Framing is not bothersome so much as it is informative. It's the writer's decision to use the word "poached", with all the connotations and implications that c

Framing is not bothersome so much as it is informative. It's the writer's decision to use the word "poached", with all the connotations and implications that carries. But they shouldn't be given free reign to set that tone and tell that kind of story without defending their choices. This is a remarkable story in how much of it is devoted to the facts to allow the reader to draw conclusions. The author doesn't do much moralizing on the migration of expertise and IP, on hiring, and on the nature of competition between large tech corps. It's mostly a statement that Google/Apple/these guys were working on some project relating to search, then something happened, then something else happened, now they're at Google presumably doing Google search things, leaving the reader to wonder what's left of their efforts at Apple. They wrote "With long and involved projects like search, it's not uncommon for staff to move between Apple and Google. In 2018, the same year Apple bought Laserlike, it also poached John Giannandrea from Google." when they could also have written "Another example in 2018 was John Giannandrea's move from Google to Apple." without insinuating malfeasance, ownership, a failure of loyalty, or anything that the word choice "poached" carries.