You’re just frustrated with Apple’s secrecy. Yes, the downside is it allows the rumor mill to run amok… perhaps even stimulates it.

On the otherhand, if Apple were to pre-announce every project it is working on, and they work on many which never see the light of day, then they would be accused of announcing vaporware if they subsequently cancel the project.

To avoid that, they might be tempted to shove a product out the door anyhow. But that would increase the likelihood of releasing inferior products and tarnishing Apple’s reputation for quality.

While there may be problems with Apple’s secrecy, there would be a different set of problems without it. No matter which course Apple takes, they will be criticized. Damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. The current strategy seems to be working for them, so no sense in “fixing” something that ain’t broke.

Aren't they essentially doing this with iTV? The reasons for pre-announcing can be speculated on, but regardless, it was pre-announced...

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
The current strategy seems to be working for them, so no sense in “fixing” something that ain’t broke.

You don't think that John is saying that it is broke?

I'm inclined to agree with John but can understand your reaction. Perhaps the missing element in his article is an emphasis on how Apple's secrecy once may have an acceptable approach to its PR but, in a post-iPod era, it may be necessary or more appropriate to adopt a different approach.

What's always been a hurdle for Apple in terms of gaining market share is (among other things) the inability on the part of its customers to ... you might say ... get inside the decision loop ... of Apple's release schedule.

Decision-makers need to know what to expect in the near future, especially decision-makers who are responsible for large sums of money, and so Apple's closed approach to product releases boils down to a question of faith.

Faith isn't enough upon which to base strategic decisions and so budget planning - both at a corporate and domestic level - tends to favour Apple's competitors.

that Apple has had in the past is that their new products directly compete with their present line of products. Therefore, they run into the problem of a new, unavailable product stealing present day sales from their existing line of product. iTv was announced because it doesn't really compete with anything that Apple has out there right now so there is no problem with it stealing from existing sales.

But let us say that the existence of the so called true video ipod is acknowledged as JM would appear to be a proponent for. What will happen to existing iPod sales. While it might not affect the shuffle and nano significantly, I would bet that hard drive based iPods would face a significant shortfall in sales. Let us say that the new vPod was supposed to make it debut 6 months ago but was pulled for various reasons. If it was an announced product, Apple would have had 2 choices. First, put out a product that they are not happy with or maybe doesn't work right. Second, delay the product knowing that all the while it is costing them existing sales of ipods.

The present policy doesn't put Apple into that bind. If they preannounced products that compete with their present line, they would be right now and we might see a totally different reason for the reaction of the share price the past couple of weeks.

I agree with rainy day but I see JM's point. I think Apple's present policy, while it has its problems, is presently working so I don't think I would want them to change it.

Neal

Good point, Neal, but Apple's current strategy has its own downsides which may outweigh those (if not now, then in the future). As it is, a lot of people will hold off on buying new hardware anyway — the difference is that instead of basing this decision on Apple's timetable, they're basing it on guesswork and rumors. This can hurt Apple's sales more than pre-announcing, because people wait for products that aren't coming, and then when they're done waiting, they wait some more, like a compulsive gambler holding on for that one big payoff at the slots. If they had a roadmap from Apple, then they could make an intelligent decision — and maybe they'd buy promptly, knowing that the wait would be just a bit too long to justify.

Also, Apple's current strategy fosters ill will. If someone does buy a product a week before the release of the next one, they feel like they've been cheated.

Take the iPods for example. Maybe it's true that if Apple had pre-announced the current iPod with higher-resolution video support, then people would have waited and sales of the old iPod would have suffered. So what? Those "lost" iPod sales would have translated directly into NEW iPod sales, so the only way Apple would really lose out is if they didn't manage their inventory intelligently.

Same goes for new Macs, especially when it comes to business (as Coaten said).

I think the biggest problem with pre-announcing products is that it gives the competition that much more time to rip 'em off — and maybe even beat Apple to market with the rip-offs! The weight of this issue varies from product to product, of course. Knowing if/when Apple plans to put a Core 2 Duo in the Mac Mini, for example, isn't going to matter as much as knowing the top-secret features of Leopard.

...bad memories coming to the surface...ACSC by correspondence....

Apple doesn't care if you buy somebody else's product in an area where they don't have one, regardless of rumors. Go ahead and buy a Blackberry or a cell phone or a Windows Media Extender or a printer or a camera. Apple is absolutely convinced that when they are able to create a product within their core competence areas, that their product will be so much better that you'll buy theirs the next time around.

