Skip to Content

Apple's "controlled leaks" and how they spin them

Here's an interesting story that popped up this week, made even more relevant by all of the tablet rumors flying around lately. John Martellaro at the Mac Observer has called out the Wall Street Journal piece earlier this week as a controlled leak from Apple. What he says makes sense: the news came from an unnamed source and was published by two different authors, the WSJ's Apple beat writers, to keep the responsibility divided (and keep Walt Mossberg above the fray, perhaps). If Apple does want to leak information, it seems easy enough -- as Martellaro says, an executive phones a friend, asks to keep their name out of the story, and then a rumor is out there. Of course, there's the question of how often (if ever) this actually happens; most Mac media folk have never been on the receiving end of such a leak.

The other real question is: why? Apple could merely be sending ideas out there to see how they'll play -- the WSJ post specifically mentioned a 10 or 11" display, so it's possible they wanted to pre-test that idea. Martellaro also reckons that Apple's message could have been directed at another company, either a competitor or a partner who needed to be reminded that the tablet release was approaching quickly. And finally, it could have been directed at us press -- rumors build more rumors, which build hype, which, as Martellaro says, put butts in seats at the event later this month.

Of course, there's always the question of stock manipulation, and it could be argued that leaks like this might cause problems there. But otherwise, leaks by Apple are more or less harmless to everyone besides the company itself. If Apple did leak something it doesn't end up delivering on (i.e. promises of one product and another one ends up getting released), it's the companys own reputation that will be on the line. Apple can say that it doesn't respond to or support rumors, but when the company's own executives are allegedly telling the WSJ what the tablet is like, the onus falls on the company's reputation as a whole.

[via Apple Insider]

Here's an interesting story that popped up this week, made even more relevant by all of the tablet rumors flying around lately. John...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

10 Comments

Filter by:
Tironius

By the way, nice career move, dude... You used to work at Apple, and now you work for the prestigious, revered, Mac Observer. HUH? Probably because he has loose lips.

And actually, seems like this article breaks the contract he signed as an Apple employee to not divulge company info.

January 08 2010 at 10:50 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Tironius's comment
John Doe

don't you understand? he's self promoting, aaand .... he is talking out of his buttcheeks.

dude's saying exactly nothing. see my earlier comment.

yes, apple's secrecy fetish is interesting. but apple is no different from any other company that tries to manage its message. talking to reporters not-for-attribution isn't new. goofy theories about stock manipulation/divided responsibility are dumbspeak.

January 09 2010 at 12:52 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Blaktornado

I wish TUAW was invited to the Apple press meetings... You guys do a good job.

January 08 2010 at 5:55 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
terssi

What, SJ is not posting straight on /. anymore?

http://slashdot.org/~As+Seen+On+TV/comments

January 08 2010 at 3:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mr Lizard

You're too slowwwwwwwwwww tuaw.

January 08 2010 at 1:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
John Doe

The "controlled leak" pseudo-analysis is a wee bit silly. This is what reporters and sources do all the time: They talk to each other, and they get/give information.

"Divided responsibility"? Keep Mossberg "above the fray"? Stock manipulation?????

It's not that complicated, folks. It's just not that complicated.

January 08 2010 at 12:38 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mickey

Not to change the subject...but that is one nasty looking leaky faucet in the photo.

January 08 2010 at 9:38 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Scotty

I can't remember anything Apple announced that could be described as a 'bargain'...

So, don't build your hopes up.

January 08 2010 at 9:21 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Scotty's comment
SIP

Depends on the definition of "bargain"...

To me, Apple products are competitively priced when you see what other, similar products cost with the same things that Apple supplies as standard.

At the end of the day, the user experience also costs $$$, and that depends entirely upon the individual. I paid full price for an iPhone 3GS on PAYG (which I then jailbroke to use with my current network) but I wouldn't ever pay full price for any other phone.

A Lexus has every conceivable extra, which cost loads as options on Mercedes Benz and BMWs, yet people will pay the extra options for the user experience. I'd rather drive a BMW than a Lexus.

January 08 2010 at 4:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Ben Murray

i think you're missing one of the most valuable things about a leak - providing a nice surprise.

i.e. the WSJ was suggessting a price around $1000. If this becomes what people expect then Apple deliver for, say, $599 it will seem a bargain...

January 08 2010 at 8:42 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.