Apple 'gag order' and the fear factor
Drop the word "Apple" into any discussion with any company and the effect is nothing short of remarkable.
This innocuous logo can evoke fear
Over the last year, I have talked to middle-level and high-ranking executives at enough companies to know exactly what to expect when the topic of Apple is broached: fear.
A recent interview with a fairly big company provides an example as good as any. (But I could cite a much bigger company too, it's doesn't seem to matter.)
The way this interview proceeded was typical. Most of it was devoted to questions about the company's product plans (unrelated to Apple)--and the interviewee divulged plenty of information. A smaller slice of the interview was about customers or companies related to the interviewee (again, unrelated to Apple). Here, queries were answered with differing levels of transparency. Though less was revealed, nothing was a conversation stopper.
Then, toward the end, the conversation turned to Apple--which is not unusual as Apple's tentacles are everywhere, particularly in the case of hardware. My question began something like: "So, I understand Apple is..." The response was remarkably consistent with past interviews. I quote from the mid-level manager: "I don't want to lose my job." I've heard variations on this job security (I-have-absolutely-nothing-to-say) theme related to Apple during the last 12 months or so.
The angst is always palpable. When the interviewees clam up, then quip something like "I like getting a paycheck every month," with a wry smile, they aren't joking. And these people don't even work for Apple.
I haven't written about the Apple gag-order syndrome until now because it hadn't struck me as that surprising, i.e., the stock phrase "I can't comment on another company's product plans" is used often--not to mention the legal weight of nondisclosure agreements.
But this changed a few months ago when I realized how the Apple question consistently evokes fear (or call it distinct unease) in many interviewees.
A sensational claim? Maybe it sounds that way. But I'm calling it as I see it.
Why Apple? It's not a stretch to say that Apple is probably one of the most secretive companies in Silicon Valley. But it's also one of the most influential and, consequently, most powerful. How do I know this? This middle-level manager at this fairly big, independent, and successful company felt compelled to comment on his job security twice. And the second time he said it, the smile had clearly left his face.
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec. 
@bimmin what a callous and insensitive thing to say. You're talking about a human being here. Regardless of your personal opinion when it comes to Apple and Mr Jobs, I'm disgusted at your casual manner of talking about his death.
There is nothing wrong with a company being secretive about products in development.
It is wise to fear your competition. What is unclear is why these people are showing it publicly. Perhaps these really weren't "public" situations but you really wouldn't want to show the media your fear either. You'd really want to spout of the normal platitudes, "yes, yes, they are worthy competitors but we have our own [insert whatever you want: product/plans/people/technology/strategy/buzzword bingo entry]."
I'm wondering who these companies are.
Why is Apple so strict with theirs? Because everyone on earth wants to copy Apple, and hopefully, beat them to the punch with an inferior but look alike/act alike product, bugs be damned.
Why isn't this as big a deal for Dell? Well, when was the last time anyone looked to Dell for leadership, or wanted to copy Dell's designs? They look nice enough, but they are derivative.
"I'm wondering who these companies are."
Me too. It's one thing to randomly throw around a "big company" w/o naming it, but g'wan, name it...
For that matter, what about companies that won't violate their NDA with Microsoft or Intel?
How can you just read an article and talk about something completely unrelated in the comment section.
Amazing, but then you should really read it again.
Apple's NDA is with the company and the company passes the NDA down to it's employees.
If you tell our secrets you don't get anymore secrets.
I am all for this as I don't want cheap pretenders to come out before the great one from Apple comes out.
I just wish I had the chance to sign an Apple NDA, I'd frame it an hang it on the wall.
We're not talking about state's national security secrets to protect the H-bomb here. This was all just to protect Apple's marketing information which was going to be announced anyway in a couple of months.
Of course Foxconn's security is responsible, but it was Apple's paranoia-driven security rules which created this tragic environment. Apple whips fear into their suppliers. Suppliers whips fear to their employees. No room for slip up, it's a constant ultimatum: lose a phone == brain splattered 12-floors below.
Is it worth it?
You bring up a very good point about the Foxxcon worker in China committing suicide. I think this more than any other post in this forum talks about the point Brooke was trying to make.
Yes. Other companies have NDA's. No secret there. Yes some are stricter than others,but this article doesn't seem to be talking about how strict the NDA is but the fear its created in people indirectly related to/working for apple.
When Brooke writes about people's response to his questions in interviews about apple, he's talking about the non-verbals they respond with. The fear that anything they might say might come back to haunt them.
