I'm totally for the firings. Apple gave these people an expensive gift, and then they turn around and try to extract more $$ from the company, through dishonest means? How can Apple continue to employ these people in good faith?
Again, fire away, Apple. I'm glad we still live in a world where there are real consequences for stupid behavior. It helps reinforce the difference between good and bad behavior in society as a whole. A slap on the wrist wouldn't have such an effect...
Many such employees are trusted with a lot of access and information.
I do not think that any ethical person would think twice about firing an unethical employee.
Exactly if they are willing to scam the system for 100 dollars which is not much, That means they are untrustworthy employees and who knows what else they have done in the past and have not been caught or what they are thinking about doing in the future.
So while many retailers may unfairly reject someone for looking too unconventional, I think Apple may commit the opposite fault, and reject good people who look too conventional or conservative. I think the ideal would be to have a mixture...especially as Apple enlarges its appeal to more conventional type of people.
I agree. Fry's Electronics used to have qualified personnel too. Now, it appears to be a bunch of misfits who know very little other than to point you to another department because they have no answers—in others word: self-serve.
Terms and Conditions for the $100 store credit for Early iPhone owners program
This credit is extended to end-customers who own a qualifying iPhone purchased from Apple or AT&T prior to August 22, 2007. To receive a credit, customers must submit requests between September 13, 2007, and November 30, 2007, at www.apple.com/iphone/storecredit. Requests will not be accepted after November 30, 2007. The program is for a $100 Apple electronic store credit in the form of a numeric code consisting of a credit number and PIN. This program is limited to one $100 Apple electronic store credit per eligible iPhone. Customers may apply this credit as provided in these terms and conditions. Customers should record the numeric codes that are presented electronically through the web browser. Apple will not replace lost or stolen codes. Only iPhones activated through AT&T are eligible to receive a credit.
Some iPhones will not qualify for a credit. They are: (1) iPhones purchased from Apple from August 22, 2007, through September 4, 2007, as they are subject to price protection (Separate terms and conditions apply. Details are available at www.apple.com/iphone/storecredit/priceprotection), (2) iPhones that have been returned to Apple or AT&T, (3) iPhones for which a Gift Card, rebate, or other consideration have already been issued, (4) iPhones that Apple provided to employees, either for personal use or for departmental use, (5) iPhones provided by Apple for product reviews, (6) AppleCare Service iPhones, (7) iPhones registered to customers whose addresses are outside the United States, (8) iPhones for which Apple or AT&T already has extended price protection under applicable sales terms, and (9) iPhones purchased by corporations or education institutions where Apple has provided alternative accommodation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution
Seems plainly obvious to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc
that's not the entire story they where also claiming refunds on store display models, so not only where they claiming the $100 back on something that was given to them, but most of them took advantage of the store models too, remember store models are also activated if you did not know, so expect att to fire a few people to for the same thing
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs says he can almost feel Apple
Orange to sell unlocked iPhone
Apple's announcement Tuesday that it had signed France Telecom's wireless unit, Orange, to be its exclusive seller of the iPhone in France may have included a first-time clause that the carrier may also sell an unlocked version of the device that consumers can use on any network.
"The move, which ended a month of speculation, is a concession to a French law that forbids bundling the sale of a mobile phone and a mobile operator," the International Herald Tribune (IHT) reports. "Orange plans to sell both a version of the iPhone locked to its network in France for ?399, or $560, and an unlocked version, which will cost more, an Orange spokeswoman [...] said."
According to the Orange spokeswoman, the cost of the unlocked version of the iPhone will be announced in November. For its part, however, Apple appears to be disputing that an official agreement has been made in this regard. Speaking to Gizmodo, a spokesperson for the iPhone maker said IHT was 'only citing French law, not Orange's intentions.'
I always had a feeling that maybe Apple would do this in order to sell more phones a few months along the line - eventhough the reason here is the French law, maybe everyone else will get this chance sometime?
"The question is are we headed for a tipping point," said Jobs. "It sometimes feels like that."
