4 ms·

Apple is cutthroat in business too. Tony Fadell, the inventor of the iPod and co-inventor of the iPhone, and later Nest founder, commented this in Stratechery

by jdross 2mo ago

Apple is cutthroat in business too. Tony Fadell, the inventor of the iPod and co-inventor of the iPhone, and later Nest founder, commented this in Stratechery about the lawsuit when filed: "This is Apple’s typical tactic to scare Apple employees — either former or current. I heard this lawsuit was driven by the Apple board. Steve threatened to file a lawsuit against Nest for poaching 80-100 Apple employees. He called me, screamed for a while with lots of accusations. Then I said, “Steve, it’s Apple’s job to retain its talent, not mine.” He stopped his rant and then we went on to talk about our families and vacation plans. We kept hiring…"

freediddy 2mo ago
[flagged]
- _doctor_love 2mo ago
  It's not alleged, it's sadly confirmed. There's been comments on HN over the years from people who have worked under him.
- hnlmorg 2mo ago
  That example does a pretty good job of showing how toxic both CEOs are/were
- tomhow 2mo ago
  Please don't use epithets like this on HN. It's unkind, even if there’s any truth to it. It's not about anything you owe to the person being discussed, but about the way we talk about people on HN. If there's an anecdote that illustrates what you mean, please share it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - freediddy 2mo ago
    You can't accept a quote from Tony Fadell about how Apple was trying to "scare" employees without taking into consideration his considerably bad reputation. That is actively supporting disinformation. His quote is incredibly unreliable.
trevorhinesley 2mo ago
If Tony and Steve were friends, that's not Apple being cutthroat. Cue: the chapter about poaching from friends in Ben Horowitz's The Hard Thing About Hard Things. If you cross that line and poach from your friends, expect to hear about it. Another example: https://www.reddit.com/r/EntrepreneurRideAlong/comments/1jgz9iu/steve_jobs_email_to_adobe_ceo_in_2005/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EntrepreneurRideAlong/comments/1jgz...
- wat10000 2mo ago
  It's worse. "Cutthroat" implies being ruthless but legitimate. So-called "poaching" is completely moral and legal, whereas trying to get others not to "poach" "your" employees is immoral and illegal. There's a bright, clear line between targeted attempts to hire someone who has a job working for a competitor, and trying to get that person to take confidential information with them when they switch jobs. The latter is wrong and will rightfully result in legal action. The former is perfectly fine, and good for employees, which I'd wager still includes most of this site's audience despite the startup-founder focus. Remember, employers don't own the people who work for them. They cannot be "poached." They can only be given a better offer. If your employee decides they'd be better off working for your competitor instead, then you have only yourself to blame for not giving them enough incentive to stay. Either up your game, or give them a friendly goodbye.
  - redsocksfan45 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - adastra22 2mo ago
    Eh, the kind of poaching OpenAI is accused of doing here is not normal recruiting. It is being claimed that they are giving specific instructions to exfiltrate Apple’s proprietary info & trade secrets.
    - wat10000 2mo ago
      I know, hence why I pointed out the very important difference between those two things. I wouldn't describe this as "poaching." What OpenAI is accused of doing is industrial espionage and IP theft. It did this as part of hiring somebody away from another company, which is commonly (and IMO incorrectly) described as "poaching." But the problem isn't the "poaching," it's the theft. If they'd "poached" without the theft it would be fine. If they'd found a way to steal IP without hiring anyone it would still be bad.
watwut 2mo ago
cutthroat vs blatantly breaking the laws and manipulating employees to break laws ...
paxys 2mo ago
Apple was the ringleader in the illegal anti-poaching agreements between SV companies a couple decades ago.
- Melatonic 2mo ago
  And successfully at the time (illegally) squashed unionization efforts by software engineers
  - bilekas 2mo ago
    I think that's just standard across the US. But the unions are a people problem not a company problem necessarily. People can still form unions even with massive investments to squash them.. Europe has proven that. But the story told to all US workers SEEMS to be, you have to suffer and grind to make money. I might be wrong but that's the impression I get when talking with US people about unions and workers rights.
    - adastra22 2mo ago
      If Silicon Valley had unions, employee stock options would end. And along with it, most of the incentive structure that drives innovation in the valley.
      - dmix 2mo ago
        Not to mention the all remote workers available to fill in, both within the US and outside it.
      - lilbigdoot 2mo ago
        Bullshit lol
      - adfgionatin 2mo ago
        [dead]
      - paxys 2mo ago
gizmodo59 2mo ago
Also: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
bilekas 2mo ago
Jobs had something to prove though. He was kicked out, brought back, he definitely wanted to ensure his legacy. But while I don't agree with it, I think it's harder to be an ethical company that makes it to a billion than a non ethical one. When shareholders are involved you don't have a choice really.. You're obliged to maximize their earnings.
- pixelatedindex 2mo ago
  > You're obliged to maximize their earnings. Sometimes I think it’s time to give shareholder supremacy a rest. If they don’t like what they own, they can sell it. But this is probably also why I’m not on a board of directors.
  - thewebguyd 2mo ago
    Interestingly enough, Apple at one point had that attitude even under Cook. > “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” That was back in 2014. But I do agree, it's time to normalize telling shareholders where they can shove it. If they don't like it, they can sell.
    - skeeter2020 2mo ago
      Ironically (and perversely) it's much easier to do this with exotic cap tables that keep voting rights and ownership effectively split. You needed a very valuable company to make this work and the most obvious example (Meta) is not exactly a beacon of corporate governance.
      - adastra22 2mo ago
        I don’t see how this is the case? The CEO can absolutely tell the board to shove it. The board can’t micromanage the CEO - they don’t have the levers to do that. So their options are few, and pretty much all nuclear along the lines of firing the CEO. Is the Apple board going to fire Tim Cook for making iPhones accessible? If they did, they’d find themselves fired by the shareholders.
solfox 2mo ago
I'm no OpenAI apologist here, but I appreciate this perspective. Apple definitely played their timing right for maximum pre-IPO damage. It gives them tremendous negotiating leverage on a possible settlement which could give them a chunk of OpenAI.
- jazzyjackson 2mo ago
  > [OpenAI instructing recruits to exfiltrate proprietary data from their current employer] gives them tremendous negotiating leverage
  - cyanydeez 2mo ago
    wolves in wolves clothing
- ahmadyan 2mo ago
  how? OpenAI did not launch any hardware (yet), and I don't think their IPO pricing hinges on them launching an iPhone competitor. To me, it looks like Apple wants to launch a similar AI hardware and is slowing-down the competition to be the first-to-market. Funny thing: they are barking at the wrong tree here.
  - junesix 2mo ago
    The risk is not hardware launch per se. It's the unresolved lawsuit from a powerful company that's hanging over OpenAI and what may be revealed if the case goes to trial and discovery. All that will get priced in by institutional investors. If OpenAI is shopping the IPO, it's likely among the first questions large investors performing due diligence will ask. The worst scenario is OpenAI tells investors that the risks are low, there's nothing damaging, the costs are immaterial, and tries to push forward. Then the case goes to trial and emails, Slack messages, documents are revealed in discovery that run counter to everything OpenAI told investors. Court issues an injunction, awards damages, OpenAI has to dismiss execs, secondary lawsuits are filed, existing investors release letters they had no idea, underwriter backs out, etc. That outcome could crush an IPO.
overgard 2mo ago
> Apple is cutthroat in business too. Sure. Also, don't care. Lets focus on the devil currently doing harm.
bickfordb 2mo ago
I think it's notable that Apple is vague about what was actually stolen and what OpenAI has actually received. I read into these PR blasts, lawsuits that Apple is sour about losing employees to higher salary opportunities, and is likely using lawsuits instead of higher salaries to retain them.
- simondotau 2mo ago
  How is it notable? Apple’s complaint is that these are corporate secrets. If it wasn’t secret, there would be no case.
adfgionatin 2mo ago
[dead]

