Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

They have 115,000 employees. Losing two won't make a big difference (yes, I know those two are important, but still).

I think it is disingenuous to say that the lead programmer of Swift and Director of Machine Learning won't make a difference.

I know if my company lost two important people in one week would be very significant.

I have faith a company like Apple can replace them with people every bit as talented and competent.

It's not always that simple. Execs like this take entire teams of talented subordinates with them. The headline focuses on one person but the real brain drain occurs when that person turns around and starts to poach the absolute best talent from their previous orgs. I've found recruiting and hiring at the very top to be as much (or more) about the individual exec/manager than the company itself.

No one said anything about it being simple, just that it can be done when you have the resources and reputation of a company like Apple.

For what it's worth, Chris Lattner specifically said in his farewell email [1] that "we don’t expect it to impact day-to-day operations in the Swift Core Team in any significant way." If you take him at his word, presumably that would mean the brain drain will be a nonevent.

[1] https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mo...

Or it may just mean that the brain drain won't have a direct day-to-day impact, just an indirect, growing decay in capacity and capability as people leave and the team struggles to replace them.

FWIW, a lot of companies have non-solications in place to try and prevent this kind of behavior. They're far from fool-proof, and there is nothing stopping an employee from leaving of their own volition, but I would guess both of them have some sort of agreement in place not to poach talent directly.

What you're describing is not only illegal, but also something for which Apple recently contributed to a half-billion dollar settlement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

a lot of companies have non-solications in place to try and prevent this kind of behavior

If you know of other companies engaging in backroom nonsolicitation agreements with each other, the responsible thing to do for your fellow STEM workers is to call the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and let them know that the Apple/Google/etc. settlement didn't achieve its intended effect.

The type of "no-solicit" that bfstein is talking about is very different from the one you're referring to. The no-solicit contracts that are common in Silicon Valley mean that you, as an ex-employee, cannot directly approach a current employee that you know there and offer them a job at your current employer. The no-solicits that they got in trouble with in the HTEAL were where the company's HR department refused to approach employees at other tech companies. The former is a contract between you and your employer, which is legal and enforceable. The latter was a verbal contract between competitors to the detriment of their employees, which is illegal.

In practice, what most big companies do is they ask incoming employees for the names and personal contact info (and only that) of good employees that they have worked with in the past, and then pass that info on to HR, for a corporate recruiter to make the initial contact. Has the same effect, but no contracts are broken, since the corporation does all the soliciting.

Those contract clauses would be void in California.

Why?

Section 16600: http://www.tradesecretsnoncompetelaw.com/2014/05/articles/no...

(just read the 2nd paragraph. the rest of the article makes the rather obvious point that, if you solicit based on confidential company information, 16600 won't save you.)

This article (and most of the rest of the information I found on the Internet) is referring to solicitation of customers, not solicitation of employees. The few sources I found [1][2] indicate that non-solicitation agreements for employees are very much enforceable, but only if the employee directly reaches out (if the current employee contacts a former coworker about a job, that's legal, and ditto for the former employee's new employer).

[1] http://www.pashalaw.com/legally-poaching-employees-company-a...

[2] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/understanding-nonsoli...

It's entirely standard at tech companies to have a non-solicitation clause in employment contracts that prohibits soliciting other employees up through a fixed period (e.g., one year) after you leave.

IANAL but I did some research on this and to the best of my understanding these are perfectly legal and enforceable in California.

That would be career suicide though.

Not entirely sure about the back story of Chris Lattner joining Tesla. But according to Techcrunch,

    Gross first found his way to Apple after Cue, formally called Greplin, 
    was acquired by the company for $40 million back in 2013 for its 
    predictive search capabilities. After spending the last three years in 
    Cupertino, Gross was ready to get back to his entrepreneurial roots.

It's possible that agreement during that acquisition Gross has a 3 year vesting period and it's not very surprising that some founders leave after certain stock vesting events. This is purely my speculation but it's possible. And the timing of it might just be a coincidence.

Lattner was indeed THE lead programmer of Swift, but Gross was A Director working on Machine Learning not THE guy in charge of company wide machine learning efforts ("Director" at Apple basically means second level manager).

Sorry this is off-topic, but I really dislike the overuse of the word "disingenuous" in tech discussions. It means you think the person is being insincere or duplicitous in what they are saying. It's much more likely that they just have a different opinion than you.

Questioning a person's sincerity is unproductive and usually unnecessary. It makes discussions needlessly personal and unpleasant.

> It means you think the person is being insincere or duplicitous in what they are saying.

That was exactly what I meant to say. I felt that he was making presenting a positive spin on a tech company he likes.

Anyone that spins a story that they know they are spinning are being "disingenuous" to themselves.

Someone could just as easily say you are presenting a negative spin on a tech company you dislike. It doesn't make for very interesting or productive discussion.

> It doesn't make for very interesting or productive discussion.

So what your saying is Hacker News isn't interesting when two biggish names leave a company for other companies? Some of us think it is significant. The reply was someone talking about my disuse of an english word. I replied that was exactly what I intended to use.

I can't seem to figure out if your defending another person or attacking me or both/neither.

I agree. When is this exodus at Apple going to end? Maybe they saw the next set of products and said "meh".

"Naive" might be the word you're looking for. And indeed, whenever important people leave, it is always significant. In fact, it can be significant even when they're not important at all. But you do need to wait a year to find out whether it makes a difference!

You might be surprised at who can leave without ultimately causing a problem.

Based on Apple's performance in machine learning, I would say some change in management has long been warranted.

You really can't say losing top engineers is like losing a file clerk. Granted, engineers aren't EVERYTHING and there is more talent than a handful of people. I wouldn't call losing these people company emergencies, but they're different dimensions from losing an employee in a commodity position.

So? Let's say Apple has 500 "top engineers". What will losing two mean? Probably nothing.

True true, but I'll spout off this: I hope it works out to some key decision makers realizing they need to rethink somethings - purely as a thing I wish would happen.

Losing two publicly is signaling. The very fact people are talking loudly about leaving apple is a sign of apple's weakness.

Lattner isn't talking loudly. He's barely talking about it at all. His only announcement about it was a brief aside in an email about a change in the Swift open source leadership.

Engineers are not simply interchangeable. Their expertise and experience are a very important part of who they are. A lead engineer can have a significant impact on the direction of a company, even one the size of Apple.

When a important engineer leaves, sometimes a lot more end up following. Or at least their team members more open to looking at other offers.

That'll be the interesting thing.

Lattner was in the top few of the world in his research and what he created, not just one among Apple's "top 500".

9 women can't make a baby in a month

not yet at least

Not sure why parent is getting downvotes for a more gender-counterbalanced quip about The Mythical Man Month, which is entirely relevant to this discussion.

Well, one is physically impossible while the other is theoretically improbable. So there's that.

It makes a difference. Probably a big one.

Individuals with experience in specialized areas and in leading in those areas can make a large impact in any company (their own or otherwise). How can you assume that losing individuals making a large impact wouldn't have an impact itself?

Quotes a number that is 87% retail employees: Calls parent post "Disingenuous"

Considering that he's becoming a partner at YC, you'd think he was a high-value employee, or could have become one should have they retained him. Seems like a big loss to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com