6 ms·

> Apple offers a phone number employers can call to verify titles of former Apple employees. A voice recording on that line directs callers to the web site for

> Apple offers a phone number employers can call to verify titles of former Apple employees. A voice recording on that line directs callers to the web site for InVerify, an employment verification service provider owned by credit agency Equifax. When The Washington Post called InVerify’s customer support number, a customer service representative said Apple is the only company he knew of that changes job titles of employees when they leave. Apple also changes titles for employees who have taken a leave of absence, the person said. So basically, if your new employer checks your title before you leave Apple, you're fine? This is a huge dick move by Apple.

Maxburn 5y ago
I can't think of a legitimate reason for it other than to create problems for people that leave Apple. That practice sounds pretty dirty.
- progforlyfe 5y ago
  Why would anyone worthy ever leave Apple? Such a thing would be so... unclean.
PedroBatista 5y ago
This is Apple's DNA and much more in recent years. The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. The pettiness of continuing to charge 30% fees in one way or the other when they have been ordered by the courts to open their restrictions. The constant sabotage of everything related to repairing their products many times making their own stuff shittier. And now the "Either you are a faceless Apple minion, or your existence is a mere footnote". It's the Apple we all know and love.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  > The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. Ignoring the fact you completely missed the point of the DTK, this is factually wrong. The store credit was $500.
  - mh- 5y ago
    It was $200 initially, then increased to $500. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-developers-increased/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-de...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - PedroBatista 5y ago
    No, I'm quite right. It was "upgraded" to $500 after much uproar.
    - jsjohnst 5y ago
      I just checked my emails and it was always $500 credit offered after returning for me, so maybe some DTK folks were offered $200? Either way, it ultimately was $500 however by your own admission, even if initially stated to some as $200.
      - PedroBatista 5y ago
        Thanks again for participating in the Universal App Quick Start Program. We heard your feedback regarding the 200 USD appreciation credit mentioned in our last email. Our intention was to recognize the tremendous effort that you have put into creating amazing universal apps. By partnering with us early, you showed your commitment to our platform and a willingness to be trailblazers. So instead of the 200 USD credit that expires in May, we are giving you a 500 USD Apple credit and extending the time you can use it to get a new M1 Mac through the end of the year. This is from a year ago, Feb 6th 2021
        jsjohnst 5y ago
        > we are giving you a 500 USD Apple credit and extending the time you can use it to get a new M1 Mac through the end of the year So we are in agreement it was $500 that Apple ultimately offered? Great. Glad we cleared that up and what I said was correct.
kuroguro 5y ago
Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser.
- exhilaration 5y ago
  There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services.
  - tomcam 5y ago
    Maybe the parent poster was exaggerating a teeny bit for your viewing pleasure
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser. > There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services. Maybe so, but retail clerks definitely are Apple employees, so the point stands. Personally, the word "associate" by itself brings to mind Walmart store workers [1. If I didn't know about this practice of Apple's, and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions that they were trying to pass off a stint in Apple retail as something grander. [1] https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions Correction: ...and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," it would raise suspicions...
bradly 5y ago
I worked at Apple and I’m okay they do this. My role is my information to share. I don’t need that sitting in some database in perpetuity.
- rowanajmarshall 5y ago
  But if someone wants to verify your role (which sounds reasonable), contacts Apple and they say you were an associate while you said you were a senior, that's gonna cause problems. And apparently is.
  - bradly 5y ago
    Why do they need to verify my role? The new company interviewed me and can decide if I qualified for the job and if they want to pay me what I am asking. Most likely the new company is simply trying to pay me as little as possible. > you were a senior Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company?
    - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
      > Why do they need to verify my role? Because people lie, constantly. And while most of time they they might not be, it happens often enough that companies pay people to background check applicants. It's not good, but it's seemingly necessary, or at least desired. > Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company? Dunno, but a hiring manager for a tech firm probably knows better than me or you. Either way, obfuscating your previous role isn't a good thing.
      - bradly 5y ago
        > Because people lie, constantly. The new company interviewed me. They can decide if I'm qualified or not.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Leaving a cult is the ultimate sin in most cults, so it is not surprising at all. Any Apple employees reading this that want out, here’s a guide for help. https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult
- wpietri 5y ago
  Wow. I have read a bunch of cult-escapee biographies, as the cult dynamic fascinated me. All of them had an extreme narcissist at the center. Somehow I had never connected that with the famous tech company with an extreme narcissist at the center. But you're right, that pattern of retaliation against people who dare to leave fits perfectly here.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I mean, I don't feel like Tim Cook is an extreme narcissist cult leader, but I don't know enough about him. Of course, the fact that he hasn't mythologized himself as much as Steve Jobs did is a piece of evidence in favor of him not being a narcissist. If I had to choose a "tech company cult" it would be Tesla/SpaceX/Boring/whatever else Musk is running.
    - eloisant 5y ago
      Apple was clearly a cult company when Steve Jobs was CEO, and I feel like they continued to work as they did by inertia.
    - bitwize 5y ago
      Tim Cook could just be the Miscavige to Jobs's Hubbard. The charismatic, narcissistic cult leader often has a bulldog of a right hand man who enforces order and compliance, keeping the cult together even after the leader is gone.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      The narcissistic personality at the center of Apple’s culture today is Apple itself. Even Cook speaks in near-reverential tones about the company he leads. Most corporations try to do this in the long run; it’s arguably inherent in the concept of incorporation, which is etymologically and legally the creation of a new “person.” Even if it starts with an iconic founder, in the long run the company itself must become the object of loyalty to survive. Comms, HR, and marketing teams spend tons of effort to create a corporate personality and culture. (Note the root of the word culture.) Apple famously set up their own “university” to develop and instill their culture. Loyalty to the company, distrust of outsiders, personal adherence in a “mission”: these are not things specific to or invented by Apple. Although the specific vindictive tactic of hiding titles is one that I’ve not heard of before.
torstenvl 5y ago
> This is a huge dick move by Apple. Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situation. Never attribute to malice something for which you do not yet understand the purpose. HR world generally is afraid to denigrate former employees for liability reasons, and many corporate HR departments have a policy of confirming only whether an employee worked for the company, and nothing else. Choosing a vague term like "associate" (which simply means "employee," as compared to "partner" or some other term that suggests an ownership stake) aligns with that reasoning decently well. While it may not be ideal, and may not support truthful claims of relative seniority, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done with any malice. EDIT: Apparently some people strongly disagree. If you disagree, might I ask what evidence you have of malice?
- josh2600 5y ago
  Came here to say this. As far as I’m concerned this is a privacy protection. It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check.
  - sumeno 5y ago
    > It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check. Only if they left on good terms.
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      If no one will offer an opinion on a former employee, then you have the information you need.
      - sumeno 5y ago
        Not every negative departure is the departee's fault. As an obvious example, if a POC experienced frequent racism at a company they might leave a company without having anyone they would want to use as a reference even though THEY weren't the problem.

