Corporations have to adjust to the new era of radical transparency, says slavishly trend-following magazine, Wired. Which means it's time for a debunk. Read past Robert Scoble's self-aggrandizing anecdote about one of his guests, who was fired for appearing on the video blogger's boring chat show. Further down the item, Scoble, a former Microsoft "evangelist", actually reveals something interesting about his former employer's public relations strategy. "I'm hearing from my friends on the Windows team that Steven Sinofsky ... has made it clear he doesn't want anyone talking about the next version of Windows." The reason, suspects Scoble: Microsoft has learned, from Apple's Steve Jobs, that discretion is the better part of publicity. "Steve Jobs is MANUFACTURING great PR by keeping everyone's mouth shut." Hunh? First of all, Microsoft is praised for allowing employees, Scoble once among them, to talk to the outside world; Redmond is the corporate poster-child of the new radical transparency. But, at the same time, it needs to learn from Apple's secrecy-obsessed boss. So which is it?

Both, actually. Microsoft, like other monolithic corporations, has humanized itself by allowing employees to speak and write in everyday language, even if the company's corporate communications police don't always approve. The Redmond software giant has fewer enemies than it once did because its market dominance has softened; but also because it is recognizably a collection of individuals. Irritating though spokesbloggers like Scoble may be; it's hard to fear them the way the faceless software giant once was.

At the same time, however, tech products are bought, increasingly, by consumers; and their launch needs to handled much as one would market a new movie. Some advance buzz is useful, but one doesn't want to give too much away, too soon; it's essential to time the run-up so consumers aren't bored before the product even launches, as they were with Vista, Microsoft's new operating system. A carefully controlled publicity schedule demand discipline, discretion, and timing — all of which conflict with full-time radical transparency.

Which strategy, then, will corporations choose? The answer will vary. A software application for enterprises, for instance, may need to be pitched to analysts before corporate customers will buy. A platform — a product which requires the cooperation of third parties to become valuable — may benefit from buzz among key developers, before it's formally launched. And gadgets, applications and web sites may be advised to go for the slow build-up if they don't have the power of Steve Jobs, or Microsoft, to demand attention to a formal launch.

On balance, however, I suspect that the iPhone's success — even if it owes more to technical brilliance than Steve Jobs' supposedly mesmerizing marketing skills — will have an effect. Radical transparency — if it gets geeks excited months before a launch and leaves the public unmoved when the product finally arrives — is counter-productive. Who wants a bunch of jargon-spouting geeks putting the word out?

By contrast, Apple provides a carefully scheduled calendar, with all the reassuring regularity of national holidays; one knows when to pay attention; and, if you fall out of love with a gadget, you've probably already bought it. Steve Jobs never bought into the notion that companies need to bare all. And, you know what, we don't really want him to.