And they won't and don't ship products until the technology is capable of delivering what they believe the end user really wants at a price the user is willing to pay. Not like Origami. Not like Tablet PCs. Not like the first flash-based (256K) MP3 players. So they cannot always predict when a product will be ready since it depends on the technology being workable and usable in a way that can be manufactured for a reasonable cost. We believe they scrapped a previous PDA and a previous cell phone because not everything worked just right - I don't think it was just software; in the end, it may be the capabilities provided by a touch-screen screen or VoIP or 802.11n that were the missing ingredients from the previous builds.

So I really don't see a problem except if those other products create a situation where you get locked-in. Which is what happened with PCs. But that's happening less and less now. The price of computers and consumer electronics is low enough relative to the incomes of enough people that Apple believes that those people will buy another product (even if you already own a someone else's product in that market area).

Starting with Jobs return in 1997 and his first products in 1999, we are seeing how Apple products attract and sell. The Mac has issues with Windows lock-in. But we see that the iPod can move into new areas where nothing has been locked in even though other products (mp3 players, portable video players) were around before. And cell phones certainly don't create lock-in.

If the issue is Apple's stock price, then people should know that Apple stock is volatile. And that's okay. Apple is looking for long-term investors who are willing to live through the dips.

Three points:

Ever hear of the Osborne Effect? Steve has.

Apple doesn't sell much to enterprise customers, so long term planning isn't as much an issue as it has to be with Microsoft.

Steve uses the RDF to great advantage whenever he can. Having surprise products only adds to the buzz he seeks to create. Unfortunately, the rumor mills are so full lately, there's not much he can announce that hasn't been anticipated (rightly or wrongly).

Steve (not that Steve)

You *really* need a new picture. One that is well-lit, with good depth of field, and that doesn't look like a cropped Color QuickCam webshot.

Your article implies that Apple must always exceed expectations with each Keynote - or that they must meet expectations brought on by wild rumor which I agree is an impossible task. However, this is incorrect.

Apple simply needs to meet expectations - for instance, that they'll introduce a very cool phone. Indeed, Apple has it easy since other companies paint their press releases in broad strokes promising the world to everyone and then underdelivering. They're run by their marketing folks - who answer "yes" to any question asked about the products capability to meet a particular demand. That is disingenuous at best.

Apple doesn't do this. They work quietly behind the scenes and don't talk about what they "might" be able to do. Marketing folks in other companies force a commitment from engineering and take it as gospel and start shooting their mouths off. Good management doesn't force engineers to commit until they have reached a real solution with potential for manufacturing and delivery. Apple has good management.

At other companies, marketing and sales run the company. This is an aberration that stubbornly persists but is condemned to eventually disappear from the consumer electronics space. At Apple, engineers with the consumer-savvy oversight of Jobs and other human interface engineers run the company. This will always result in good products that meet expectations and continue to garner Apple accolades. They're firing on all cylinders now and that scares the hell out of the competition.

Watch their stock price and tell me again that meeting expectations is enough. Whenever they just "meet expectations" of analysts (who push many of the rumors), the stock takes a nose-dive.

I like many of your articles. But I noticed that you often compare everything with warfare. This is typical american: War is everywhere. It's why everyone hates U...

OODA doesn't apply to business because it leaves out an important aspect of business: Innovate. The military doesn't thrive on innovation, though they do grasp it when they see its success. Apple, on the other hand, has been creating its own loop of success through innovation. Even subtle improvements -- thinner, longer battery life, Nike collaboration -- make the loop of innovation grow. This is the loop other companies need to get into. Why do we talk about Zune at all? Because of its innovative wireless sharing. Why do we want Wii instead of PS3 now? Because of its innovative controller.

This innovation loop is more like what happens among scientists at research institutions. They have a prescribed timeline for sharing their research, and usually the information is protected until published. Even reports at meetings are seldom new unless the information is close to publication.

It's the loop of innovation that has to grow to make a tech company successful. Protecting that loop to keep your competitors behind you is critical.

The OODA process does apply to business. Innovate is just one form of Act.

But innovation at the edge of technology (especially software interface and product design technology) allows Apple to stay out of the "loop" part of OODA. There is no furious cycle for Apple.

