4 ms·

I must try and understand my bias towards certain tech companies. When somebody says something bad about Facebook I instantly believe, but for some reason I had

by tdhz77 6y ago

I must try and understand my bias towards certain tech companies. When somebody says something bad about Facebook I instantly believe, but for some reason I had to really dig into this Apple engineer and it took me longer to believe them. Truth is harder to discern than I had thought.

valuearb 6y ago
Maybe because after every paragraph you ask yourself, why didn’t they just fire them? They could have done it at any point.
- opportune 6y ago
  At most big companies firing people is a lengthy process. Also firing someone under 12 months into their first "real" job after graduating looks very bad.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    It's hard from an HR perspective and it's something that a lot of managers just don't want to have to deal with. I remember in a former life, a number of problem people--not ill-intentioned but just couldn't do their jobs--who only got forced out as part of one or the other layoffs that happened over the years.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  partly its a pain in the arse to fire someone, but also its useful to have a scapegoat about to blame. Also if I take the story at face value, I think there is some level of enjoyment they took in tormenting the OP
ma2rten 6y ago
In my mind the reputation of Facebook is that it's more employee friendly and customer hostile, but Apple is more employee hostile (thinking about Steve Jobs stories) and customer friendly.
- abhishekjha 6y ago
  In what way is apple customer friendly? Definitely not in the fixing broken devices way. The hostility is across the board.
  - geodel 6y ago
    Which of your device did they break?
    - sumedh 6y ago
      Apple is horrible if you want to repair your device yourself. They dont sell you the parts and their support tells you to buy a new device.
- dirkgently 6y ago
  > customer friendly. The RDF is strong with you.
- ksec 6y ago
  > customer friendly. No longer true. Devices repairing cost are going up, with way less free repair as good gesture than they are used to. Retail stuff are pushed for selling AppleCare+ and new devices when a repair could have been done. None of these to me is customer centric. They are profit centric.
xenihn 6y ago
I personally believe smaller companies and huge companies will be more prone to this. There's less accountability and ability to monitor and punish abuse and toxicity towards both extremes.
oblio 6y ago
I've been bashing Apple about BatteryGate a few times. You know, where they hid information from their customers in a way that benefitted their sales. They were sued and they settled. Which is basically admitting guilt, as these lawsuits are never lost by corporations (they either drag them out forever or if there too afraid of what losing implies, they settle). Each time I'm downvoted. The Apple Shiny Aluminum Corporate Distortion Field.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- worker767424 6y ago
  Batterygate looks bad, but the technical reason of the battery not being able to supply enough current for the CPU to run at full speed without crashing makes sense, so I think it's mostly a case of communicating the change poorly.
  - oblio 6y ago
    There we go again :-) It's called plausible deniability. They're not stupid. Why would we ever trust the messaging of a company that: 1. Has removed the headphone jack claiming there wasn't enough room inside the phone for it. 2. While "accidentally" deciding to sell a $150 pair of wireless earbuds just as they removed the previous accessory. 3. Now has removed the charger, claiming that they want to reduce pollution. 4. While almost all their equipment is not reparable (which is much, much worse for the environment!). 5. And also "accidentally" introducing a $40 wireless charger just as they removed the old charger from the box. Repeat ad nauseam. Which one is more likely? 1. They had an internal meeting where they had to choose between A) shut up and have people replace their phones, so more $$$ B) say something, deal with angry customers, best case scenario make $0, worst case scenario have to spend some $$$ and they chose A), cause, you know, corporation + $$$. 2. They couldn't figure out how to communicate the issue and its trade-offs correctly? The company that invests probably billions in carefully designed marketing? Oh, and assuming you're right. Why are they losing the lawsuit? Why do they have to pay tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars? Why are they being sued in Europe, too? It's the third time I'm having the same discussion here :-) Apple Shiny Aluminum Distortion Field, I'm telling ya!
jonas21 6y ago
Great marketing isn't just about an individual product -- it's about your entire brand. It influences the way people perceive your company as a whole, how they feel about it emotionally. And Apple's marketing is second to none.

