News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

February 5, 2007

people

On Apple and anonymity: Who was that masked man?

Posted Feb. 5, ’07, 9:42 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Apple » People

Anonymous facesIn that brief period this week when we thought Fake Steve Jobs was kaput, I started thinking about how prevalent anonymity is in this community. At the moment, we have at least two active major pundits writing in anonymity: Fake Steve (if you can even call him a “pundit”) and The Macalope. If you care to drift into the past, we have both recent (Drunken Batman) and long ago (Mac the Knife) examples of this phenomenon as well. That’s not even counting the failed attempts by those such as The Masked Blogger.

So what is it about anonymity when it comes to the Mac community? The time-worn thesis for concealing one’s identity is that it provides a shield for a person whose position would jeopardized by the information they’re providing (call it the “Deep Throat” approach). Given Apple’s legendary secrecy and the lengths they’ll go to to keep it intact, anonymity could be a way for those in-the-know to protect their sources or themselves.

The Mac community has a love/hate relationship with secrecy; we hate being in the dark, but we love to try and figure out what exactly is being hidden from us. The people who complain that Apple should just say what they’re up to would be sorely disappointed if there was no surprise around the corner, no details to hash over, and no future products about which to endlessly speculate. So it’s hardly surprising that anonymous sources draw us for two reasons: first, the promise that they do in fact have some secret knowledge that we don’t; second, because they are in and of themselves a puzzle.

I actually met Drunken Batman at Macworld in 2006, and as far as I could tell, he was just an ordinary joe—his reputation was founded on the things he’d written about, not who he was. And unlike Deep Throat, Drunken Batman had true anonymity—even when you met him, you had no idea who he was, because he wasn’t anybody in particular. The same I’d wager is true of El Macalopo and Fake Steve. If they’re ever unmasked, the response is likely not to be “Ohhhhh” but “Who?”

And in the case of Fake Steve, knowing the identity of the author would compromise the experience; like a stage magician revealing his tricks, it would destroy the illusion. While the rational part of our brains know that this isn’t really Steve Jobs’s secret diary, we enjoy the pretense that maybe it just could be.

And, of course anonymity is liberating. When you don’t have to attach your name to something, you can feel free to say all sorts of things. Critics might call this cowardice, but that’s not quite right. Writing under anonymity is all about crafting a persona: in some ways, it’s more like writing fiction than anything else. For prime examples, look no further than Robert X. Cringely.

Why spend so much time wondering about this? Well, it’s an interesting phenomenon, and one that, for better or worse, appears to be inextricably linked with our community. The Mac field is of course not the only place you can find anonymity, but it’s definitely one of the most prevalent examples.

But anonymity is kind of a contradiction. Yes, it hides your identity, but it also draws attention to you. Mac blogs are a dime a dozen; it’s hard to make one stand out from the crowd. Even those with good writers and good content—the type that, in theory, should rise to the top—can often go unnoticed. Unless they have a shtick. And anonymity is a heck of a shtick.

And for those of us who do put our names to our work, anonymity is, well, enviable at times. It can make us wonder if we’re at a disadvantage by having our identities tied to what we produce. Would people pay more attention to the random Mac musings of the shadowy, mysterious “Man Doren”?

I don’t mean to disparage the work of any of the particular anonymous contributors I’ve mentioned—I’ve read and enjoyed work from all of them. And in their cases, that’s more a credit to their writing and their content than to the gimmick of anonymity. I realize this is really more of an offhand musing than anything else, but it’s one that continues to fascinate me.

Do you read these anonymous blogs, or do you think they’re all tomfoolery? Why do you think they’re so common in the Mac world? Let ‘er rip below.


4 Comments

Moe said:

Dude, your post is too long. MacUser is usually brief and entertaining. (not saying this piece isn't entertaining, I'm just too lazy to read all of it).

Then again, its lazy monday!!

February 5, 2007 9:56 AM
Donn said:

To further elaborate on the idea that the Mac pundit readership needs the secrecy, I invoke Spock: "You will find that having is not nearly so pleasing a thing as wanting." - Amok Time

February 5, 2007 10:00 AM
DarthMac said:

I'd forgotten Mac the Knife, thanks for the reminder.

February 5, 2007 12:34 PM
I'm no one said:

I don't care who The Macalope is, he's a John Doe from Iowa or an antelope from south-eastern Africa. What should I care? His posts are insighful and entertaining, that's all I seek.

February 5, 2007 3:53 PM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: