3 ms·

Why are people constantly personifying corporations? All you're going to end up with is a sociopath as that's what large companies are when you try to do that.

Why are people constantly personifying corporations? All you're going to end up with is a sociopath as that's what large companies are when you try to do that. Apple isn't a single person with evil intentions that thought: "let's make it very hard to work with this stuff", even if it might seem that way. It's far more likely that: - The alternative was worse - An internal policy or rule had unforeseen side-effects in planning or releasing - The team doing the work on the release and the team doing relations aren't the same team and didn't communicate properly - A deadline was set and because it was only met just barely you get an odd release schedule Does that mean that this release is a fun planned schedule? No. But it doesn't mean the thousands of people working there are combined into one big person that wants to do bad things to you.

etripe 6y ago
> Why are people constantly personifying corporations? Because corporations aren't democratic, so their policies are not the sum of all employees working there's opinions. Most of it is the result of top-down decisions, which in practice are made by fewer than 20 people: the board and the CEO. Technically, we could add shareholders to that list, but IIRC they barely exercise their right to vote. What's more: corporations as legal entities specifically exist to limit liability for the aforementioned people. So when "Facebook" doesn't care about your privacy, it's Zuck and the board that don't, not individual developers. When "Shell" sponsors climate change denial, it's the board, not someone pumping your gas deciding. The personification is valid up to a point because the corporation as such is only a (useful) fictional construct. > It's far more likely that [...] I don't know the broader history of Apple's behaviour towards developers since I'm not an iOS developer, so I can't say whether this is a matter of policy or a snafu. Based on what I know, I'd also lean towards incompetence and not malice in this particular case.

etripe 6y ago

> Why are people constantly personifying corporations? Because corporations aren't democratic, so their policies are not the sum of all employees working there's opinions. Most of it is the result of top-down decisions, which in practice are made by fewer than 20 people: the board and the CEO. Technically, we could add shareholders to that list, but IIRC they barely exercise their right to vote. What's more: corporations as legal entities specifically exist to limit liability for the aforementioned people. So when "Facebook" doesn't care about your privacy, it's Zuck and the board that don't, not individual developers. When "Shell" sponsors climate change denial, it's the board, not someone pumping your gas deciding. The personification is valid up to a point because the corporation as such is only a (useful) fictional construct. > It's far more likely that [...] I don't know the broader history of Apple's behaviour towards developers since I'm not an iOS developer, so I can't say whether this is a matter of policy or a snafu. Based on what I know, I'd also lean towards incompetence and not malice in this particular case.