Only if you start to diversify your hardware offerings, Steve!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
Translation: We are about to announce an xMac!
Let's hope so.
And some 15" and 17" MacBooks (non pro) while you're at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
When they achieve double digit world wide marketshare (i.e. at least 10%) per quarter consecutively and incrementally for serveral quarters and years, then you can say they're at a tipping point.
I agree, mostly. I'm not sure it would have to be several years. But I get this feeling that 10% is an important number in the eyes of developers and such like. It it were to ever reach this number, OS X would become less marginalised and therefore an easier choice for the wider population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
Firefox has reached that point and when 3.0 comes out IE will just keep sliding in share.
I'm not so sure. Maybe IE 7's tabs, no matter how horrible its UI, will halt the slide.
Employees can no longer, if they could even do it before, receive $100 store credit. They receive a message saying their is no record of their iPhone. I'm guessing they 800 employees let go were seasonal for the summer anyways.
Employees can no longer, if they could even do it before, receive $100 store credit. They receive a message saying their is no record of their iPhone. I'm guessing they 800 employees let go were seasonal for the summer anyways.
With the biggest holiday season upon us? That makes no sense.
I'm totally for the firings. Apple gave these people an expensive gift, and then they turn around and try to extract more $$ from the company, through dishonest means? How can Apple continue to employ these people in good faith?
Again, fire away, Apple. I'm glad we still live in a world where there are real consequences for stupid behavior. It helps reinforce the difference between good and bad behavior in society as a whole. A slap on the wrist wouldn't have such an effect...
You could just as easily be talkiing about Steve Jobs and some of the other execs implicated in last years stock options snafu. Did any of those guys get fired? Oh right, they were important enough to the company to hire high-priced lawyers to figure out neat legal loopholes--soemthing $12/hr employees don't rate. And maybe someone fell on their sword, as i said I don't remember.
Things are never so simple when it comes to business and ethics. They supposedly fired 800 retail store employees, essentially the bottom tier of their employee heirarchy. How many other Apple employees comitted the same infraction, and did they all get fired? (Somehow I suspect a guy working in the Leopard program might be still working, just as Steve Jobs is still working, )
My point: it's easy to make an example of some poor schnub working for $12/hr. You prove you committment to ethics with equal treatment of your high value employees.
I think one potential problem for Apple with their retail stores is that they try to project to employees this easy going, come as you are attitude. This in many ways is great, but it can also have the effect of giving some employees the impression that they can get away with anything. In short, this attitude of going easy on employees needs to be balanced with letting employees know they have the expectation of meeting certain standards of self discipline, performance, and ethics. It's a tough balancing act for every company.
Also, these fired employees were just plain stupid. Any employee of Apple, if they are smart, are maxing out on their 401k contributions to get as much matching Apple stock as possible. Given the stock run up, employees who have been with Apple for the last few years or more could easily have amassed a small fortune in their retirement fund. That is a huge benefit of working for Apple, and I wonder just how many retail employees realize that.
My point: it's easy to make an example of some poor schnub working for $12/hr. You prove you commitment to ethics with equal treatment of your high value employees.
Ptrash: First, you wrongly assume that Jobs was found guilty of any wrongdoing in the options mess. He was not. Those that were truly implicated have faced punishment of one form or another. You do Jobs a disservice by assuming his guilt.
Second, any violation in the rewarding of options is a violation only against shareholders. If shareholders believe someone like Jobs is worth having in the company regardless of any involvement in the options mess, then that is their right. Indeed, it would be a true crime to have Jobs forced out when the shareholders want him there.
Third, I would bet that anyone trying to unjustly claim their $100 refund would get fired, even a software developer working on Leopard. Of course, most of those higher up in the company aren't so stupid or needy of an extra 100 bucks to even attempt that. I hardly think the lead programmer on Leopard, for instance, would even think of such a thing.
So sure you have to practice ethics across the board, even and especially among the higher ups. But there is not one shred of evidence that Apple has failed to do that. If you do have such evidence, please furnish it before making baseless accusations.
