Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

techemails.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#61

Post by shmerl »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #48
shmerl wrote: post #2

> So, for example If Adobe comes in with an app that links to new web apps that they promote we need to allow that "app store" in, even worse Google could come up with an app that runs all their 3rd party Chrome web apps and we would need to allow that in too! I don't see why we want to do that. All these apps won't be native, they won't have a relationship or license with us, we won't review them, they won't use our…

To be fair, the amount of effort that Apple puts into their APIs is well above the industry standard. Cocoa and Cocoa Touch stand with few peers when it comes to depth, breadth, and quality which has been a big factor in the success of their platforms. They’re some of the few SDKs where if you want to, you can produce a top tier app without importing a single third party library, which is no small feat. In their shoe…

That's never really an excuse for lock-in. If they are so superior, they wouldn't need to worry about developers not using them, right?

Using tools as a way to control developers is just disgusting.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#62

Post by ryandrake »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #43
hgsgm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? As a web app developer or user, the browser engine is low on my list of priorities. Browser engine preferences are about far more niche concerns.

As a web app developer your perspective actually makes you desire a monopoly so you only have to test once. But, as a person I don't want that situation at all.

I don’t know a single non-technical end user that even knows what web “engine” powers their browser, let alone cares. This is not something real people remotely think about.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#63

Post by neximo64 »

htk wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular view here, but I'm surprised how professional they are in these exchanges. I would expect a much more visceral discussion on how the other party is trying to bypass paying them, how they can get more money the other way, etc.

I don't know why that's surprising. Visceral exchanges are a sign of weakness in corporate culture, even internally within companies. I have not seen that universally amongst all countries in the world but it is certainly true in the US.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#64

Post by Reubend »

rmadriz wrote: post #19
Dudester230602 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your store is big you can sabotage your providers: Apple to Facebook. If your store is small your providers can sabotage you: Google to Microsoft (Windows Phone). I wonder whom will Apple be begging for more content for their Vision - perhaps Valve? Big respect to Apple though for inadvertently protecting their customers from web "apps". But times will change...

> I wonder whom will Apple be begging for more content for their Vision - perhaps Valve? If you're talking gaming content for Vision, I think they would go with Sony. They have what seems to be a good partnership. There's official support for the dualsense on apple devices and apple brought AppleMusic to the playstation store. Steve Jobs himself was a fan of Sony[1] [1]: https://www.kitguru.net/lifestyle/mobile/apple…

Sony competes with Vision, since they sell PS VR. I suspect that they wouldn't want to cannibalize sales of their own hardware/platform in order to forge a partnership with Apple.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#65

Post by ryandrake »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #8
badsectoracula wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The objection could very well be for security reasons. It could also be for control over users but claiming "security reasons" whenever anyone asks since that has become a "think of the children" topic in tech.

Sure I don’t disagree. My point was that the quote isn’t “proof.”

The thing I took away from this exchange was the total lack of discussion about what’s in the end user’s best interest. What’s best for the user’s experience? It’s all “We want this” and “Facebook wants that” and the end user is just a bystander. Nobody cares what we think or want.

For all these companies’ marketing-talk about how they care so much about the end user experience, the executives don’t seem all that interested.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#66

Post by lanza »

tyingq wrote: post #24
htk wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular view here, but I'm surprised how professional they are in these exchanges. I would expect a much more visceral discussion on how the other party is trying to bypass paying them, how they can get more money the other way, etc.

They've developed a sort of polite code that stands in for more precise/honest wording they would use in person. Execs understand the discoverable nature of email.

I'm not an exec, but I've worked with people that make millions in big tech. You just don't get there unless you are fantastically competent at what you do. Pettiness and immaturity really just is an inefficiency that nobody wants to deal with at that level. When the decisions you are making are measured in the 10s to 100s of millions then nobody else will tolerate a second of your emotions. You'll quickly find yourself outside the group of trust if you're not being objective.

This has an accepted caveat that the most powerful one or two people can always throw in some nonsense. e.g. Jobs saying "FeceBook" and just suggesting a quick, unproven solution. When nobody can overrule you it doesn't matter. But the rest of them would get railed for wasting time.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#67

Post by asveikau »

tambourine_man wrote: post #57
tracerbulletx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe.

That would explain it. But then again, why not use Signal or something similar for sensitive topics.

I have to imagine any requirements on email retention would apply to signal too, and that your phone with its local plaintext database can be subpoenaed.

The threat model for signal is not to get you out of your legal obligation to comply with court orders.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#68

Post by pcurve »

htk wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular view here, but I'm surprised how professional they are in these exchanges. I would expect a much more visceral discussion on how the other party is trying to bypass paying them, how they can get more money the other way, etc.

Well, in the exchange, Jobs says "Fecebooks". I wonder if that was a Freudian slip. :)

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#69

Post by cdibona »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #22

I rabbit-holed to the 2005 "irate call" from Steve Jobs: https://www.techemails.com/p/sergey-brin-irate-call-from-ste... Does anyone know who was the REDACTED browser expert being recruited by Google?

Yea, but,not gonna share. What I told Sergey was to tell Steve 'you can't take a person away from a job they love'

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#70

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

bsaul wrote: post #25

reading this makes wonder what scott forstall is doing now. I hope he's not completely disgusted by what happened to him at apple and will get back to creating tech. We need people with truely innovative ideas from that era.

He was the reason the iphone took off along with the hardware. It was truly a thing of beauty and we have gone downhill on ux since.
Post reply on HN