3 ms·

I don't think it's necessarily that other SV executives were weaklings, it's that they thought the non-poaching agreement was in their interests too. Jobs was

by GVIrish 13y ago

I don't think it's necessarily that other SV executives were weaklings, it's that they thought the non-poaching agreement was in their interests too. Jobs was definitely cunning and ruthless but he wasn't all brute force, he set up a deal whereby these other companies would see things his way due to their own greed. I think that scenario played out a couple of times in Jobs' career. He would do something ruthless or somewhat distasteful, but because the people he was pushing his idea on stood to profit in some way they agreed with it, even though it enriched Jobs a lot more than it enriched them.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lambdasquirrel 13y ago
On the other side of things, it provides a nice reason to not hire those people. I've seen managers take it on as a bit of "rationalization debt." If you can't give a good reason for something, find something or someone to blame it on.
derefr 13y ago
> Jobs was definitely cunning and ruthless but he wasn't all brute force, he set up a deal whereby these other companies would see things his way due to their own greed. So, basically, he did the same thing for employees that he did for iTunes music licensing.