5 ms·

> Like, shouldn't he have had this already with some employee on the inside? How is this e-mail chain in any way evidence that Apple has not had internal debat

> Like, shouldn't he have had this already with some employee on the inside? How is this e-mail chain in any way evidence that Apple has not had internal debate or that no one has the guts to disagree with Steve Jobs?

itistoday 16y ago
I'm not claiming it's definitive evidence, I'm just saying it seems to suggest it. Apple has made a lot of really ethically questionable moves, and is being quite hypocritical in many cases. This is obvious to me, and others. So when someone on the outside brought this up, Steve Jobs responded in a way that almost seems like it's the first time he's having this debate. That's just my take on it. Or do you really think that many at Apple had this same or similar kind of debate with Jobs, and then he's willing to publicly have it again with Tate? His arguments are just too weak and unpolished for it, and it's surprising he's responding to Tate at all if he's already deliberated it internally and settled on his position.
- bbatsell 16y ago
  I think the willingness of a famously reclusive CEO to engage in a debate at 1 AM on a Friday night with a random, verbally aggressive blogger with whom he has no familiarity is not indicative of an executive who shies away from internal debate.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    OK, so are you saying he has these kinds of debates at Apple with his fellow coworkers and then goes home and continues to have the same debates at 1AM with the rest of the world? Instead of doing... anything else? I'm willing to believe that as a possibility. As in physically possible. You don't find that at least a little surprising though? Really?
    - elblanco 16y ago
      Jobs' near terrorizing of his own employees is pretty well known. It wouldn't surprise me if he hasn't really had a long serious internal debate on this...with the answers well rehearsed and ready to go. Either he just likes endless conflict, or he's only just begun to hear these things direct.
- IdeaHamster 16y ago
  Apple has made a lot of really ethically questionable moves... Selling people a product that will give them cancer and telling them it makes them look cool is an ethically questionable move. Restricting the programming languages that can be used to develop for your platform is not.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    I'd say it's pretty ethically questionable to harm people's livelyhoods to settle a score with an unrelated company and to then make claims that you're doing this to ensure "quality" on the platform while simultaneously demoing a quality app that violates your own rules. Umm.. Yeah. I've come to the conclusion that this debate isn't worth participating in anymore. People don't get the bullshit Apple is pulling or are willing to look past it because of the superb quality of the iDevices and the App Store gravy train. It's hard to explain it in a paragraph. And when you explain it in detail people don't listen. You get comments like the above. You get people saying "Flash sucks" when Flash has nothing to do with it. I just don't have the time anymore, sorry. Bury away.
    - jballanc 16y ago
      I'd say it's pretty ethically questionable to harm people's livelyhoods... Livelihoods? Or shots at a quick buck for relatively little work building on the back of someone else's invention?
      - jarek 16y ago
        I hate the Facebook apps!-iPhone apps!-social games!-iPad apps! gold rushes as much as everyone else, if not more, but it can be both. Apple doesn't legally owe gold rush developers a livelihood, but the ethics are not so clear cut, especially when they pull a Facebook-like policy switch after people have already invested.
        IdeaHamster 16y ago
        Last I checked, the agreement that iPhone developers enter into says nothing about their rights regarding freedom of development language...in fact I think this whole fuss is about it doing the exact opposite. Nobody promised these devs anything, as far as I know. I suppose Apple could've put a warning on the sign-up page: "Warning! You're developing software for a platform that we control and may decide to alter at any point in time." ...but honestly, how many devs would've turned around and walked away if they had?

itistoday 16y ago

I'm not claiming it's definitive evidence, I'm just saying it seems to suggest it. Apple has made a lot of really ethically questionable moves, and is being quite hypocritical in many cases. This is obvious to me, and others. So when someone on the outside brought this up, Steve Jobs responded in a way that almost seems like it's the first time he's having this debate. That's just my take on it. Or do you really think that many at Apple had this same or similar kind of debate with Jobs, and then he's willing to publicly have it again with Tate? His arguments are just too weak and unpolished for it, and it's surprising he's responding to Tate at all if he's already deliberated it internally and settled on his position.

bbatsell 16y ago
I think the willingness of a famously reclusive CEO to engage in a debate at 1 AM on a Friday night with a random, verbally aggressive blogger with whom he has no familiarity is not indicative of an executive who shies away from internal debate.
- itistoday 16y ago
  OK, so are you saying he has these kinds of debates at Apple with his fellow coworkers and then goes home and continues to have the same debates at 1AM with the rest of the world? Instead of doing... anything else? I'm willing to believe that as a possibility. As in physically possible. You don't find that at least a little surprising though? Really?
  - elblanco 16y ago
    Jobs' near terrorizing of his own employees is pretty well known. It wouldn't surprise me if he hasn't really had a long serious internal debate on this...with the answers well rehearsed and ready to go. Either he just likes endless conflict, or he's only just begun to hear these things direct.
IdeaHamster 16y ago
Apple has made a lot of really ethically questionable moves... Selling people a product that will give them cancer and telling them it makes them look cool is an ethically questionable move. Restricting the programming languages that can be used to develop for your platform is not.
- itistoday 16y ago
  I'd say it's pretty ethically questionable to harm people's livelyhoods to settle a score with an unrelated company and to then make claims that you're doing this to ensure "quality" on the platform while simultaneously demoing a quality app that violates your own rules. Umm.. Yeah. I've come to the conclusion that this debate isn't worth participating in anymore. People don't get the bullshit Apple is pulling or are willing to look past it because of the superb quality of the iDevices and the App Store gravy train. It's hard to explain it in a paragraph. And when you explain it in detail people don't listen. You get comments like the above. You get people saying "Flash sucks" when Flash has nothing to do with it. I just don't have the time anymore, sorry. Bury away.
  - jballanc 16y ago
    I'd say it's pretty ethically questionable to harm people's livelyhoods... Livelihoods? Or shots at a quick buck for relatively little work building on the back of someone else's invention?
    - jarek 16y ago
      I hate the Facebook apps!-iPhone apps!-social games!-iPad apps! gold rushes as much as everyone else, if not more, but it can be both. Apple doesn't legally owe gold rush developers a livelihood, but the ethics are not so clear cut, especially when they pull a Facebook-like policy switch after people have already invested.
      - IdeaHamster 16y ago
        Last I checked, the agreement that iPhone developers enter into says nothing about their rights regarding freedom of development language...in fact I think this whole fuss is about it doing the exact opposite. Nobody promised these devs anything, as far as I know. I suppose Apple could've put a warning on the sign-up page: "Warning! You're developing software for a platform that we control and may decide to alter at any point in time." ...but honestly, how many devs would've turned around and walked away if they had?