Apple doesn't have to be the first to introduce a new "feature". Instead, its power is that it makes features fit into an integral whole, and makes the whole into a usable and pleasing product.

Here's my problem with the Cluetrain. You follow its advice to the extreme and you get author David Weinberger's glowing support for net neutrality and premature verbal ejaculator Howard Dean. Between zero and that, there's got to be some error in thinking.

I kinda wonder whether this post should be labeled a Death Knell. The "blame Apple" angle weighs in favor of the label. I say, blame the rumor mongers and the analysts for missed expectations. The analysts will take care of themselves this cycle. If no iPhone materializes (my bet), then you guys as TMO ought to stop putting up everything Wu and Munster send you. I could explain their game to you, and why the Mac sites are so important to it working, but it would fall on deaf ears. After MWSF though, every time they analyze something, people will think "these are the dorks that hyped the mythical iPhone". And that's punishment enough.

Frankly, I think Apple needs to do standard business things to get back in control of the rumor mills. (1) Apple needs a summer event again, where it can announce things so anticipation leading to MWSF doesn't get out of hand. (2) AAPL needs to pay a dividend, so that its stock price has a long term anchor to survive the ups and downs of hype. (3) Apple needs to stay the course on making elegant products and having magical introductions. The last thing they need is to be seen as letting analysts and customers run the company. Reading all the Mac sites, I know I wouldn't want Apple's loud customers making any kind of decision for that company!

I believe that some of the mystery around the Macs has been removed with the switch to Intel. Intel provides the road map and everyone can make informed opinions of where Apple is going. I'm actually waiting for Intel's new chipset in 2007 before replacing my 1.5 G4 PB - I'm going with Intel's road map.

In terms of products like the iPod, Apple is really competing with themselves - and they know what they are working on. Apple has shown the other competition how to do it and they still miss the boat.

Overall I don't believe that the OODA method is critical for Apple. The PC world is simply too large for Apple to consider taking over a majority of the market share. Their focus needs to be on profitable growth through R&D, excellence in design and making sure their products "just work" for the user. As long as they can remain current with Intel's advancements and focus on making the best products they can Apple will be the company the other companies follow.

Do we really know whether Apple intended to present a cellular phone at MacWorld in January? Or was this just the wishful thinking of Mac web sites? I never saw the utility of combining an iPod with a telephone. Where was the synergy? Where was the 2+2= 5 or higher that we expect from Apple? Where is the integrated system that solves previously unperceived needs? I still don't see them.

But, that is the point. Who expected the iPod to be such a success? The Web sites that are promoting an Apple telephone did not. How many of them got together when the iPod was first presented to chant "too little-- too late-- too expensive--too little capacity." Those chants turned out to incorrect because Apple had waited patiently to put all the pieces in place before the iPod was developed: Quicktime, ACC, the Apple data centers that could be used for music downloads, etc. Many an "overnight success" is the result of years of patient effort.

How many people summed up the first iPod and added it to the component parts of the iTunes Music Store and said, "Wow, this is going to be big"? Not many. Apple may have been pleasantly surprised at the buying public's response to it's unified system.

We will not know until January what Apple will announce, despite the rumor sites. It may take years before we know if Apple had intended to put out an iPhone and was trumped by Linksys. Apple could have taken out the name "iPhone" as a trademark, but didn't. Does the fact that it didn't, tell us anything?

Apple could have a different strategy planned for January and is lining up other products and we couldn't be sure. The idea of a phone could have been worked on inside of Apple and then "Steved" at the last minute before manufacture because it wasn't fresh, new and exciting enough to bear the Apple name. The rumor site couldn't know that.

Where we are, right now, is in the "fog of war." Apple has not entered the telephone battlefield where too many others are vying. How can we say that Linksys got inside Apple's OODA loop when hostilities had not yet commenced? Nor do we know that they would have ever been.

You can build a house of cards based on speculation. Then you can jump to a conclusion that because that house of cards did not appear that something is wrong. Perhaps, what is wrong is that you were blowing hot air about nothing.

It's fun to speculate but there is too much "smoke and mirrors" now to know what is real. Real is what will happen in January. No doubt, there will be plenty of disappointed customers expecting ”pie-in-the-sky products" touted by the rumor sites. An iPhone won't be one of them. Should we be glad that it is out of the way?

