As usual in the Forums, a whole bunch of different issues are tangled together.
Name: I don’t understand what the objection is to “Spectator Notes.” It clearly describes the purpose of the function, which “Malkovich” does not. “Malkovich” was a specialized allusion to begin with and becomes more obscure to the public at large with each passing year.
Purpose and Value: Malk provides great entertainment value and educational insight to kibitzers of higher-end, casual games. There used to be a lot of these on OGS, and they were great fun to watch, but they seem to have largely disappeared (I am not speaking of the many championship games that still exist). Malk is also fun for the players after the game because they can see what the opponent was thinking at different points. I value this highly, and I think others do as well. If a player is a cheat who turns himself into a spectator, that is a separate issue (see below).
Misunderstanding of Purpose or Function: This is separate from the purpose and the value and does not invalidate either. This is a problem of publicity and education, which are too obvious and tedious for me to bother discussing further.
Mobile Bug: If the Malk is not hidden from the opponent during the game, that sounds like a bug, as it contradicts the function for players not using mobile. It also sounds like something that could be fixed.
Private Notes: This seems like it would be a worthy addition that fulfills a need that Malk was never intended to satisfy. However, that does not usurp the purpose or value of Malk.
One or the Other: Why not both? Malk already exists and serves a unique purpose. Why get rid of it? Private Notes seems like a worthy addition for those who want it.
Cheats: Humans have a tremendous capacity for perverse ingenuity. Deal with it; please don’t deflect by attacking side issues. The only way to deal with cheats (from the player’s perspective) is not to play with them. Of course, you get burned once, then you stop. I once lost $10 on a poker hand (about $50 in today’s inflated money) to a player who was dealing seconds (as I belatedly realized). I left the game, and never played in another game that included him. It was a very educational experience. Of course, one can also use discernment to avoid most, if not all, cheats. People rarely, if ever, use Malk in live, non-exhibition games, so the possibility that the opponent will cheat by spectating is really an issue of correspondence play, where you can, if you want, try to pick honest opponents. If they prove unworthy, then mutter a curse to yourself and move on.