It has been mentioned in posts after Braxton's, Apple is a very secretive company and they have reason be this way because of the technology/programming stolen from them in the 80's and early 90's. This secrecy most likely stems from the paranoia exasperated by the fact that Apple, at one point, had the largest share of the personal computer market, lost nearly all of it, and is now making a comeback with the determination.
As much as PC companies and users like to refer to Apple as a small portion of the computer industry most analysts state them around 4%. Sounds small, but a company that had a market cam of $170 Billion is no small client to a company contracted to do work for Apple.
Most companies in their right mind don't want to lose a client this big. (duh) Therefore, keeping this big client happy (which includes keeping Apple's secrets private) is paramount in fostering a successful business relationship. This focus on keeping their client happy can lead to some paranoia.
Why is Apple different? Its very likely that Apple has imposed some harsh repercussions in their NDA that many companies may not. It is also very likely that, because of the lawsuits between them and Microsoft, they have a very ambitious legal department that will file suit over very small or seemingly unimportant breaches in their NDAs.
Thus, those employed by companies who have contracts with Apple could risk the possibility of losing their job for nearly anything they say about Apple.
While Brooke's article is somewhat short and vague, it does bring up a very good question. What is Apple doing to extend its own paranoia about losing their intellectual property?
Is it their NDA's, or something more sinister? I suppose we'll never know. When it comes down to it Apple makes a fantastic product (I used PCs for 15 years and bought a mac last year because of Vista) and it's good for the whole industry that they keep those secrets. ...hopefully it'll inspire some ingenuity from those programers over at Microsoft.
Or, this entire article is to make Apple out to be the monopolytastic oppressor that is actually Microsoft lol. "fear Apple, they are EVERYWHERE" when in fact it's Microsoft that has a complete monopoly control over all 3rd party software and hardware. Apple has high revenues relative to their little bubble of influence, but Monopolysoft is still a huge massive bully of the world of PC everything.
I'm sure there is some sort of financial and business penalty associated with every individual and company they work for that communicates in any form anything regarding Apple stuff. Exactly as you would want it if you were working on something that requires discretion.
A reporter asks a Company X middle manager to divulge information about the hardware in violation of the legal and valid contract, and the middle manager declines, saying (correctly) he's prohibited from doing that.
This sounds perfectly reasonable and appropriate to me. While it might be nice to know what Apple is planning (and I say this as an Apple user since 1982), I also think we should applaud the Company X manager for acting ethically.
I presume Brooke, as a CNET non-employee contractor, has signed a much more limited non-disclosure agreement as part of his contract with CNET. If some random person asked Brooke to reveal details he's contractually prohibited from revealing, I'd expect him to decline as well... Is that a "gag order" too?
Actually I'm surprised that this is coming from you Declan. Are you willing to state here, publicly and unequivocally, that you consider any source who gives you "off the record" information to be acting unethically? I think your sources deserve to know!
The truth is companies and their supply chain leak information all the time, often on purpose. Indeed they rely on it. Apple and other consumer-product firms act like Hollywood celebrities... they rag on the paparazzi from time to time, but they can't live without them.
In most companies, information is managed. That doesn't mean "let's drive fear into our business partners under the penalty of death (of their business)". That's just bad conduct, driven by a paranoid need for secrecy. Good companies know some info will be leaked by someone somewhere sometime, so they plan accordingly and maybe even occasionally turn leaks into positives (free marketing, etc).
And I say all this even though I'm a security consultant. Or maybe because I'm a security consultant I know that in the consumer space, trying to keep everything 100% confidential ends up being self-defeating. Secrecy exhibit diminishing returns, so it's better to spend your energy safeguarding private customer data or sensitive board discussions, rather than bullying your suppliers about petty product details (which can be easily dismissed as rumors anyway).
What he's getting at is this: When someone actually honors an NDA and doesn't talk, it's not out of some dank dread of winged demons swooping in from, say, Cupertino, to decapitate you and your family, which is what was being implied by Brooke. Well, I think he stopped at "gag order". But then, you can almost picture Jobs, sitting on a windswept mountaintop, with a squadron of gargoyles on standby as he points a bony finger at the valley below. Above the gathering storm clouds, he shouts to his winged legions: "TAKE HIM!"...
(Now Ballmer? More like a slimy troll in some dank, dark cave, gnawing on the bones of some poor H1-B that had the misfortune of delivering the latest sales reports for Windows Mobile to him. None of the cool factor, but all of the smell, and some really icky slurping noises).
