Apple sacks iPhone X engineer after daughter posts hands-on video to YouTube

1910121415

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 286
    dysamoria said:
    It's amazing how so many tech people side with "liberty" and slam government "control and overreach", but will still side with and promote draconian corporate policy in discussions of public issues between a company and an employee... so long as they're not the employee themselves.

    Things are rarely so black and white as "you broke the rule and deserve whatever punishment is dealt", but these guys seem to be comfortable with nothing but.
    Clearly, you’ve never been in a position to sign an NDA.  I have, they ARE black and white, and for very good reasons already articulated far better than I could hope to

    All the emotionalism and hand-wringing on display here is simply ill-informed.
    Well-stated.  I have to sign them all the time, and I have never seen a provision that says disclosure is authorized when your daughter says "please, daddy."

    You know you better than anybody else does.  If you know you can't or don't want to keep secrets, don't get a job that requires that.
    Yep!  Rules is Rules!  (Except when it happens to a 'rules is rules' kind a guy).
    lol.  Let me know when you are capable of adding value to the discussion.  This will be my last response to you until then. 
    Good...  Glad to hear that you are retreating with your tail tucked between your little legs...  But, I'll give you a "Nice Try" if it makes you feel better!
    Not really. It seems to me he knows when something is a complete waste of time. Good for him. 
    magman1979bigbillygoatgruffradarthekat
  • Reply 222 of 286
    Soli said:
    Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products.
    You need to rethink that statement. Jobs didn't violate NDAs when he talked about unreleased products but he's absolutely talked about unreleased products. This is not up for debate as it's literally the key thing people remember about Jobs doing his job!

    Even if the products were released that day, immediately after an event, he was still talking about unreleased products during every single one of those events. Announcing new things was the entire point of those events. Then you have email replies to assure customers that certain product lines haven't been abandoned, countless interviews where he talks about products he's already mentioned on stage but haven't yet been released, and earning calls where he did the same.
    Exactly. Moreover, an officer of a company -- which Jobs was -- has a completely different, and vastly more expanded, set of roles, responsibilities, and privileges than a typical non-officer employee. They are the face of the firm. The comparison of some employee like the one we're talking about to Steve Jobs is not merely irrelevant, but downright silly.
    edited October 2017 magman1979randominternetpersonbaconstangradarthekatGG1
  • Reply 223 of 286
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,866member
    I worked for Apple a total of 6 weeks as an At Home Advisor - iOS and devices support. I found the job unbelievably stressful and one of the many stressors was the constant fear that I might say or do something wrong and get fired. This was just customer support mind you, not engineering or design or anything high level.  Even in customer support we had access to all sorts of things that had to be safeguarded - like customer credit info and other personal information.  

    I don't find anything wrong with Apple having such stringent requirements and I sure as hell understood the rules and worked pretty hard to not violate them.  So while I personally was not able to deal with the Apple corporate environment, this engineer had worked there for some time. He surely knew he was doing wrong and he surely knew firing was a likely outcome. Did he show the daughter the phone because he is divorced, doesn't have custody was trying to get her to like Daddy more?  The stupidity is so hard to fathom here.


    magman1979anantksundaramGG1pscooter63SpamSandwich
  • Reply 224 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,622moderator
    Soli said:
    Soli said:

    dysamoria said:
    Soli said:
    Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
    How about the person that uploaded the HomePod firmware that contained data on other unreleased Apple products?
    I think the person that uploaded the iOS 11 GM was a disgruntled employee, and while that part can't wholly be Apple's fault it's certainly Apple's fault for allowing an employee to add internet-facing files to their servers with secret URLs. They really need better security and likely a two-key system for uploading any new content, which would also have likely saved them from the HomePod firmware debacle.

    avon b7 said:
    From the information presented, I think the decision was harsh but perhaps there is more context that hasn't come out yet.
    What about the information already presented in the article strikes you as this move on Apple's part being 'harsh'?
    Clearly he referring to the engineer being fired. I agree that it appears harsh.