Maxburn 5y ago

I can't think of a legitimate reason for it other than to create problems for people that leave Apple. That practice sounds pretty dirty.

progforlyfe 5y ago
Why would anyone worthy ever leave Apple? Such a thing would be so... unclean.

PedroBatista 5y ago

This is Apple's DNA and much more in recent years. The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. The pettiness of continuing to charge 30% fees in one way or the other when they have been ordered by the courts to open their restrictions. The constant sabotage of everything related to repairing their products many times making their own stuff shittier. And now the "Either you are a faceless Apple minion, or your existence is a mere footnote". It's the Apple we all know and love.

jsjohnst 5y ago
> The "monetize everything to the max" policy of encouraging developers to test their new pre-release M1 chip + OS and software for $500 and then after they return their DTK they offered a $200 store credit. Ignoring the fact you completely missed the point of the DTK, this is factually wrong. The store credit was $500.
- mh- 5y ago
  It was $200 initially, then increased to $500. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-developers-increased/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/05/apple-dtk-credit-for-de...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PedroBatista 5y ago
  No, I'm quite right. It was "upgraded" to $500 after much uproar.
  - jsjohnst 5y ago
    I just checked my emails and it was always $500 credit offered after returning for me, so maybe some DTK folks were offered $200? Either way, it ultimately was $500 however by your own admission, even if initially stated to some as $200.
    - PedroBatista 5y ago
      Thanks again for participating in the Universal App Quick Start Program. We heard your feedback regarding the 200 USD appreciation credit mentioned in our last email. Our intention was to recognize the tremendous effort that you have put into creating amazing universal apps. By partnering with us early, you showed your commitment to our platform and a willingness to be trailblazers. So instead of the 200 USD credit that expires in May, we are giving you a 500 USD Apple credit and extending the time you can use it to get a new M1 Mac through the end of the year. This is from a year ago, Feb 6th 2021
      - jsjohnst 5y ago
        > we are giving you a 500 USD Apple credit and extending the time you can use it to get a new M1 Mac through the end of the year So we are in agreement it was $500 that Apple ultimately offered? Great. Glad we cleared that up and what I said was correct.

kuroguro 5y ago

Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser.