by tdhz77 6y ago

valuearb 6y ago

Maybe because after every paragraph you ask yourself, why didn’t they just fire them? They could have done it at any point.

opportune 6y ago
At most big companies firing people is a lengthy process. Also firing someone under 12 months into their first "real" job after graduating looks very bad.
- ghaff 6y ago
  It's hard from an HR perspective and it's something that a lot of managers just don't want to have to deal with. I remember in a former life, a number of problem people--not ill-intentioned but just couldn't do their jobs--who only got forced out as part of one or the other layoffs that happened over the years.
KaiserPro 6y ago
partly its a pain in the arse to fire someone, but also its useful to have a scapegoat about to blame. Also if I take the story at face value, I think there is some level of enjoyment they took in tormenting the OP

ma2rten 6y ago

In my mind the reputation of Facebook is that it's more employee friendly and customer hostile, but Apple is more employee hostile (thinking about Steve Jobs stories) and customer friendly.

abhishekjha 6y ago
In what way is apple customer friendly? Definitely not in the fixing broken devices way. The hostility is across the board.
- geodel 6y ago
  Which of your device did they break?
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Apple is horrible if you want to repair your device yourself. They dont sell you the parts and their support tells you to buy a new device.
dirkgently 6y ago
> customer friendly. The RDF is strong with you.
ksec 6y ago
> customer friendly. No longer true. Devices repairing cost are going up, with way less free repair as good gesture than they are used to. Retail stuff are pushed for selling AppleCare+ and new devices when a repair could have been done. None of these to me is customer centric. They are profit centric.

xenihn 6y ago

I personally believe smaller companies and huge companies will be more prone to this. There's less accountability and ability to monitor and punish abuse and toxicity towards both extremes.

oblio 6y ago

I've been bashing Apple about BatteryGate a few times. You know, where they hid information from their customers in a way that benefitted their sales. They were sued and they settled. Which is basically admitting guilt, as these lawsuits are never lost by corporations (they either drag them out forever or if there too afraid of what losing implies, they settle). Each time I'm downvoted. The Apple Shiny Aluminum Corporate Distortion Field.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
worker767424 6y ago
Batterygate looks bad, but the technical reason of the battery not being able to supply enough current for the CPU to run at full speed without crashing makes sense, so I think it's mostly a case of communicating the change poorly.
- oblio 6y ago
  There we go again :-) It's called plausible deniability. They're not stupid. Why would we ever trust the messaging of a company that: 1. Has removed the headphone jack claiming there wasn't enough room inside the phone for it. 2. While "accidentally" deciding to sell a $150 pair of wireless earbuds just as they removed the previous accessory. 3. Now has removed the charger, claiming that they want to reduce pollution. 4. While almost all their equipment is not reparable (which is much, much worse for the environment!). 5. And also "accidentally" introducing a $40 wireless charger just as they removed the old charger from the box. Repeat ad nauseam. Which one is more likely? 1. They had an internal meeting where they had to choose between A) shut up and have people replace their phones, so more $$$ B) say something, deal with angry customers, best case scenario make $0, worst case scenario have to spend some $$$ and they chose A), cause, you know, corporation + $$$. 2. They couldn't figure out how to communicate the issue and its trade-offs correctly? The company that invests probably billions in carefully designed marketing? Oh, and assuming you're right. Why are they losing the lawsuit? Why do they have to pay tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars? Why are they being sued in Europe, too? It's the third time I'm having the same discussion here :-) Apple Shiny Aluminum Distortion Field, I'm telling ya!

jonas21 6y ago

Great marketing isn't just about an individual product -- it's about your entire brand. It influences the way people perceive your company as a whole, how they feel about it emotionally. And Apple's marketing is second to none.