The "source" in the article was saying that hey - he's not going to talk about it because he likes keeping his job and has NDAs signed, etc. Well, duh... If you went around violating your own signed NDAs all day long I suspect you wouldn't remain employed for very long, either.
It's simple biz ethics.
Most other corps don't give much of a damn about leaks. They consider it as normal. They figure you're gonna blab anyway. Sometimes they use it as an opportunity to misinform, and to slip out trial balloons, and suchlike. Others are open about their doings by design; you wanna know what's up with the Linux kernel? Go to the LKML (lkml.org) and you'll see folks discussing (well, arguing about) the very guts of the damned thing and what they're doing with it.
Apple OTOH actually demands that if you sign an NDA, you honor it. If you're a management type whose runny mouth just cost your corp a half-billion dollars' worth of future business with Apple? Odds are good your career would go south in a hurry. You would be quickly unemployed, and your resume would become radioactive. No company that does (or ever wanted to do) business with Apple would so much as look at you - not even Microsoft. A registered sex offender with a bag full of candy applying for a job at a day care? He would have better odds at getting that job, than you would at getting one anywhere in Silly Valley, or any other 'Valley (yes, I'm counting the Geek Squad counter jobs).
So yeah, maybe fear does have something to do with it... fear of doing something stupid and damaging to your career.
I'm reminded that a pretty smart CEO once told me that if tech pundits were any good they would be running their own company instead of telling those that do how they should be run.
It's a phenomenon that begs an investigation into the human psychology involved .
Although in paper, apple might just be rounding error compared to Microsoft, there is little to no doubt that apple commands a lead in many aspects when it comes to innovation. I know apple doesnt always create the idea, but they put it to work seamlessly with their operating systems and hardware. Apple is the best service provider in the business when it comes to facilitating the way we "consumers" acquire data (be that an app, a song, a video, a show)
no doubt due to its CLOSE ECO SYSTEM, and that takes a lot of SECRECY.
Like some posters have noted, apple tends to attract many other companies to follow its lead (well they actually straight up try to copy apple) be that the iphone, itunes, ipod, and heck even macs, so then its easy to understand why we see what they are doing once its ready and for sale. I think it shows how well put together apple is, when the whole world tries to guess/discover what they are doing, and to have such a small rate of success.
I do think that apple right now doesn't post a threat to Microsoft however, but that Microsoft refers to apple as "a rounding error" shows a company with much arrogance that could let this split.
It's human nature, it's international.
For tech nerds, Apple, Microsoft, Goodle, etc. are their sports teams. Don't try to understand it. It's China Town.
As of today: MSFT market cap: $227.67 billion, AAPL: $170.63 billion. So a company that is 75% the size of your is a rounding error?
Re: "rounding errror", Ballmer was talking about Safari's supposed market share gains vs. Internet Explorer. He said that unlike Firefox, Safari's gains have been negligible, closer to a rounding error rather than actual gains. And he has a point: in August Safari's total gain was less than 0.1%, and Safari 4 had only 2.5% of the overall browser market (according to Net Applications).
So he's considers Firefox to be the real competition to IE, not Safari or Google's Chrome.
To me, this type of article just shows the great amount of interest in Apple and their products. It also shows that the general public twists that interest into a pseudo-ownership mentality, resulting in petty demands for information.
People just need to learn to wait. For instance, right now, I'm waiting for an announcement on the (supposedly) soon-to-be refurbished imacs. It would be absurd of me to 'demand' that Apple tell when the announcement will be made and all about the device configuration.
Silliness.
Apple benefits from leaks, yet they've gone out of their way to sue their own evangelists for those very leaks. It's a bizarre situation, one only Apple can get away with.
- by DragonWizard October 11, 2009 2:42 PM PDT
- This is like I have explained on many articles here on CNET. They seem to equate saying the word apple or Mac with a lot of infighting between mac and PC users.. i.e. my dogs bigger than your dog hits. Tis makes the writer appear to be one who writesd good articles that people discuss... NOT SO.. They just write this slop with no real info to use the Mac-apple key words to bring out the flamers.. Two hundred people all going your stuff is crap and my stuff is fgreat and you don't know this and they don't know that... It's all crap.. People use what they use and that's all.. Secret-Schmecret.. ALL COMPANIES KEEP SECRETS.. WHO CARES... If your going to write an article try to have some meat for thought... not just innuendoes and hype... don't count on getting an argument started in order to justify getting paid... This article is about NOTHING...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (58 Comments)