Objectively Evaluating Rumor Sites

A few well-know columnists have posted their opinions on Apple's dispute with rumor sites. A few odd things have turned up, though. For some reason, these columnists keep referring to the rumor sites as "blogs." I can't see how this applies, so I'm guessing it's just due to fact that blog became a buzzword during the presidential election.

I've also seen the rumor sites referred to as "fan sites." While the people that run them are typically fans of the platform, these aren't fan sites in the truest sense. What the sites do is obtain information that Apple goes to great extents to keep secret, and releases it to the entire internet, selling some ads along the way. This is information that the site operators know Apple doesn't want released, but they release it anyway.

If, for example, a U2 fan had early access to an upcoming album and posted song samples on the internet (which has actually happened), wouldn't the band have the right to try to stop it? Could anybody blame them? Wouldn't it be a bigger deal if the material was hosted by a site which sold ads?

The Difference
So why is Apple not given the same leeway as a band? I believe the reason is that the computer industry as a whole has a "nuts and bolts" culture. There's some excitement for things on the horizon, but only in the geekiest conceivable manner. Perhaps this is because there's rarely anything truly interesting being cooked up. It's typically another x86 chip at a slightly higher clock rate, a Windows service pack, or the next version of Office. If that sort of information gets out earlier, it's there's no real harm done. In fact, it may may create artifical excitement.

Apple, by contrast, is run by artists. An artist rarely wants to unveil a work until it's ready to be shown. Initial impressions are huge, both emotionally and practically. Rumors sites sometimes deconstruct a product down to bare-bone specs, or leave out crucial details that matter to a real person. Can you imagine a site which talking about an unreleased album by discussing the chord progressions?

Practical Effect
When opinions are formed prematurely by readers, the effect multiplies as they tell their friends. It robs the creator of the chance to explain the thing in their own words. I think Apple deserves that chance. Members of certain online communities find this whoile thing nonsensical, but I think it takes a certain set of experience to realize how real this effect is.

I am particularly passionate about this as a developer because I know how much effort it takes to write really good software, and choosing the time to unveil it is a big part of the emotional payoff. I also particularly care about this as a Mac OS X developer, because my well-being is partially dependent on Apple's. In other words, I don't want to have to go write Windows software someday.  :)

The Bottom Line
While a first amendment claim is not unexpected, I think of it as trying to win on a technicality. Information on Tiger and the Mac mini does not involve human rights, social well-being or government corruption. Fortunately, the Santa Clara judge seems to be aware of this rather vital fact.

I take commentary by professional computer industry columnists with a grain of salt. More than a few of them regularly post comments on unannounced products, sometimes on Apple products. They must realize this could rob them of future material so it's difficult for them to be objective about it at all.

While I think there's too much litigation in the industry in general, I do believe Apple is well within their moral rights to try to reign in rampant leaks on major releases.

People make mistakes, so I don't want to see harsh punishments. I'd just like to see the leaks stop.

Comments Temporarily Disabled

I had to temporarily disable comments due to spam. I'll re-enable them soon.