Lou Wheeler

I personally don't think Apple will change and will stay the course. I think they are getting more free press now than ever because of it's secrecy. In any event like others have posted it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. No win situation which will never go away. Do to the number of companies that don't do there own RND I think Apple is better off keeping it's newest products a secret until they release it or announce it. Otherwise Microsoft and the Dells and others in Asia would be copying and releasing there own version before Apple. Why? Because they just want to make money while Apple wants to make a quality easy to use product that just works, then make money. I say let Apple take it's time. The payoff is usually a lot better than rushing things to market like Microsoft with it's Zune. What a failure that is and a good example of how Apple doesn't do things. And that' why they don't release a product until it's done right and then improve on it with each revision.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Do we really know whether Apple intended to present a cellular phone at MacWorld in January? Or was this just the wishful thinking of Mac web sites? I never saw the utility of combining an iPod with a telephone. Where was the synergy? Where was the 2+2= 5 or higher that we expect from Apple? Where is the integrated system that solves previously unperceived needs? I still don't see them.

Lou, go to a Sprint store and buy a Sanyo M1. The thing I really like it for is playing podcasts. It's replaced my ipod for that. I just transfer some MP3's via bluetooth and move to a desk without a computer and do some reading or some planning or whatever and don't need headphones or a USB cable or an iPod amp or any of that to make it work. I might try it at the gym with headphones soon. It could replace my ipod for half my workouts. I also run and love the Nike+iPod stuff. Maybe in a couple years, I could run with a phone. I'd feel much safer with that option some days.

The high end phones with media players could start eating into to ipod usage. Mostly a function of bluetooth and speakerphone though. These could be added to the iPod without going iPhone.

All that said, I don't think Apple is going there. I also think they have a tough franchise to defend. Zune is a too late me too device. It won't take much share. High end phones and maybe even high end Palms could erode market share. DRM is probably the best defense Apple has now, but people don't just listen to music.

What I think creates most of the 'stress' among today's Apple-watchers is that they really don't think like the main source of Apple's income... users who are happy with the products and don't pay much attention to the tech-press. I think it's amazing how much energy is spent analyzing Apple's every move, when 90% of their users don't even read these articles. The more 'iPod' users and 'Apple switchers' I meet, the more I am impressed with the single fact that they really don't get their information from the tech-press. They use the product, get help from Apple or the reseller they purchased from, and that's that. They aren't really interested in all the rumors. Most don't even KNOW about the rumors. A small group of very interested tech-oriented people like ourselves reads and discusses this stuff, but for our boistrous discussion, it mainly falls on deaf ears as far as the majority of users are concerned.

And I think Apple already knows this. I think they are creating and selling products to all of us, and most of 'us' don't really follow Apple's stock prices, or care what might or might not show up at various mac news aggregators. Face it gang, most of us are discussing topics on forums like this that mainly just get read by the 'choir'. The paying customers, 80-90% of them, aren't reading this, nor do they really care. And THAT's why Apple appears to ignore these types of discussions. It's not that they aren't important to some of us. It's that in the grand scheme of things, they matter very little to the future of Apple and her growing, evolving customer base.

The Internet allows a very small fagment of society the privilege of gathering and making a loud clang, to which we all think we hear and thus everyone else must also hear. But in reality, we're just a very small segment of society, people that read and follow news of a particular company or organization. If you walked up to a hundred people in our town, a college town, and asked the if they use an iPod or know what it is, most will reply to the affirmative. If you ask the same bunch if they think Apple will come out with an iPhone, nearly all of them will ask what you mean, and they will not have read anything about it themselve, so will simply offer an opinion to be polite.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I like many of your articles. But I noticed that you often compare everything with warfare. This is typical american: War is everywhere. It's why everyone hates U...

Whether you accept it or not, war and conflict have driven many societies to advance various sciences. General Sun Tzu wrote during the Warring States period a work that's considered perhaps the greatest treatise on conflict -- and how to win by avoiding it whenever possible -- during one of the most violent periods of the culture.

War and conflict *are* endemic to humanity, at least for the time being. Business reflects this perpetual state of conflict, as do a number of other models, such as the co-evolution of immune systems and various pathogens.

Wishing it were otherwise is fair game, but you might still consider reading more and talking less.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

-Albert Einstein
---------

ie...stay the course.

Yea you need a better picture for your articles. The one right now looks very unprofessional. If you change it maybe people will like your better.