Aaron Adams’s Blowhard Blog

This story from Lisa DiCario at Forbes further illustrates a point I’ve made on this site a few times recently: The world as a whole is largely ignorant of the Mac and the workings of Apple Computer and the Mac community, and some people aren’t afraid to put that ignorance in all it’s glory on display in public forums (such as Forbes’s website).

I really don’t like writing line-by-line analyses of such things, but sometimes when I get caught up in the pre-Expo excitement and I read something that’s especially bad, I’m a little more motivated to do just that.

The problems with this column start in the first paragraph.

It is widely acknowledged that Apple Computer enjoys the kind of slavish devotion among its customers–and fawning adoration from the press–of which other companies don’t even dare to dream.

Slavish? That’s certainly a degrading word to use to characterize Mac users. Starting the article by declaring Apple’s users as slaves sets a decidedly negative tone. Mac users aren’t slaves, held captive by Apple against their will, with no thoughts of their own, forever condemning them to Apple hell. Please. The word “slavish” isn’t necessary in that sentence at all, and its elimination would make the characterization more accurate and reduce the negative tone that starts out the article.

And fawning adoration from the press? Such as articles that begin by calling Apple users slaves? I’m confident that the number of articles in the press declaring Apple’s doom, second-guessing Apple’s strategy, declaring Apple’s products disappointing because they don’t bring about the second coming of Christ, outnumber “fawning adoration” articles five to one. (Wait until after next Tuesday’s keynote for the full force of the negative press.)

How else to explain Apple’s latest attempt to clamp down on, rather than embrace, its fanatical fans?

I don’t think that’s really a sentence. There needs to be an understood “you” somewhere. Perhaps a better grammarian can help me quantify precisely what that sentence is lacking.

CNET News.com first reported on Wednesday that the company, earlier this week, filed a lawsuit–and not its first–against a website called ThinkSecret.com…

The CNET article referred to contains no reference to any other lawsuits field against Think Secret. Did Ms. DiCario read the article?

…for publishing details of an Apple product that the Web site says will be announced by the company at next week’s MacWorld conference in San Francisco.

In this case, “publishing details” is really “misappropriating trade secrets”, as described by the California Supreme Court. Trade secret misappropriation occurs when a party “acquires another’s trade secret with knowledge or reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.” That perfectly describes what Think Secret has done.

But, this sort of stuff happens all the time in the tech industry. Sources leak details of forthcoming products to reporters whose motivation is to get credit for an exclusive story.

Assuming that “this sort of stuff happens all the time” (and that’s quite an assumption), other companies’ unwillingness or inability to pursue legal action against leakers in no way precludes Apple’s ability or right to plug information leaks it considers harmful. The implication that everyone else isn’t doing it, so Apple shouldn’t either, is fallacious.

Here’s the difference with Apple: most of its secret product news is not published first by national, mainstream media, but by Apple advocates. These people are customers, fans and Apple-lovers.

No. The difference is that Apple is a company that relies heavily on development of new and innovative products, more so than other tech companies, and that because of their position in the marketplace, a certain element of secrecy and surprise is conducive, if not necessary, to Apple’s product sales.

And, the leak certainly hasn’t hurt the company’s stock price.

Despite the fact that the headless Mac has been consistently presented as fact in the press, it is not. It is currently a rumor. The expectations of investors and customers are now balanced against this rumor, and should it turn out to be untrue, Apple’s stock could be hurt by news of what (bogus) products weren’t announced rather than what was. The leak could still damage Apple further.

Apple’s current lawsuit alleges that “Unauthorized disclosure of product news diminishes the interest of both the mainstream and trade media in the launch of a new product.”

Huh?

As I stated in a paragraph above, post-expo, the news becomes about fictional products Apple didn’t announce rather than what it did announce, thereby diminishing interest in real products.

Can you think of another company whose product news garners more coverage–regardless of unauthorized disclosures–from the geek and mainstream media?

Yes. Microsoft.

Apple’s products were featured not once–but twice–on the cover of Time magazine in recent years!

So? Perhaps Time magazine likes Apple for some reason, or Apple prefers Time as a media outlet since Time has shown a willingness to be cooperative in the past. Hell, I’ve been on the inside cover of Time magazine at least once, and I’m not newsworthy. Appearing in Time magazine in no way indicates Apple receives disproportionate media coverage.

Fair enough, but Apple has to be the only tech company blessed with widespread coverage of every new product, despite the lack of outbound reach by its PR team.

Widespread coverage of.. the new Xserve G5 models announced this week? I haven’t seen a word. Xsan? Nope. Xserve RAID? Not in the mainstream. The iPod photo got lukewarm attention at best. Same for AirPort Express. Thirty-inch Cinemas Display? Not really. You get the point. Major Apple system announcements may get attention, but not every product.

Boston attorney Bruce Sunstein, who specializes in intellectual property law, says Apple won’t make a nickel off its case, partly because it’s hard to prove damages.

Apple is asking for undisclosed damages from Think Secret, which for all we know may be court costs and nothing else. Historically, Apple hasn’t made any serious attempt to collect damages from leakers it’s sued and this time doesn’t appear to be any different. Apple wants to plug leaks and prevent dissemination of its trade secrets, and that’s about it. Any money Apple could get from leakers would never offset the cost of acquiring it in court.

Ms. DiCario has only one factual error about the topic of which she writes, but the larger point is that she doesn’t have a firm grasp on it. She mischaracterizes the issue by presenting it as Apple attacking a zealous fan site rather than Apple suing an organization that actively acquires and disseminates trade secrets. Big bad Apple, poor Think Secret.

Before writing about Apple again, Ms. DiCario should take time to read the writing of individuals such as Shawn King, John Gruber, and Matt Deatherage. She has much to learn.