An interesting piece appeared in the Sunday Times on the weekend – you can read it here. It talks about Apple’s culture of secrecy and Steve Jobs’ illness. Some very interesting bits and pieces.
It seems that Apple has such a strong culture of secrecy that they still (after 4 years) wont stock any books in their stores published by Wiley (who do the “.. for Dummies” series) because of book written in 2005 – “iCon: Steve Jobs – The Greatest Second Act in The History of Business” which they tried to suppress publication of.
The secrecy extends beyond suppressing stories and draconian employee secrecy rules, to what migh well be regarded as deliberately misleading shareholders. Should Jobs (who, as far as the world is concerned, is Apple) have been allowed to conceal the seriousness of his illness? Warren Buffett, the greatest investor alive, doesn’t think so. “Whether [Steve Jobs] is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact.”
Another sign of secrecy gone too far might be the death of Sun Danyong, a 25-year-old employee of Foxconn, a Chinese manufacturer of Apple machines. He was given 16 prototypes of new iPhones. One disappeared. Facts beyond that get hazy, but what is clear is that Sun committed suicide by jumping from a 12th-storey apartment. Some say he killed himself because of the vanished prototype and, therefore, because of Apple’s obsessive secrecy.
Discussing the future of Apple without Jobs there is a feeling that it will not be as strong. “Apple will keep executing its current business plan,” says Philip Elmer-DeWitt, “which could go on for years. But it will be different in one key respect: with Jobs there was a guy at the beginning and end of every project who had the authority to say, ‘This sucks. Start over.’ Whoever replaces him may share his vision and job title, but he or she will not be the co-founder of Apple and won’t have the same authority.” I would have to agree with this. Every technology project, in order to be successful, needs to have ultimate authorities to take the hard decisions.
The Times article goes on to speculate that Google and Apple could merge – a view that is not hard to share. They are rapidly converging in a number of spaces. The key areas of convergence are, first, mobile phones. There is Apple’s iPhone and there is Google’s Android, not a phone in itself, but an operating system that can be used by other companies. Google also produce a web browser called Chrome, which competes with Apple’s Safari. And, most importantly, Google is working on a computer operating system, also called Chrome, which may well be a very serious competitor for Mac OS X.
Anyway – the article is well worth a read.
Recent Comments