4 ms·
Maybe this is a case where the old adage applies: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a byzantine organizational structure in which
by wincent 7y ago
Maybe this is a case where the old adage applies: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a byzantine organizational structure in which the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing".
While its certainly plausible that Apple engaged in some kind of two-faced corporate espionage here, another plausible explanation is that Apple is an enormous company, and the part of it that was working on Sidecar had little or no connection at all with the part that was talking to Astropad.
- mattnewton 7y agoI think this is very likely- when I was there ~3 years ago, my org was pretty silo’d and it seemed like this was common for most teams, by design.
- pavlov 7y agoYes, this seems likely. If Apple is anything like most tech companies, the people who interact with third parties like Astropad would be in a division called something like Partnerships, at a far remove from the core macOS product decision-making.
- babuskov 7y ago> left hand doesn't know what the right is doing It probably isn't even that. The "Left hand" could be engineers who are only thinking about technical and product design aspects and really want the thing to go off and succeed. And then, just when it's about to happen, a legal team does the final check and someone higher in the hierarchy has to approve it and they say "wait, can we just build this in house much cheaper". The Right Hand just learned what the Left Hand was up to, and decided that it isn't perfectly in company's interest, so they adjust it a bit.
- catalogia 7y ago> "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a byzantine organizational structure in which the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing" Is there utility in such a distinction?
- rictic 7y agoImproved ability to understand the present and predict the future? e.g. if malice, then sharing ideas is more dangerous; if byzantine organization dynamics, then it's less dangerous.
- catalogia 7y agoThe effect is the same. If you assume malice, the actions you end up predicting are identical to the actions you predict if you assume byzantine organization. They are functionally equivalent. The distinction is hardly even a distinction at all, since byzantine organizations are often malicious. Even if no particular individual in the organization has malicious intent, the actions of the organization as a whole may be malicious.
- rictic 7y agoIt would be very surprising indeed if they were truly indistinguishable.
- effingwewt 7y agoMore and more I hear this applied to companies acting irresponsibly. How about 'effing's law' where companies are exempt from that adage. Public companies act in the interest of profit. Full stop.