[mkaltenecker]

I’m thinking about whether this is an atypical reaction by Apple and I think it’s not but I’m not sure.

The pattern is typical – more or less. Some criticism appears. Apple is dead silent for a few days. Apple has a comprehensive response to the criticism. (Alternative that also happens frequently: Apple doesn’t ever mention the criticism.) That’s what used to happen in the past, that’s what nearly happened here.

The difference is that they responded with a different message pretty quickly after the criticism (arguing that EPAT isn’t such a great certification) so it’s not true that they staid completely silent.

When it comes to the message itself, I don’t think it’s that atypical. Apple rarely responds to criticism, so there are few situations we can use to compare. It’s not as big a deal as Atennagate – so they picked a less involved way to respond (basically a press release instead of a press conference) – but in every other respect it’s pretty similar.

This time there is a clearer Mea Culpa but the undertone is still that EPAT is a bad certification. (During the Antennagate press conference the undertone was that it’s not really that big of a deal – and it was a much more obvious undertone.) The tradition of Apple execs writing letters is also continued.

I would only say that Steve’s letters tended to be more about presenting arguments. That has certainly something to do with the different purposes (explain why DRM/Flash are bad vs. admit that you were wrong and reverse direction) but I still would have preferred if Bob Mansfield had explained more of Apple’s reasoning.

[ajross]

Are you sure you aren't too far into the tea leaves here? Swap out the specifics in what you wrote and it could describe basically any corporate PR organization. Not everything has to be a what-would-the-dead-guy-have-done-differently kind of analysis. They goofed. They thought the market didn't care about EPEAT. It did. They flipped. Yawn.

[mkaltenecker]

Hm, I think you have a point. I’m reading tea leaves. I still think that’s an interesting point to ponder, even if the results are probably highly subjective and very much open to interpretation.

[st3fan]

"Apple is dead silent for a few days." - Why is this special or even worth mentioning? You expect a multi-billion dollar company with 20K employees to discuss something like that happily in a public forum or so?

[gnaffle]

Most companies have "damage control" (PR) departments that move very quickly to respond to and contain any criticism before a story explodes.

[mkaltenecker]

You would think it’s not special or worth mentioning, wouldn’t you, but it actually kind of is. Many companies respond to a crisis with very confused initial communication before they get their shit together and can internally agree on a message and strategy.

Apple has been pretty consistent in being able to just stay silent until they really have something to say. (I think that has more to do with their general lack of chattiness than anything else, though.)

[ralfd]

John Gruber wrote on his blog that all federal US agencies require EPEAT for computer purchases. While government business is probably not that crucial for Apple, it was still stupid to withdraw all products from registration and explains the reversal of that decision.

[mkaltenecker]

But Apple knew about the consequence beforehand. It’s easy to predict. (I would expect that even companies which are not all that competent can foresee something simple like that.) I really doubt that’s the reason.

[earl]

I wonder if this was due to criticism, or cities and companies that have epeat requirements for purchasing.

   San Francisco officials told the Journal this week that "they are moving to 
   block purchases of Apple desktops and laptops, by all municipal agencies" 
   due to a 2007 policy that requires all desktops, laptops, and monitors 
   procured with city funds be EPEAT-certified. [1]

and

   In 2007, President George W. Bush issued an executive order mandating that 
   all federal agencies procure EPEAT-registered electronic products "for at 
   least 95 percent of electronic product acquisitions, unless there is no 
   EPEAT standard for the product," as outlined by the EPA. [1]

A lack of epeat bugs me, but I don't spend millions or tens of millions of dollars a year on computers.

[1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406948,00.asp

[mkaltenecker]

Hm, I tend to think Apple (or any company, really) is clever enough to foresee the obvious consequences of policy changes.

This is one of those. Apple knew that certain government agencies are required to purchase only EPEAT certified hardware. They knew they would lose that business. And they nevertheless decided for the change, knowing that consequence.

That leads me to think that Apple changed direction because of other consequences they did not expect and (apparently) could not predict, in this case the public outrage.

[schwartzmike]

Or, if you're a little cynical, you might think Apple orchestrated this whole thing as a little free PR.

[mkaltenecker]

I don’t see this as positive PR by any stretch of the imagination. This looks like Apple wanted to naughty things, got caught and had to reverse direction. Not positive.

If any conspiracy theory is plausible at all then it’s that they wanted to make EPEAT be more willing to change their standards – but I would imagine that even that is something you would rather do behind closed doors (maybe they did and it didn’t work).