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

No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#51

Post by knorker »

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Apple is super aggressively swinging their hammer to protect their brand.

During a technical talk at a nieche conference, a speaker had an apple logo on a slide, along other logos, to illustrate devices.

An Apple employee stood up and shut down the whole presentation, demanding that the presenter, RIGHT NOW, edit the slides to remove the apple logo, or he would not "let" the presentation continue.

Representatives from other companies did not care about their logo also being up there.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#52

Post by jacobsimon »

lolinder wrote: post #19

The headline and article text make this confusing, but I'm pretty sure that Stewart is saying that Apple did block him from having her on the podcast that they sponsored, not that Apple expressed any opinion at all about him having her on the Daily Show. This is part of Apple's general heavy-handedness which caused him to quit, not an attempt to block Khan in other outlets.

Not sure why the article is calling it a podcast, I think they’re referring to his TV show on Apple TV.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#53

Post by johnnyanmac »

bko wrote: post #44
retrac wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If others want to compete they should offer something as compelling Perhaps they cannot? Monopolies can apply to the purchase of labour, too. Indeed, the lack of viable competition, would be circumstantial evidence, to support the argument that there is a monopoly. Monopolies will sometimes overpay for labour in the same way they will undercharge for products - it can squeeze competitors out.

It's not a closed system with a fixed number of employees. They overpay for labor, which encourages more engineers to go into the field, which increases supply. Never underestimate the elasticity of supply. Sorry but you're not going to convince me that high wages are a bad thing.

>Sorry but you're not going to convince me that high wages are a bad thing.

that's like saying all movies on demand for one subscription is a bad thing. It isn't... until it creeps into being a bad thing.

The high wages were the attractive bailey no one can argue with and we're seeing the motte rear its ugly head in a time where they are nigh impossible to compete with. I don't think "encouraging more engineers" is a good mechanism to encourage a monopoly.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#54

Post by ceejayoz »

ghaff wrote: post #50
ceejayoz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post upthread didn't assert they hoarded talent by paying more . They hoarded talent by conspiring to make it harder to leave, which had the bonus of not having to pay them as much.

Of course paying higher salaries is a big part of it. Yes, they're also somewhat prestigious to some people and imagine there's at least some interesting work. But it's lot like they're chaining people to their desks or generally forcing people into unbreakable long-term employment contracts. In CA, there aren't even non-competes generally. Most people at Google, to name one, are free to walk out the door tomorrow.

> Of course paying higher salaries is a big part of it.

They were actively attempting to avoid that.

https://www.cnet.com/culture/jobs-e-mail-to-schmidt-suggests...

"In another e-mail exchange between two vice presidents at Google, the pair talk about ways to 'never get into bidding wars' on potential talent with Schmidt and longtime Apple board member Bill Campbell being copied in on it."

> But it's lot like they're chaining people to their desks or generally forcing people into unbreakable long-term employment contracts. In CA, there aren't even non-competes generally.

This wasn't contractual. This was direct anti-competitive conspiracy between top executives.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#55

Post by lolinder »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #47
lolinder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth asking how we can make our systems safer against large corporations shady influence. Just to be clear, this story is about Apple exerting editorial control over content that they paid for, not about them trying to influence the content on the Daily Show. Anyone who's worked in media has stories of topics being suppressed by the owners, and that's definitely something that could stand to be more transpare…

I'm failing to see how that makes this any better.

You don't see the difference between "knowing who pays for the content can help you understand the content's biases" and "large corporations exert editorial control over content that has no overt relationship to them"?

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#56

Post by kalleboo »

jacobsimon wrote: post #52
lolinder wrote: post #19

The headline and article text make this confusing, but I'm pretty sure that Stewart is saying that Apple did block him from having her on the podcast that they sponsored, not that Apple expressed any opinion at all about him having her on the Daily Show. This is part of Apple's general heavy-handedness which caused him to quit, not an attempt to block Khan in other outlets.

Not sure why the article is calling it a podcast, I think they’re referring to his TV show on Apple TV.

There was a podcast that went along with the Apple TV show. He wanted to interview her on the podcast, not on the TV show. But the AI and China segments they blocked were for the TV show.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#57

Post by riffraff »

shmatt wrote: post #6

Is there any doubt in the world that his current employer - the Redstone family, also have limits on what can be discussed and how on their channels?

They probably do, but since he left Apple to go back to Comedy Central, it would appear the limits they have are not as bad.

Judging by the sole existence of South Park on CC, it seems they put a fairly high bar on what they allowed.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#58

Post by shmatt »

knorker wrote: post #51

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Apple is super aggressively swinging their hammer to protect their brand. During a technical talk at a nieche conference, a speaker had an apple logo on a slide, along other logos, to illustrate devices. An Apple employee stood up and shut down the whole presentation, demanding that the presenter, RIGHT NOW, edit the slides to remove the apple logo, or he would not "let" the presentation co…

I mean, does the employee have any power over that room? Sounds like a classic instance for security to kick them out

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#59

Post by tivert »

nyokodo wrote: post #42
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #3

Neoliberalism/anarcocapitalism has stoned these corporations, I hope it has arrived the day that we start putting them back in line by punishing well these monopolistic practices, anti unions strategies, stock dumping and buybacks, fiscal havens, mass layoffs, etc. it has gone out of hand. Companies can’t just leech out of general population undisturbed

> Neoliberalism/anarcocapitalism has stoned these corporations Either you’re implying that neoliberalism is the same as anarchocapitalism, or you’re suggesting that Apple embodies both at once. In the grand argument over how much government we need “neoliberals” would answer “less”, but a long way from answering “none” like the ancaps. Try and find an AnCap who wants government police, a state military, etc and then…

> anarchocapitalism

...is an inherently unserious and self-contradictory idea. It's the Ununoctium of political ideologies: it is so unstable that if ever realized it will decay in a microsecond to something entirely different. Anyone who treats it as something that could be stable and realizable should be mocked or ignored.

So, that said, I think the usage should in the GP should just be auto-corrected to "extreme capitalism" and left there.

Re: No joke: FTC boss goes on the Daily Show and is told Apple tried to block her

#60

Post by johnnyanmac »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #22
agos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's en masse because it's way more than the baseline firing rate

Hiring in that period was also way more than the baseline hiring rate. Some companies doubled their headcount in the span of ~2 years.

And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth.

It's a business and people have been numbed to companies being dishonest, but it's still a betrayal to hire so much, have them generate more money for your company, then drop them when convinient for the company.

Post reply on HN