    There's literally no additional information to be had from this child's iPhone X video. Let's keep in mind that it was done the week of pre-orders and about 6 weeks after the device was already demoed in vivid detail by Apple. Based on the information presented I can't imagine firing this engineer over this one issue. If you had said, "Apple has a lot more information than we do and they felt it necessary to fire the engineer so who are we to say that they are wrong. It's their company and it's likely they didn't break any laws with letting the engineer go," that would be a very different response while still agreeing with Apple's firing of the employee. Instead you made a draconian implication that rules need to followed to the letter, that there's not room for gray areas or conscious consideration of the scope of an offense, and that punishments should be as brutal as possible in your initial comment. Maybe there were other circumstances, like other lapses I judgement which made this a final strike against him, but you made zero indication that this might simply be the final straw on the camel's back in your original comment. I can't agree with such despotic ways of thinking.
    It's amazing how so many tech people side with "liberty" and slam government "control and overreach", but will still side with and promote draconian corporate policy in discussions of public issues between a company and an employee... so long as they're not the employee themselves.

    Things are rarely so black and white as "you broke the rule and deserve whatever punishment is dealt", but these guys seem to be comfortable with nothing but. The second someone suggests that an employee's mistake might be better handled with grace and kindness instead of abrupt dismissal, the corporate fascists start using phrases like "victim card", "rules are rules", and demonstrating a callousness that suggests that they might make horrible vindictive employers themselves (or hoping to see everyone else treated with as much callous disregard as they themselves have been treated somewhere in their own personal histories). 
    It doesn’t need to get all that deep and political, unless that’s what you like to argue about.  Couldn’t it be just as simple as (a) a breach of contract implies a breach of trust, and it’s hard to want to continue to work with [employ] someone you no longer feel you can trust, and (b) if you selectively apply rules, then you invite future legal challenges to your contracts, which is what an NDA is.  No conspiracies required. 
    1) It could be ≠ it must be.

    2) Life being nuanced, and issues and solutions requiring a certain level of thought does not imply conspiracy.
    Try less reading into everything folks here post and try just grokking what we’re saying.  It’s not all that difficult, unless you don’t want to do it.  Hanging on every word makes converse tedious. 
    You're the one that read a conspiracy into his comment where he's clearing pointing out hypocrisy. While this site has plenty of Apple fanatics and Apple haters, this is an issue with fanatics everywhere and people quick to jump conclusions with limited information. You may want to do a little more reading into issues that are likely considerably more complex than you may want to believe or as they've been presented by trigger finger tech media sites. Very few things in life have character development and storylines as simplistic as an episode of The Big Bang Theory.
    It’s your mind.  Do with it what you want.  But I’ll stick with my view that this is a fairly straight forward matter of an employee breaking trust with his employer by breaking a contract.  And that it might imply future legal difficulties with other employees that might also break that contract should Apple not follow through with the remedy proscribed in the NDA.  And that there is no need for deeper analysis of our government’s stance with respect to its citizenry.  Sheesh.
    edited October 2017 magman1979anantksundaram
  • Reply 225 of 286
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    Great. Another vacuous, aspiring YouTube starlet. Just what this world needs.
  • Reply 226 of 286
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 414member
    dewme said:
    The rules that Apple puts in place in this case are designed to protect the integrity, competitiveness, and massive investment that Apple has made in the development and release of a product that is critical to the company's future. These rules protect a slew of stakeholders including, but not limited to, the company itself, its employees, corporate partners, and Apple shareholders This was a mindless and selfish act by an adolescent more concerned about self-aggrandizing her personal brand on YouTube than protecting her father's job and professional commitment to Apple. The highly trusted Apple employee implicitly sanctioned this violation and must be held fully accountable. I'm all about putting people above process, which is why the termination of this employee is all the more justified. He placed a very large number of other people's jobs and livelihoods at risk by violating rules that were specifically put in place to protect Apple's critical investments and promises to its many stakeholders, including all of the other employees at Apple. The "apology" video by the child is (yet another) example of how selfish individuals attempt to make everything about themselves rather than considering the consequences that their mistaken and selfish actions have on other people. Anti-empathy at its finest.
    Well said. What a dumb selfish thing to do. Good for Apple. 
    radarthekatmagman1979pscooter63
  • Reply 227 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,622moderator
    ben20 said:
    ben20 said:
    Give the guy a break! While it shouldn't happen, firing someone over something he hasn't posted doesn't look good. Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
    Read my post above, he ALLOWED his daughter to enter the campus with a dSLR camera and zoom mic for video taping.