exhilaration 5y ago
There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services.
- tomcam 5y ago
  Maybe the parent poster was exaggerating a teeny bit for your viewing pleasure
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> Think about it the other way - you could have been a janitor for Apple and your new employers would be none the wiser. > There's no way the janitors are Apple employees. Standard procedure at big companies is to hire contractors for janitorial and food services. Maybe so, but retail clerks definitely are Apple employees, so the point stands. Personally, the word "associate" by itself brings to mind Walmart store workers [1. If I didn't know about this practice of Apple's, and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions that they were trying to pass off a stint in Apple retail as something grander. [1] https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates https://corporate.walmart.com/galleries/associates
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," I would raise suspicions Correction: ...and an applicant's job title came back as "associate," it would raise suspicions...

bradly 5y ago

I worked at Apple and I’m okay they do this. My role is my information to share. I don’t need that sitting in some database in perpetuity.

rowanajmarshall 5y ago
But if someone wants to verify your role (which sounds reasonable), contacts Apple and they say you were an associate while you said you were a senior, that's gonna cause problems. And apparently is.
- bradly 5y ago
  Why do they need to verify my role? The new company interviewed me and can decide if I qualified for the job and if they want to pay me what I am asking. Most likely the new company is simply trying to pay me as little as possible. > you were a senior Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company?
  - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
    > Why do they need to verify my role? Because people lie, constantly. And while most of time they they might not be, it happens often enough that companies pay people to background check applicants. It's not good, but it's seemingly necessary, or at least desired. > Also, there isn't senior at Apple and their roles are not a public API. They can change. If Apple says my role was "level 5" what does that mean to the new company? Dunno, but a hiring manager for a tech firm probably knows better than me or you. Either way, obfuscating your previous role isn't a good thing.
    - bradly 5y ago
      > Because people lie, constantly. The new company interviewed me. They can decide if I'm qualified or not.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Leaving a cult is the ultimate sin in most cults, so it is not surprising at all. Any Apple employees reading this that want out, here’s a guide for help. https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult

wpietri 5y ago
Wow. I have read a bunch of cult-escapee biographies, as the cult dynamic fascinated me. All of them had an extreme narcissist at the center. Somehow I had never connected that with the famous tech company with an extreme narcissist at the center. But you're right, that pattern of retaliation against people who dare to leave fits perfectly here.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I mean, I don't feel like Tim Cook is an extreme narcissist cult leader, but I don't know enough about him. Of course, the fact that he hasn't mythologized himself as much as Steve Jobs did is a piece of evidence in favor of him not being a narcissist. If I had to choose a "tech company cult" it would be Tesla/SpaceX/Boring/whatever else Musk is running.
  - eloisant 5y ago
    Apple was clearly a cult company when Steve Jobs was CEO, and I feel like they continued to work as they did by inertia.
  - bitwize 5y ago
    Tim Cook could just be the Miscavige to Jobs's Hubbard. The charismatic, narcissistic cult leader often has a bulldog of a right hand man who enforces order and compliance, keeping the cult together even after the leader is gone.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    The narcissistic personality at the center of Apple’s culture today is Apple itself. Even Cook speaks in near-reverential tones about the company he leads. Most corporations try to do this in the long run; it’s arguably inherent in the concept of incorporation, which is etymologically and legally the creation of a new “person.” Even if it starts with an iconic founder, in the long run the company itself must become the object of loyalty to survive. Comms, HR, and marketing teams spend tons of effort to create a corporate personality and culture. (Note the root of the word culture.) Apple famously set up their own “university” to develop and instill their culture. Loyalty to the company, distrust of outsiders, personal adherence in a “mission”: these are not things specific to or invented by Apple. Although the specific vindictive tactic of hiding titles is one that I’ve not heard of before.

torstenvl 5y ago

> This is a huge dick move by Apple. Ehh, I think this is a Chesteranlon's Razorfence situation. Never attribute to malice something for which you do not yet understand the purpose. HR world generally is afraid to denigrate former employees for liability reasons, and many corporate HR departments have a policy of confirming only whether an employee worked for the company, and nothing else. Choosing a vague term like "associate" (which simply means "employee," as compared to "partner" or some other term that suggests an ownership stake) aligns with that reasoning decently well. While it may not be ideal, and may not support truthful claims of relative seniority, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was done with any malice. EDIT: Apparently some people strongly disagree. If you disagree, might I ask what evidence you have of malice?

josh2600 5y ago
Came here to say this. As far as I’m concerned this is a privacy protection. It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check.
- sumeno 5y ago
  > It’s trivial to verify someone’s position at Apple with a reference check. Only if they left on good terms.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    If no one will offer an opinion on a former employee, then you have the information you need.
    - sumeno 5y ago
      Not every negative departure is the departee's fault. As an obvious example, if a POC experienced frequent racism at a company they might leave a company without having anyone they would want to use as a reference even though THEY weren't the problem.