Member Avatar for John A

Oh boy. If Kevin Rose, the founder of Digg, is correct, he may soon be facing a lawsuit big enough to cripple a small country. In his podcast, he gets drunk and tells "vague details" of the much rumored iPhone. He starts off by saying, "I have a little bit of inside information on the Apple phone", and then his side-kick, Alex Albrecht, starts asking for details. He then says, "I don't know if I should say this...", in between large swigs of beer.

He isn't sure whether the phone will run OS X. He then goes on to give more "details". The phone will of course use flash memory, coming in a 4 GB model, which will cost $249, and a 8 GB model for $449. Then he says that it'll be as small as s***, it's going to have 2 batteries, one being dedicated to music listening, so that if you drain one battery, you'll still have another battery for regular phone usage. It's also going to have a slide-out keyboard.

It will be carried by the wireless providers GSN, Tdma, and Cdma.

Unfortunately, this is the consequence of a company choosing to be secretive about their upcoming products. Sites like ThinkSecret spread any Apple rumors they hear out and abroad. Although Apple's argument for staying quiet about this kind of stuff may be because "it's their marketing plan," it's likely to hurt them more when stuff gets leaked then if they had just announced it right from the start. Leaking is unavoidable. It's guaranteed that if any substational number of employees are working for a secretive product of any company, it's going to get leaked at some point.

So big companies like Apple should realize this, and give some kind of hint to the public beforehand. That way, there's much less to leak (and sue). It might sound cruel, but that's the reality.

  • 2 Contributors
  • 1 Reply
  • 184 Views
  • 3 Days Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by 'Stein

Dani AI

Generated

is right that a tightly sealed product program creates a vacuum that gossip and guesswork will fill, and is right that surprises can create powerful demand. The real point is that secrecy is a strategic choice with measurable trade-offs: it helps control marketing and leak timing, but it raises operational, legal, and reputation risks if a leak or a rumor goes off-script.

Practical steps companies can take to keep the upside of secrecy while limiting the downside:

  • Limit the circle: assign features by role so no one person or vendor holds the whole product picture.
  • Compartmentalize prototypes and testing — fewer, tracked units in the wild.
  • Legal + technical safeguards: clear NDAs, watermarking, document encryption and unique identifiers on review copies.
  • Supply-chain vetting: tiered access, regular audits, and short, enforceable contracts for contractors.
  • Controlled transparency: use developer previews, embargoed press kits, or timed teasers to satisfy media appetite without losing complete control.
  • Fast-response playbook: a pre-approved public statement, escalation path, and measured legal response so a leak becomes a message-management exercise instead of a crisis.

Bottom line: secrecy itself is neither good nor bad — it’s a risk-management decision. If the goal is a dramatic, sell-out launch (as suggests), pair secrecy with ironclad operational readiness so channels and support can handle demand. If the goal is steady adoption, consider staged disclosures that reduce rumor-driven expectations. Either way, the human element — incentives, training, and clear procedures — is the most reliable way to stop leaks from turning into problems.

Member Avatar for 'Stein

In one sense, I would disagree with it. I personally think that a surprise opening to the public encourages mass-buying.

Take the iPod for example. From what I recall, it wasn't highly advertised when first released. Then, compare it to its initial success.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.