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

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#131

Post by pyrale »

astrange wrote: post #35
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…

If other browsers were allowed Chrome would become an all-platform monopoly and there would no longer be real web standards.

I guess regulators could also antitrust Google in a balancing act.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#132

Post by shmerl »

doctor_eval wrote: post #102
shmerl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read what competition law is about. It's not simply about absolute monopoly which is an extreme edge case. It's about harm to competition. Anti-competitive practices totally should be illegal.

> Read what competition law is about OK > Anti-competitive practices totally should be illegal So are there competition laws that make it illegal, or do you wish there were? Are you asking for enforcement ? Or are you just hoping for change?

Concepts in current competition law are good enough already. Its enforcement is toothless though. So yeah, I'm asking for enforcement.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#133

Post by simonh »

rahilb wrote: post #129
saagarjha wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Poster has a good point. There are all sorts of corporate cultures, but the previous poster is right too, there are many big corps where upper management is hyper competent to an extent most muggles, me included, find it hard to fathom. That doesn't make them infallible at all, but just being able to operate at that level even slightly is shockingly demanding.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#134

Post by anthlax »

tyingq wrote: post #46
anthlax wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link to this?

This one seems to have the most source material: https://9to5google.com/2013/01/23/court-docs-reveal-email-ex... Including the exchange with Schmidt talking about a "paper trail" and thus the preference to "do it verbally". Though that part of the discussion seems Google internal and not between Apple and Google. https://9to5google.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/pa...

Thanks!

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#135

Post by pie420 »

hospitalJail wrote: post #126
pxue wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

spammy reddit apps?

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#136

Post by lern_too_spel »

lanza wrote: post #66
tyingq wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yours…

> 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.

I could list dozens of counterexamples. To burn two bridges that nobody will ever need again, Steve Jobs (even before he made Apple into a juggernaut) and Vic Gundotra would like a screaming word with you. I don't know if Musk was petty and immature before he became essential, but it's possible. Or maybe you mean that people can get there without being fantastically competent, but they eventually fail hard.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#137

Post by shmerl »

detourdog wrote: post #117
shmerl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an argument to trust developers and business school grads as opposed to a company that I have a 40+ relationship with. If you want developer freedom choose a different platform. Apple is for users and not developers. We all have the freedom to do whatever we want. Why some people choose to constantly rail against a company they think is ridiculous os mystifying. Move on bless some other platform with your gif…

Not buying this argument. This should be illegal and not excused with "choose a different platform". That's all there is to it.

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#138

Post by zitterbewegung »

ryandrake wrote: post #62
zitterbewegung wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say real people...

Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)

#139

Post by Terretta »

tolmasky wrote: post #124

Amazing 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 wou…

> they would have convinced themselves that "We can't allow this because all those apps are junk and we want a pristine experience

It's understood, and also mentioned:

"All these apps won't be native, ... we won't review them, they won't use our APIs or tools..."

Post reply on HN