by jdross 2mo ago

freediddy 2mo ago

[flagged]

_doctor_love 2mo ago
It's not alleged, it's sadly confirmed. There's been comments on HN over the years from people who have worked under him.
hnlmorg 2mo ago
That example does a pretty good job of showing how toxic both CEOs are/were
tomhow 2mo ago
Please don't use epithets like this on HN. It's unkind, even if there’s any truth to it. It's not about anything you owe to the person being discussed, but about the way we talk about people on HN. If there's an anecdote that illustrates what you mean, please share it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- freediddy 2mo ago
  You can't accept a quote from Tony Fadell about how Apple was trying to "scare" employees without taking into consideration his considerably bad reputation. That is actively supporting disinformation. His quote is incredibly unreliable.

trevorhinesley 2mo ago

If Tony and Steve were friends, that's not Apple being cutthroat. Cue: the chapter about poaching from friends in Ben Horowitz's The Hard Thing About Hard Things. If you cross that line and poach from your friends, expect to hear about it. Another example: https://www.reddit.com/r/EntrepreneurRideAlong/comments/1jgz9iu/steve_jobs_email_to_adobe_ceo_in_2005/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EntrepreneurRideAlong/comments/1jgz...

wat10000 2mo ago
It's worse. "Cutthroat" implies being ruthless but legitimate. So-called "poaching" is completely moral and legal, whereas trying to get others not to "poach" "your" employees is immoral and illegal. There's a bright, clear line between targeted attempts to hire someone who has a job working for a competitor, and trying to get that person to take confidential information with them when they switch jobs. The latter is wrong and will rightfully result in legal action. The former is perfectly fine, and good for employees, which I'd wager still includes most of this site's audience despite the startup-founder focus. Remember, employers don't own the people who work for them. They cannot be "poached." They can only be given a better offer. If your employee decides they'd be better off working for your competitor instead, then you have only yourself to blame for not giving them enough incentive to stay. Either up your game, or give them a friendly goodbye.
- redsocksfan45 2mo ago
  [dead]
- adastra22 2mo ago
  Eh, the kind of poaching OpenAI is accused of doing here is not normal recruiting. It is being claimed that they are giving specific instructions to exfiltrate Apple’s proprietary info & trade secrets.
  - wat10000 2mo ago
    I know, hence why I pointed out the very important difference between those two things. I wouldn't describe this as "poaching." What OpenAI is accused of doing is industrial espionage and IP theft. It did this as part of hiring somebody away from another company, which is commonly (and IMO incorrectly) described as "poaching." But the problem isn't the "poaching," it's the theft. If they'd "poached" without the theft it would be fine. If they'd found a way to steal IP without hiring anyone it would still be bad.