So sure you have to practice ethics across the board, even and especially among the higher ups. But there is not one shred of evidence that Apple has failed to do that. If you do have such evidence, please furnish it before making baseless accusations.
None that the general public is privy to. There is a lot that happens in the higher ranks that never sees the light of day. This is not implicating Jobs, but I believe we all know this fact. The high ranks hide behind confidentially agreements, and attorney-client privilege.
I smell another lawsuit coming in for unlawful firing...
its just sad...
How is it unlawful? Did you not see this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic
Some iPhones will not qualify for a credit. They are: (1) iPhones purchased from Apple from August 22, 2007, through September 4, 2007, as they are subject to price protection (Separate terms and conditions apply. Details are available at www.apple.com/iphone/storecredit/priceprotection), (2) iPhones that have been returned to Apple or AT&T, (3) iPhones for which a Gift Card, rebate, or other consideration have already been issued, (4) iPhones that Apple provided to employees, either for personal use or for departmental use, (5) iPhones provided by Apple for product reviews, (6) AppleCare Service iPhones, (7) iPhones registered to customers whose addresses are outside the United States, (8) iPhones for which Apple or AT&T already has extended price protection under applicable sales terms, and (9) iPhones purchased by corporations or education institutions where Apple has provided alternative accommodation.
It's painfully obvious that they stole $100 from Apple, it's just the same as reaching into the register and removing cash. No lawsuit, such as you describe, will ever gain traction.
Unless I missed it in the headline, Apple should have told their employees ahead of time that they were not to request the credit. Yes, it was a free phone, but I can totally see someone thinking they could apply for this (no, I don't agree with that, I just can see someone thinking it was OK). Apple could have avoided confusion with a simply memo to all of it employees. I find it hard to believe that Apple did in fact distribute any kind of notice if 800 employees tried to take advantage of this, nor can I believe that all 800 employees knowingly did something wrong.
I agree, that's a bit ridiculous. Perhaps quietly asking the employees to give back the $100 would have been more apt, as they never explicitly said that they couldn't claim the refund. Then there's the double-edged sword...they knew the phone was a gift, but still claimed the money on it. Hmm...I still don't think firing the employees was a good idea.
Quote:
According to Ars's David Chartier, Apple ***may*** have recently fired
As chic as it seems to be to assume the worst about Apple Corp, note the word "may have".
I'll wait until I see a verified news account of this before I pass judgment.
Comments
Again, fire away, Apple. I'm glad we still live in a world where there are real consequences for stupid behavior. It helps reinforce the difference between good and bad behavior in society as a whole. A slap on the wrist wouldn't have such an effect...
Bingo!
Many such employees are trusted with a lot of access and information.
I do not think that any ethical person would think twice about firing an unethical employee.
Exactly if they are willing to scam the system for 100 dollars which is not much, That means they are untrustworthy employees and who knows what else they have done in the past and have not been caught or what they are thinking about doing in the future.
So while many retailers may unfairly reject someone for looking too unconventional, I think Apple may commit the opposite fault, and reject good people who look too conventional or conservative. I think the ideal would be to have a mixture...especially as Apple enlarges its appeal to more conventional type of people.
I agree. Fry's Electronics used to have qualified personnel too. Now, it appears to be a bunch of misfits who know very little other than to point you to another department because they have no answers—in others word: self-serve.
This credit is extended to end-customers who own a qualifying iPhone purchased from Apple or AT&T prior to August 22, 2007. To receive a credit, customers must submit requests between September 13, 2007, and November 30, 2007, at www.apple.com/iphone/storecredit. Requests will not be accepted after November 30, 2007. The program is for a $100 Apple electronic store credit in the form of a numeric code consisting of a credit number and PIN. This program is limited to one $100 Apple electronic store credit per eligible iPhone. Customers may apply this credit as provided in these terms and conditions. Customers should record the numeric codes that are presented electronically through the web browser. Apple will not replace lost or stolen codes. Only iPhones activated through AT&T are eligible to receive a credit.
