Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m betting it was none only but Ben Goodger. There’s no way you guys would have been coping that hard about it otherwise.
Article says the referral of [REDACTED] was made by Ben Goodger.
Ahh
Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
121–130 of 143 posts
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#122This 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.
[dead]
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#123This 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 sure there's a lot of polite code here. They are knowingly and intentionally killing a Facebook feature so that it can't compete with the app store. It goes to show you how lax antitrust enforcement when such blatantly anti competitive actions go unpunished.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#124Amazing to read pages and pages of AppStore rule minutia (Facebook Credits vs. directory-listing vs. heuristics for what links "look like apps") with basically zero regard for user experience (Scott comes closest to this by acknowledging he wouldn't use a completely gutted Facebook app). Everything is about positioning, or what this means with respect to other big players like Adobe if they let this slide, etc. I would have imagined they would have at least been so bought into their own party line that they would have convinced themselves that "We can't allow this because all those apps are junk and we want a pristine experience on the iPad! This is our chance to avoid all that!" But nope, it's all just business.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that surprised me the most is there’s no mention of what makes a better product for the user. It’s all business strategy and scheming to build a silo. I hope regulators obliterate the platform owners.
But then they'd also have to obliterate Microsoft, Google, and who knows what else. This won't happen.
But the user as almost full control of a M$ and google device.
These are not related unless I'm misunderstanding.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about using their APIs and tools. It's about banning competition. That is beyond controversial - it should be illegal. What they should be doing? Competing on merit. Not pushing lock-in.
Allowing third party also circumnavigates Apple's approval process. Personally I don't care about giving up choice if it means reduction of spam.
On a similar note, I'm happy Reddit is reducing third party apps.
Prevents spammy reddit apps.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#127>I agree - if we eliminate Fecebooks third proposal it sounds reasonable.
>Remove:Tapping on one of these app-related links would (3) link out to Safari otherwise.
That made me sick reading it.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#128This 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'm too young to say this with a straight face, but I'll say it regardless: I miss when writing communiques was considered an art in its own right. You were measured socially by how eloquently you wrote letters and missives. It has become a lost art in the age of email and subsequently texting and instant messaging.
I felt that way too, but now that we have GPT bots, I wonder if the only way I can discern humans from GPT is via the use of ever evolving shorthand.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 yours…
> You just don't get there unless you are fantastically competent at what you do. lol, or you convince Softbank to hand you a hundred million dollars. There are some competent people in tech but just because you're an executive doesn't mean you are competent, rational, or even smart.
But convincing SoftBank to give you money is being a good executive.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would explain it. But then again, why not use Signal or something similar for sensitive topics.
Several employees of the world's largest banks actually tried this. Result? Almost $2 billion in fines. https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-street-to-pay-1-8-billion-...
That’s interesting, thanks.
Article is paywalled, but how can it be proved they’re using something like Signal? There must be at least some discussion available to be disclosured on request by law? How do they define if the subject is relevant enough to require a formal exchange between executives?
The world of big public companies is fascinating.