On Monday the WSJ posted an article confirming the tablet device, estimated ship date, and cost. MacObserver believes this report had all the earmarks of a controlled leak by Apple.
John Martellaro, who was once a Senior Marketing Manager at Apple, describes the process.
The way it works is that a senior exec will come in and say, "We need to release this specific information. John, do you have a trusted friend at a major outlet? If so, call him/her and have a conversation. Idly mention this information and suggest that if it were published, that would be nice. No e-mails!"
The communication is always done in person or on the phone. Never via e-mail. That's so that if there's ever any dispute about what transpired, there's no paper trail to contradict either party's version of the story. Both sides can maintain plausible deniability and simply claim a misunderstanding. That protects Apple and the publication.
Martellaro suggests that Mossberg was bypassed in the leak to let him remain above the fray. Instead two journalists were involved so that they could point the finger at each other and the WSJ posted the article late in the day so no one could say it was done to manipulate the stock market.
In regards to why Apple decided to leak this news, Martellaro outlines a few reasons:
* to light a fire under a recalcitrant partner
* to float the idea of the US$1,000 price point and gauge reaction
* to panic/confuse a potential competitor about whom Apple had some knowledge
* to whet analyst and observer expectations to make sure the right kind and number of people show up at the (presumed) January 26 event. Apple hates empty seats and demands SRO at these events.
Read More
John Martellaro, who was once a Senior Marketing Manager at Apple, describes the process.
The way it works is that a senior exec will come in and say, "We need to release this specific information. John, do you have a trusted friend at a major outlet? If so, call him/her and have a conversation. Idly mention this information and suggest that if it were published, that would be nice. No e-mails!"
The communication is always done in person or on the phone. Never via e-mail. That's so that if there's ever any dispute about what transpired, there's no paper trail to contradict either party's version of the story. Both sides can maintain plausible deniability and simply claim a misunderstanding. That protects Apple and the publication.
Martellaro suggests that Mossberg was bypassed in the leak to let him remain above the fray. Instead two journalists were involved so that they could point the finger at each other and the WSJ posted the article late in the day so no one could say it was done to manipulate the stock market.
In regards to why Apple decided to leak this news, Martellaro outlines a few reasons:
* to light a fire under a recalcitrant partner
* to float the idea of the US$1,000 price point and gauge reaction
* to panic/confuse a potential competitor about whom Apple had some knowledge
* to whet analyst and observer expectations to make sure the right kind and number of people show up at the (presumed) January 26 event. Apple hates empty seats and demands SRO at these events.
Read More