    This was premeditated, and planned, and shows wilful violation of Apple's rules, and the NDA he signed.

    And then he continued to let her post this video online. He's 100% responsible for his firing, and probable difficulties of being hired in his field in the future. No, I won't give him a break, and any ethical and moral person would say the same.

    And if, for the sake of argument, if he was so stupid as to think no harm would come of this, then I'm glad Apple canned his dumb ass, as someone that stupid shouldn't be working for company like Apple in the first place.
    How would you know this information? Have you been on the campus? Let me tell, cases like that go to court and the perspective might be very different for this guy, he may win his case against a firing! Be very careful, there is know way you know what happened!
    It’s there in the video.  Another commenter, much earlier In this thread, posted a link about the restrictions Apple imposes in that very on-campus Cafe, so any video shot there is likely a violation of his NDA, regardless of the subject of the video.  Magman1979’s summary is hard to refute. 
    edited October 2017 magman1979pscooter63
  • Reply 228 of 286
    "Daddy's taking me shopping!... shopping fixes everything" (or something to that effect)... what a spoiled little shit.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 229 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,622moderator
    svanstrom said:
    A reasonable person might ask how much it would have really cost Apple to ensure that phones could not film without first obtaining a code number or other authorization
    You do realise that to film the iPhone X she had to use another camera, right? And Apple can't just add pattern recognition and block all other cameras in the world from filming their products without some sort of Apple code…
    Not pattern recognition, no..but they have a patent on how to disable consumers from making videos where they are not welcome to do so.
    And how is it that Apple would get the code that would implement that patent onto a 3rd-party DSLR camera?  
    magman1979
  • Reply 230 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,622moderator

    jd_in_sb said:
    A reasonable person might ask how much it would have really cost Apple to ensure that phones could not film without first obtaining a code number or other authorization.
    Huh? The iPhone X being used to film something is not the issue. It being the subject of a film is the controversy here. Codes and authorization built into the pre-release iPhone X to prevent it from filming would not stop the girl from pulling out her personal iPhone and filming the screen of the pre-release iPhone X. 
    In other words, assuming the girl used an Apple device at an Apple controlled facility to make unauthorized recordings, it is reasonable for a jury to ask if Apple could have and should have prevented the recordings from ever having been made. To answer the "could have" question, one need only look to see that Apple holds patents for disabling videos at live events, it could have a feature in iOS to enable automatic MDM enrollment of visitor devices or custom iOS controls --maybe just a single line of code that checks the GPS coordinates vs. the developer-status of a device before allowing recordings. (Hmm, what's that in the Timezone dialog? Oh, Cupertino, I see.) The fact they don't do this is pretty stupid regardless of this case. The answer to the "should have" question is not for you or me to decide, but you can bet the attorney for the poor bastard they just fired will likely have a few ideas: was it too much of a financial burden, was it reasonable to expect this to happen, etc. Again, not our call.
    Wait, so... the Boston Red Sox should also require automatic MDM enrollment, and support such, if even exists, for all devices that could possibly be used to record the game?  IOS, Android, Windows Phone, etc?   Should the Red Sox then also seek a license to Apple’s patented process for preventing video recording and require each game attendee to install software that enforces that process on the device?  Because if they don’t, they won’t be able to sue a game attendee who publishes or otherwise rebroadcasts video of the sporting event?  Do you see how silly it seems now what you are suggesting Apple should be required to do? 
    It would be more than reasonable to assume MLB is actively seeking to implement such a technology. It probably won't be automatic MDM enrollment done at a visitor's check-in booth because that would take too much time, but Apple holds a patent for an alternative though venues will feel that the solution is needed beyond just iOS.
    Seems you just aren’t recognizing that the patent would need to be implemented in software and that the software would then need to be installed on any device capable of recording video.  In the case of this Apple employee’s daughter, that would be a 3rd-party DSLR camera, which has no direct affiliation or partnership with Apple, and so the camera manufacturer would likely not, by default, run Apple’s patented software solution for blocking the recording of video under various contexts.  And the Red Sox would also face this same issue.  How could the Red Sox implement such a patented software solution, owned by Apple and coded under iOS, on Android or Windows phones carried by attendees to a Red Sox game?  Your solution is a total red herring.  It is simply not feasible.  
    edited October 2017 magman1979
  • Reply 231 of 286
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,622moderator
    ben20 said:
    …firing someone over something he hasn’t posted…
    Personally allowed, in violation of corporate contract.
    Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
    Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products. There’s no double standard.
    Damn Right!  You'd never catch Steve breaking any rules!
    ...  Oh wait!  That's why they fired him -- he wouldn't follow their rules...

