4 ms·
They've developed a sort of polite code that stands in for more precise/honest wording they would use in person. Execs understand the discoverable nature of em
by tyingq 3y ago
They've developed a sort of polite code that stands in for more precise/honest wording they would use in person. Execs understand the discoverable nature of email.
- hgsgm 3y agoThis email was shortly after Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt blatantly discussed their illegal wage suppression scheme until Schmidt sent an email saying basically "let's stop emailing about our crimes".
- tyingq 3y agoYeah, I suppose hubris or anger sometimes blinds them to being prudent. I think they really got caught up in "poaching" somehow being the big problem.
- anthlax 3y agoLink to this?
- tyingq 3y agoThis one seems to have the most source material: https://9to5google.com/2013/01/23/court-docs-reveal-email-exchange-between-eric-schmidt-and-steve-jobs-over-poaching-employees/ https://9to5google.com/2013/01/23/court-docs-reveal-email-ex... Including the exchange with Schmidt talking about a "paper trail" and thus the preference to "do it verbally". Though that part of the discussion seems Google internal and not between Apple and Google. https://9to5google.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/papertrail_1020_verge_super_wide.png https://9to5google.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/01/pa...
- anthlax 3y agoThanks!
- lanza 3y agoI'm not an exec, but I've worked with people that make millions in big tech. You just don't get there unless you are fantastically competent at what you do. Pettiness and immaturity really just is an inefficiency that nobody wants to deal with at that level. When the decisions you are making are measured in the 10s to 100s of millions then nobody else will tolerate a second of your emotions. You'll quickly find yourself outside the group of trust if you're not being objective. This has an accepted caveat that the most powerful one or two people can always throw in some nonsense. e.g. Jobs saying "FeceBook" and just suggesting a quick, unproven solution. When nobody can overrule you it doesn't matter. But the rest of them would get railed for wasting time.
- novok 3y agoI've also noticed an aspect of group think at that level, people who go against the current philosophy of the group, even if they are unemotional about it, tend to get booted out or fired too.
- saagarjha 3y ago> You just don't get there unless you are fantastically competent at what you do. lol, or you convince Softbank to hand you a hundred million dollars. There are some competent people in tech but just because you're an executive doesn't mean you are competent, rational, or even smart.
- rahilb 3y agoBut convincing SoftBank to give you money is being a good executive.
- simonh 3y agoPoster has a good point. There are all sorts of corporate cultures, but the previous poster is right too, there are many big corps where upper management is hyper competent to an extent most muggles, me included, find it hard to fathom. That doesn't make them infallible at all, but just being able to operate at that level even slightly is shockingly demanding.
- saagarjha 3y agoNo they don't. Source: the entire archive of Internal Tech Emails.
- parker_mountain 3y agoThose are not the people at that level.
- saagarjha 3y agoWhich people are you talking about?
- danielscrubs 3y agoCEOs at the biggest companies in the world are not “in that level”? You should read them, they are very, very interesting.
- treis 3y agoI'm not sure there's a lot of polite code here. They are knowingly and intentionally killing a Facebook feature so that it can't compete with the app store. It goes to show you how lax antitrust enforcement when such blatantly anti competitive actions go unpunished.
- gls2ro 3y agoCan you please expand how this is under antitrust in 2011? I dont see it - at least in 2011 market share iOS was I think second after Android.