Some iPhones will not qualify for a credit. They are: (1) iPhones purchased from Apple from August 22, 2007, through September 4, 2007, as they are subject to price protection (Separate terms and conditions apply. Details are available at www.apple.com/iphone/storecredit/priceprotection), (2) iPhones that have been returned to Apple or AT&T, (3) iPhones for which a Gift Card, rebate, or other consideration have already been issued, (4) iPhones that Apple provided to employees, either for personal use or for departmental use, (5) iPhones provided by Apple for product reviews, (6) AppleCare Service iPhones, (7) iPhones registered to customers whose addresses are outside the United States, (8) iPhones for which Apple or AT&T already has extended price protection under applicable sales terms, and (9) iPhones purchased by corporations or education institutions where Apple has provided alternative accommodation.
Seems plainly obvious to me.
that's not the entire story they where also claiming refunds on store display models, so not only where they claiming the $100 back on something that was given to them, but most of them took advantage of the store models too, remember store models are also activated if you did not know, so expect att to fire a few people to for the same thing
There you go. Fire away!
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs says he can almost feel Apple
Orange to sell unlocked iPhone
Apple's announcement Tuesday that it had signed France Telecom's wireless unit, Orange, to be its exclusive seller of the iPhone in France may have included a first-time clause that the carrier may also sell an unlocked version of the device that consumers can use on any network.
"The move, which ended a month of speculation, is a concession to a French law that forbids bundling the sale of a mobile phone and a mobile operator," the International Herald Tribune (IHT) reports. "Orange plans to sell both a version of the iPhone locked to its network in France for ?399, or $560, and an unlocked version, which will cost more, an Orange spokeswoman [...] said."
According to the Orange spokeswoman, the cost of the unlocked version of the iPhone will be announced in November. For its part, however, Apple appears to be disputing that an official agreement has been made in this regard. Speaking to Gizmodo, a spokesperson for the iPhone maker said IHT was 'only citing French law, not Orange's intentions.'
I always had a feeling that maybe Apple would do this in order to sell more phones a few months along the line - eventhough the reason here is the French law, maybe everyone else will get this chance sometime?
"The question is are we headed for a tipping point," said Jobs. "It sometimes feels like that."
Only if you start to diversify your hardware offerings, Steve!
Translation: We are about to announce an xMac!
Let's hope so.
And some 15" and 17" MacBooks (non pro) while you're at it.
When they achieve double digit world wide marketshare (i.e. at least 10%) per quarter consecutively and incrementally for serveral quarters and years, then you can say they're at a tipping point.
I agree, mostly. I'm not sure it would have to be several years. But I get this feeling that 10% is an important number in the eyes of developers and such like. It it were to ever reach this number, OS X would become less marginalised and therefore an easier choice for the wider population.
Firefox has reached that point and when 3.0 comes out IE will just keep sliding in share.
I'm not so sure. Maybe IE 7's tabs, no matter how horrible its UI, will halt the slide.
So if you got an iphone as a gift, you aren't entitled to the refund? And fire 800 people because of it?
Seems full to the brim of BS to me. Unless there was a company memo that expressly said not to try for the refund.
These employees were given the phone at no cost. To take another $100 from Apple is blatant theft and every one of them deserved to be fired.
Employees can no longer, if they could even do it before, receive $100 store credit. They receive a message saying their is no record of their iPhone. I'm guessing they 800 employees let go were seasonal for the summer anyways.
With the biggest holiday season upon us? That makes no sense.
its just sad...
I'm totally for the firings. Apple gave these people an expensive gift, and then they turn around and try to extract more $$ from the company, through dishonest means? How can Apple continue to employ these people in good faith?
Again, fire away, Apple. I'm glad we still live in a world where there are real consequences for stupid behavior. It helps reinforce the difference between good and bad behavior in society as a whole. A slap on the wrist wouldn't have such an effect...
