less relevant), I think both MS and Apple could learn a lot about the latest in management and collaboration from the old guy on the block…