watwut 2mo ago

cutthroat vs blatantly breaking the laws and manipulating employees to break laws ...

paxys 2mo ago

Apple was the ringleader in the illegal anti-poaching agreements between SV companies a couple decades ago.

Melatonic 2mo ago
And successfully at the time (illegally) squashed unionization efforts by software engineers
- bilekas 2mo ago
  I think that's just standard across the US. But the unions are a people problem not a company problem necessarily. People can still form unions even with massive investments to squash them.. Europe has proven that. But the story told to all US workers SEEMS to be, you have to suffer and grind to make money. I might be wrong but that's the impression I get when talking with US people about unions and workers rights.
  - adastra22 2mo ago
    If Silicon Valley had unions, employee stock options would end. And along with it, most of the incentive structure that drives innovation in the valley.
    - dmix 2mo ago
      Not to mention the all remote workers available to fill in, both within the US and outside it.
    - lilbigdoot 2mo ago
      Bullshit lol
    - adfgionatin 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - paxys 2mo ago

gizmodo59 2mo ago

Also: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...

bilekas 2mo ago

Jobs had something to prove though. He was kicked out, brought back, he definitely wanted to ensure his legacy. But while I don't agree with it, I think it's harder to be an ethical company that makes it to a billion than a non ethical one. When shareholders are involved you don't have a choice really.. You're obliged to maximize their earnings.

pixelatedindex 2mo ago
> You're obliged to maximize their earnings. Sometimes I think it’s time to give shareholder supremacy a rest. If they don’t like what they own, they can sell it. But this is probably also why I’m not on a board of directors.
- thewebguyd 2mo ago
  Interestingly enough, Apple at one point had that attitude even under Cook. > “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” That was back in 2014. But I do agree, it's time to normalize telling shareholders where they can shove it. If they don't like it, they can sell.
  - skeeter2020 2mo ago
    Ironically (and perversely) it's much easier to do this with exotic cap tables that keep voting rights and ownership effectively split. You needed a very valuable company to make this work and the most obvious example (Meta) is not exactly a beacon of corporate governance.
    - adastra22 2mo ago
      I don’t see how this is the case? The CEO can absolutely tell the board to shove it. The board can’t micromanage the CEO - they don’t have the levers to do that. So their options are few, and pretty much all nuclear along the lines of firing the CEO. Is the Apple board going to fire Tim Cook for making iPhones accessible? If they did, they’d find themselves fired by the shareholders.

solfox 2mo ago

I'm no OpenAI apologist here, but I appreciate this perspective. Apple definitely played their timing right for maximum pre-IPO damage. It gives them tremendous negotiating leverage on a possible settlement which could give them a chunk of OpenAI.

jazzyjackson 2mo ago
> [OpenAI instructing recruits to exfiltrate proprietary data from their current employer] gives them tremendous negotiating leverage
- cyanydeez 2mo ago
  wolves in wolves clothing
ahmadyan 2mo ago
how? OpenAI did not launch any hardware (yet), and I don't think their IPO pricing hinges on them launching an iPhone competitor. To me, it looks like Apple wants to launch a similar AI hardware and is slowing-down the competition to be the first-to-market. Funny thing: they are barking at the wrong tree here.
- junesix 2mo ago
  The risk is not hardware launch per se. It's the unresolved lawsuit from a powerful company that's hanging over OpenAI and what may be revealed if the case goes to trial and discovery. All that will get priced in by institutional investors. If OpenAI is shopping the IPO, it's likely among the first questions large investors performing due diligence will ask. The worst scenario is OpenAI tells investors that the risks are low, there's nothing damaging, the costs are immaterial, and tries to push forward. Then the case goes to trial and emails, Slack messages, documents are revealed in discovery that run counter to everything OpenAI told investors. Court issues an injunction, awards damages, OpenAI has to dismiss execs, secondary lawsuits are filed, existing investors release letters they had no idea, underwriter backs out, etc. That outcome could crush an IPO.

overgard 2mo ago

> Apple is cutthroat in business too. Sure. Also, don't care. Lets focus on the devil currently doing harm.

bickfordb 2mo ago

I think it's notable that Apple is vague about what was actually stolen and what OpenAI has actually received. I read into these PR blasts, lawsuits that Apple is sour about losing employees to higher salary opportunities, and is likely using lawsuits instead of higher salaries to retain them.

simondotau 2mo ago
How is it notable? Apple’s complaint is that these are corporate secrets. If it wasn’t secret, there would be no case.

adfgionatin 2mo ago

[dead]