    For all those "rules is RULES" guys who support Apple firing this guy -- do you support their firing of Steve for the same reason?  (Not following rules)...
    It’s quite an assumption to suggest that those here agreeing with Apple in this matter and presenting their thoughtful views as to why they agree represent black and white ‘rules are rules’ people.  
    magman1979bigbillygoatgruffpscooter63
  • Reply 232 of 286
    svanstrom said:
    A reasonable person might ask how much it would have really cost Apple to ensure that phones could not film without first obtaining a code number or other authorization
    You do realise that to film the iPhone X she had to use another camera, right? And Apple can't just add pattern recognition and block all other cameras in the world from filming their products without some sort of Apple code…
    Not pattern recognition, no..but they have a patent on how to disable consumers from making videos where they are not welcome to do so.
    And how would you suggest that they take that thought experiment and force it to be retroactively implemented on all cameras from all brands such that no camera in the world is able to take pictures inside Apple locations?
    radarthekat
  • Reply 233 of 286
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,992member
    Daughter blames dad for making an "innocent mistake". Yes, the dad made a mistake by allowing her daughter to record his iPhone X, but the daughter made an equally-wrong mistake by posting said video.

    The father did not deserve to be fired in this case, considering the timing of events. Had it been before the keynote, then absolutely, but not after the world already knew about it.

    I shouldn't be surprised after watching the first video, but that daughter is spoiled, and maybe this experience will teach her a few things about the real world. Starting with how to apologize to her dad?
    radarthekat
  • Reply 234 of 286
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,992member

    dewme said:
    The rules that Apple puts in place in this case are designed to protect the integrity, competitiveness, and massive investment that Apple has made in the development and release of a product that is critical to the company's future. These rules protect a slew of stakeholders including, but not limited to, the company itself, its employees, corporate partners, and Apple shareholders This was a mindless and selfish act by an adolescent more concerned about self-aggrandizing her personal brand on YouTube than protecting her father's job and professional commitment to Apple. The highly trusted Apple employee implicitly sanctioned this violation and must be held fully accountable. I'm all about putting people above process, which is why the termination of this employee is all the more justified. He placed a very large number of other people's jobs and livelihoods at risk by violating rules that were specifically put in place to protect Apple's critical investments and promises to its many stakeholders, including all of the other employees at Apple. The "apology" video by the child is (yet another) example of how selfish individuals attempt to make everything about themselves rather than considering the consequences that their mistaken and selfish actions have on other people. Anti-empathy at its finest.

    Wow. Incredible response. Intelligent and well-written. #respect


    kingofsomewherehot
  • Reply 235 of 286
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,034member
    Daughter blames dad for making an "innocent mistake". Yes, the dad made a mistake by allowing her daughter to record his iPhone X, but the daughter made an equally-wrong mistake by posting said video.
    1) How are you people missing that the father is recording his daughter demoing his iPhone X for her vblog? Who do you think is holding the other camera?!

    2) No, they aren't even close to "equally wrong." What does she know of her father's NDA, rules about recording in the employee cafeteria, or other issues that may have led to his firing? If someone hands me their iPhone X to check out I'm going to fucking to explore it and if they've been instructed not to let others use it then it's not my fault for them handing it to me.
    edited October 2017 svanstromradarthekatbigbillygoatgruffmagman1979
  • Reply 236 of 286
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,034member
    ben20 said:
    …firing someone over something he hasn’t posted…
    Personally allowed, in violation of corporate contract.
    Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
    Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products. There’s no double standard.
    Damn Right!  You'd never catch Steve breaking any rules!
    ...  Oh wait!  That's why they fired him -- he wouldn't follow their rules...

