Steve Jobs Emails Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen | Hacker News Reader

Steve Jobs Emails Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen

twitter.com

45 pointsmiles16 comments

A lot of comments on twitter are like: "That's how you write emails", "how to stay on point", "what a pro", bla bla...

Completely oblivious.

Not sure about what you mean with 'oblivious' here, but Jobs' opening email is indeed flawless--taking into consideration that Apple's CEO allocated some time amidst the frenzy to write it: no trivialities, no redundancies, no chance of not being taken seriously or of being misunderstood.

I wonder how much mental debt would be eliminated if all of the world's emails were that clear. Note that, in essence, we're talking about the major means of human communication--and thus information exchange--at least in the tech industry and academia. Pretty important and impactful stuff.

One may want to be less, not more clear when one is breaking the law in writing. Apple and Google settled a class action lawsuit over this exact thing.

It’s disappointing how few people stood up to this. I recall Jobs threatening Palm’s CEO with patent trolling if Palm didn’t play ball, which I suppose would give me second thoughts about not cooperating…

Edit: https://9to5mac.com/2013/01/23/the-heated-email-exchange-bet...

Its just difficult to look up to a person who behaved like he did. Its a shame Hollywood depiction of Steve Jobs missed most of it:

https://www.businessinsider.nl/steve-jobs-terrible-small-fry...

This is straight up "is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy" from The Wire

Yes, talk about missing the point :-)

To be noted, these companies were later sued in antitrust case regarding these agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Which is probably the source of the emails?

And quickly "resolved"...

"The settlement agreement does not provide any compensation for company employees affected by the alleged agreements"

You cannot make this stuff up. :-(

I'm curious what the collective stance at HN is on this, because it sounds like there is a big difference between possible policies:

A. Companies agree not to persuade each other's employees to leave their role (but when they apply on their own, free to hire them)

B. Companies agree not to hire each other's employees

C. Companies agree to set a certain cap or target salary together for similar roles

I think A is not uncommon? And it is as far as I know even in my own contract that I cannot for example compel former colleagues to follow me to a new company for the first 12 months after leaving. These emails could be explained as only agreeing on A?

But the allegation I think is that some in "big tech" also did B and C or similar things? Or is just A already illegal?

I believe A is already illegal.

Also, an agreement not to recruit former co-workers for a period after you leave the company is different than two specific companies agreeing not to poach each other's employees.

Companies to Employees: When is to hire employees the market dictates. If you are not happy you can work somewhere else, we have other candidates and if you move somewhere else we pay you according to the local cost of living. Its the free capitalist market after all and you are enjoying the benefits.

Companies to Companies: Lets agree not to compete on salary....

And that is how companies collaborate to keep salaries low.

> "I thought we agreed not to recruit any senior level employees…. I would propose we keep it that way. Open to discuss. It would be good to agree."

I will not express it better than this: "What's galling about the emails is that they come from executives who, on any other day, praise the wonders of the free market, competition, and its ability to set fair prices. Yet in private, when it comes to their own companies, they avoid competing for staff and pursue policies that artificially distort the market to ensure that their most valuable assets - the people who actually create the products that generate Apple and Google's returns - get paid as little as possible." https://www.businessinsider.in/emails-show-how-apples-steve-...

Companies saying one thing publicly and doing another thing privately is SOP and hardly surprising.

Apple's pride-flag waving and financing documentaries about human rights while still operating child sweatshops and participating in the cobalt mines where children are often slaves is a grand example of this.

I get the human rights things but I don’t get the “pride-flag waving” comment since Apple has shown a strong support for LGBT and Pride in addition to their CEO also being a member of the LGBT community.

I am contrasting something they do that is publicly seen as positive and progressive with the juxtaposition of them committing human rights violations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com