Earlier quoted context omitted.
Encrypt the email, rotate and delete keys after 18months.
Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe.
Based on what?
Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
81–90 of 143 posts
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#82> 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…
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.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#83This 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.
Any manager let alone high-ranking exec is instructed (in management training and through many many reminders) not to put anything in writing that they would not want in precisely these types of leaks.
[dead]
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#84Earlier 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 don't understand? As long as someone has the relevant decrypted message chain it can be subpoenaed.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#85Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#86Earlier 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.
It's illegal when a company has a monopoly, but otherwise that's the nature of business. The line of thought that 'apple has a monopoly in iPhone software distribution' never seemed very compelling to me since they don't have a monopoly on mobile phones in general.
You are using term "monopoly" in a misleading way there. It should be illegal when it's causing harm to competition and it totally does. It doesn't need to be an absolute monopoly to be a problem. The fact that competition law is toothless today to address it speaks badly about how it's applied, not about this being a non issue.
Apple has enough control on the market to cause harm to it by stiffing Web standards for example without being an absolute monopoly.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe.
Based on what?
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#88Earlier 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…
I wouldn't call that competence. Conformity would be closer to the truth, but that's not exactly right either. Success in corporate world – or in any large organization – requires that you can ignore your preferences and focus on doing what you are supposed to do. While being good at what you do helps, it's more important to prioritize your role above your person.
That conformity can be a personality trait, or it can be a facade. You usually can't tell the difference. Successful people can be petty and immature behind closed doors, while faking conformity in public.
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#89Earlier 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.
Just because they don’t think about it doesn’t mean it is good for them. (E.g. sugar in almost everything that kids eat).
Re: Apple Execs on Facebook (2011)
#90> 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…
They don’t make that argument at all in the quote you pulled. The objection could very well be for security reasons.
Aka the mob argument