    For all those "rules is RULES" guys who support Apple firing this guy -- do you support their firing of Steve for the same reason?  (Not following rules)...
    It’s quite an assumption to suggest that those here agreeing with Apple in this matter and presenting their thoughtful views as to why they agree represent black and white ‘rules are rules’ people.  
    It's not "an assumption." It's literally statements many of you have said in this thread.
  • Reply 237 of 286
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member

    Cafe Macs is open to the public - at least you can bring people in. So whatever rules apply within Apple proper can’t apply there. 
    Wrong, video taping ANYWHERE on campus is strictly prohibited, and Caffé Macs is public accessible by escort only, the rules extend to the visitors, and the escort must make the rules clear to them, and can be held accountable for their actions in the event of a breach of protocol.
    You are a font of knowledge because you once signed an NDA for a different company.  However there are plenty of pictures taken in cafe macs every year and no prosecutions. you should alert the authorities. 


  • Reply 238 of 286
    Soli said:
    ben20 said:
    …firing someone over something he hasn’t posted…
    Personally allowed, in violation of corporate contract.
    Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
    Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products. There’s no double standard.
    Damn Right!  You'd never catch Steve breaking any rules!
    ...  Oh wait!  That's why they fired him -- he wouldn't follow their rules...

    For all those "rules is RULES" guys who support Apple firing this guy -- do you support their firing of Steve for the same reason?  (Not following rules)...
    It’s quite an assumption to suggest that those here agreeing with Apple in this matter and presenting their thoughtful views as to why they agree represent black and white ‘rules are rules’ people.  
    It's not "an assumption." It's literally statements many of you have said in this thread.
    It's literally what you're reading into what people are saying…

    Language is dependent on context, but you take what people are saying and placing it in a different context thinking that that's enough to prove inconsistency.

    It's like showing someone a bowl of candy and asking what their favourite ones are, and just because they answered "the blue ones" you think you're some sort of genius at rhetorics when you later on "catch" them not liking something else that's blue.

    You need to be more sensitive to context; and listen to what people are trying to say.
    edited October 2017 radarthekat
  • Reply 239 of 286
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,277member
    'I like totally got my Dad fired from Apple, but I don't hold a grudge. I think Apple is going to do a much better job about making people informed... And I take no responsibility and let my Dad take all of it. Daddy will you buy me an iPhone X?'

    No wonder the stupid vacuous little twt disabled the comments for her Forgiving Apple video.
    airnerdmagman1979radarthekat
  • Reply 240 of 286
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,034member
    svanstrom said:
    Soli said:
    ben20 said:
    …firing someone over something he hasn’t posted…
    Personally allowed, in violation of corporate contract.
    Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
    Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products. There’s no double standard.
    Damn Right!  You'd never catch Steve breaking any rules!
    ...  Oh wait!  That's why they fired him -- he wouldn't follow their rules...

    For all those "rules is RULES" guys who support Apple firing this guy -- do you support their firing of Steve for the same reason?  (Not following rules)...
    It’s quite an assumption to suggest that those here agreeing with Apple in this matter and presenting their thoughtful views as to why they agree represent black and white ‘rules are rules’ people.  
    It's not "an assumption." It's literally statements many of you have said in this thread.
    It's literally what you're reading into what people are saying…
    You need better reading comprehension or a better memory if you don't recall the dozens of comments that directly refers to rules and either specifically stated that he knew the rules and should be fired (some even saying prosecuted for his crimes). Here's just one such specific example that shows that you're full of shit: "He knew the rules. He violated the rules." Frankly it's amazing that you think that comment in no way indicates "rules are rules,"and that's just comments that specifically use that word rules, while there are dozens of others that use synonymous term and refer to violating the NDA in any way means you should automatically be fired with extreme prejudice.
    edited October 2017 muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.