You could just as easily be talkiing about Steve Jobs and some of the other execs implicated in last years stock options snafu. Did any of those guys get fired? Oh right, they were important enough to the company to hire high-priced lawyers to figure out neat legal loopholes--soemthing $12/hr employees don't rate. And maybe someone fell on their sword, as i said I don't remember.
Things are never so simple when it comes to business and ethics. They supposedly fired 800 retail store employees, essentially the bottom tier of their employee heirarchy. How many other Apple employees comitted the same infraction, and did they all get fired? (Somehow I suspect a guy working in the Leopard program might be still working, just as Steve Jobs is still working, )
My point: it's easy to make an example of some poor schnub working for $12/hr. You prove you committment to ethics with equal treatment of your high value employees.
Also, these fired employees were just plain stupid. Any employee of Apple, if they are smart, are maxing out on their 401k contributions to get as much matching Apple stock as possible. Given the stock run up, employees who have been with Apple for the last few years or more could easily have amassed a small fortune in their retirement fund. That is a huge benefit of working for Apple, and I wonder just how many retail employees realize that.
My point: it's easy to make an example of some poor schnub working for $12/hr. You prove you commitment to ethics with equal treatment of your high value employees.
Excellent response.
Second, any violation in the rewarding of options is a violation only against shareholders. If shareholders believe someone like Jobs is worth having in the company regardless of any involvement in the options mess, then that is their right. Indeed, it would be a true crime to have Jobs forced out when the shareholders want him there.
Third, I would bet that anyone trying to unjustly claim their $100 refund would get fired, even a software developer working on Leopard. Of course, most of those higher up in the company aren't so stupid or needy of an extra 100 bucks to even attempt that. I hardly think the lead programmer on Leopard, for instance, would even think of such a thing.
So sure you have to practice ethics across the board, even and especially among the higher ups. But there is not one shred of evidence that Apple has failed to do that. If you do have such evidence, please furnish it before making baseless accusations.
So sure you have to practice ethics across the board, even and especially among the higher ups. But there is not one shred of evidence that Apple has failed to do that. If you do have such evidence, please furnish it before making baseless accusations.
None that the general public is privy to. There is a lot that happens in the higher ranks that never sees the light of day. This is not implicating Jobs, but I believe we all know this fact. The high ranks hide behind confidentially agreements, and attorney-client privilege.
I smell another lawsuit coming in for unlawful firing...
its just sad...
How is it unlawful? Did you not see this post:
Some iPhones will not qualify for a credit. They are: (1) iPhones purchased from Apple from August 22, 2007, through September 4, 2007, as they are subject to price protection (Separate terms and conditions apply. Details are available at www.apple.com/iphone/storecredit/priceprotection), (2) iPhones that have been returned to Apple or AT&T, (3) iPhones for which a Gift Card, rebate, or other consideration have already been issued, (4) iPhones that Apple provided to employees, either for personal use or for departmental use, (5) iPhones provided by Apple for product reviews, (6) AppleCare Service iPhones, (7) iPhones registered to customers whose addresses are outside the United States, (8) iPhones for which Apple or AT&T already has extended price protection under applicable sales terms, and (9) iPhones purchased by corporations or education institutions where Apple has provided alternative accommodation.
It's painfully obvious that they stole $100 from Apple, it's just the same as reaching into the register and removing cash. No lawsuit, such as you describe, will ever gain traction.
I agree, that's a bit ridiculous. Perhaps quietly asking the employees to give back the $100 would have been more apt, as they never explicitly said that they couldn't claim the refund. Then there's the double-edged sword...they knew the phone was a gift, but still claimed the money on it. Hmm...I still don't think firing the employees was a good idea.
According to Ars's David Chartier, Apple ***may*** have recently fired
As chic as it seems to be to assume the worst about Apple Corp, note the word "may have".
I'll wait until I see a verified news account of this before I pass judgment.
Seems plainly obvious to me.
I agree. It's called double dipping and they being on the inside of retail should always get fired from frauding the company.