Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
I’m not sure why you’re equating the accidental loss of a device intended to be removed from the office for outside testing with the intentional violation of your NDA by letting your kid record a video of an unreleased product inside of Apple’s HQ where any filming isn’t allowed anyway and then publishing it YouTube. Obviously they are not the same. One is an accident. One was willful and demonstrates insanely poor judgement.
He may have accidentally forgotten the device but do you think when he was issued the device for testing outside of campus that he wasn't given a disclosure agreement to sign that stated that he's not to leave it anywhere, allow anyone else to use it, and/or not to talk about the device he has in a special case to obfuscate its appearance? I'd think that's pretty standard boiler plate for any company with a modicum of security and probably barely scratching the surface when it comes to what Apple likely had him sign. If I were in charge of this issue at Apple I'd even put in there that the employee should not imbibe if they wish to be part of this testing program because of the greater chance of having a lapse in judgement. Accident or not, the comments here are mostly very adamant about any violation of an agreement being a fireable offense—"no exceptions!," hence my mention of the iPhone 4 incident.
The biggest difference in these two incidents may be time--before a change in policy vs after a change in policy. The iPhone 4 incident may very well have caused that change in policy. This is all speculation, but the iPhone 4 engineer may have used the one "get out of jail free card" for the entire company. After that, Apple may well have decided that any violation is a fireable offense. I don't claim to know.
I'd also proffer that other factors are at play. For example, if, say, Angela Ahrendt or Jony Ive had filmed the iPhone X in the wild last week without permission that they wouldn't have been fired because of their importance to the company.
Now, many will read those names and think, "I can't imagine them ever doing that," and whilst that's not the point I can certainly use that thought for a rebuttal. IOW, it's not improbable that an employee that makes this egregious (albeit an unharmful to iPhone X sales) mistake has likely made other mistakes at Apple. Again I'll mention the "final straw" analogy.
No, you can’t. What-if-ism is a fallacious argument because it’s just made up fantasy in your head. Your what if scenario is no more useful to a logical argument than asking what if King Tut released the video? It’s pure fantasy so it you’re free to answer it however you wish in a way to prop up your position. I could say “Cook would fire King Tut!” and it adds the exact same value to the position being argued — which is to say, nothing.
What-if-ism is a fallacy for this reason. It’s just malleable fantasy.
oh, where is that humane apple CEO that is so concerned with human rights and all kind of social, antisocial and more or less rational rights??...
Having equal civil rights doesn’t mean every idiot should be free of responsibility and consequence for personal decisions. Durr
The purpose of a corporation is to return a profit to investors at the risk of a loss.
Everything else a corporation can/should do is secondary to that purpose and is optional! The CEO of Apple (or any corporation) would be remiss in his duties if he ignored a known risk.
I wonder how many of the fools here claiming: "Rules is rules -- Fire his ass!" have gotten warnings instead of a ticket from a cop after breaking a rule?
For these people, rules generally only apply to those "other" people who break rules.....
Nice try. I doubt anyone considers all rules to be of equal importance with equal penalties. If safeguarding sensitive information is a condition of your employment and you demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to do so, you are not employable.
You can still feel empathy for the guy while believing his termination was reasonable. He is a human being with feelings. It hurts to lose a job no matter what the circumstances.
Well said. So many people here are taking a black and white approach - this was pragmatic and practical!
Yes indeed. I worked for a very large corporation that fired a very high level business manager who was instrumental in creating an entirely new business unit in a country that was of strategic importance to the company. His manager and well over 100 direct reports adored him. The violation? He lied about expenses on an expense report. The dollar amount was inconsequential. Gone. Message sent and understood and unquestioned by all. Trust matters.
I wonder how many of the fools here claiming: "Rules is rules -- Fire his ass!" have gotten warnings instead of a ticket from a cop after breaking a rule?
For these people, rules generally only apply to those "other" people who break rules.....
I think there’s a willfulness factor involved. I imagine police give warnings in situations where he/she feels the driver did not intentionally break the rule (speeding, improper turn, etc.). But I imagine tickets are nearly always given when the driver has shown a willful disregard of a rule. And that’s what the evidence here shows; the father allowed video recording in a part of the Apple campus where (one poster here showed a link) it is specifically prohibited, and he willfully participated in the creation of a recording of a not-yet-released Apple product, as evidenced by his voice in the video claiming that the animoji being shown was responding to his facial expressions. Fairly willful, wouldn’t you say?
Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
I’m not sure why you’re equating the accidental loss of a device intended to be removed from the office for outside testing with the intentional violation of your NDA by letting your kid record a video of an unreleased product inside of Apple’s HQ where any filming isn’t allowed anyway and then publishing it YouTube. Obviously they are not the same. One is an accident. One was willful and demonstrates insanely poor judgement.
He may have accidentally forgotten the device but do you think when he was issued the device for testing outside of campus that he wasn't given a disclosure agreement to sign that stated that he's not to leave it anywhere, allow anyone else to use it, and/or not to talk about the device he has in a special case to obfuscate its appearance? I'd think that's pretty standard boiler plate for any company with a modicum of security and probably barely scratching the surface when it comes to what Apple likely had him sign. If I were in charge of this issue at Apple I'd even put in there that the employee should not imbibe if they wish to be part of this testing program because of the greater chance of having a lapse in judgement. Accident or not, the comments here are mostly very adamant about any violation of an agreement being a fireable offense—"no exceptions!," hence my mention of the iPhone 4 incident.
I can’t speak to what others believe. But there is a very real difference between accident and intentional. This guy let his daughter film her day at Apple with a dSLR, then willfully gave her an unreleased product to film. Then let her post it all to YouTube. Again the definition of insanely poor judgement, and far worse than losing a cloaked device at a bar where someone took it to sell to bloggers.
There's no doubt it's not accidental. As I stated earlier, her father would have had to unlock the device in some way, give it to her, AND he was holding and filming the other camera while she was demoing the device for the camera. That's one of the very few factual details we know.
What did she show in the video that wasn't already shown in the keynote?
It doesn't matter.
It matters legally and since an NDA is solely a legal document that means it matters. You can simply Google NDAs and "public domain" to see that information already widely known is not subject to an NDA.
That covers any aspects of an NDA that have to do with the information exposed, but might an NDA also cover more ground?
Did the person who lost an iPhone 4 at a bar months before it was to be unveiled get fired?
I’m not sure why you’re equating the accidental loss of a device intended to be removed from the office for outside testing with the intentional violation of your NDA by letting your kid record a video of an unreleased product inside of Apple’s HQ where any filming isn’t allowed anyway and then publishing it YouTube. Obviously they are not the same. One is an accident. One was willful and demonstrates insanely poor judgement.
He may have accidentally forgotten the device but do you think when he was issued the device for testing outside of campus that he wasn't given a disclosure agreement to sign that stated that he's not to leave it anywhere, allow anyone else to use it, and/or not to talk about the device he has in a special case to obfuscate its appearance? I'd think that's pretty standard boiler plate for any company with a modicum of security and probably barely scratching the surface when it comes to what Apple likely had him sign. If I were in charge of this issue at Apple I'd even put in there that the employee should not imbibe if they wish to be part of this testing program because of the greater chance of having a lapse in judgement. Accident or not, the comments here are mostly very adamant about any violation of an agreement being a fireable offense—"no exceptions!," hence my mention of the iPhone 4 incident.
The biggest difference in these two incidents may be time--before a change in policy vs after a change in policy. The iPhone 4 incident may very well have caused that change in policy. This is all speculation, but the iPhone 4 engineer may have used the one "get out of jail free card" for the entire company. After that, Apple may well have decided that any violation is a fireable offense. I don't claim to know.
I'd also proffer that other factors are at play. For example, if, say, Angela Ahrendt or Jony Ive had filmed the iPhone X in the wild last week without permission that they wouldn't have been fired because of their importance to the company.
Now, many will read those names and think, "I can't imagine them ever doing that," and whilst that's not the point I can certainly use that thought for a rebuttal. IOW, it's not improbable that an employee that makes this egregious (albeit an unharmful to iPhone X sales) mistake has likely made other mistakes at Apple. Again I'll mention the "final straw" analogy.
No, you can’t. What-if-ism is a fallacious argument because it’s just made up fantasy in your head. Your what if scenario is no more useful to a logical argument than asking what if King Tut released the video? It’s pure fantasy so it you’re free to answer it however you wish in a way to prop up your position. I could say “Cook would fire King Tut!” and it adds the exact same value to the position being argued — which is to say, nothing.
What-if-ism is a fallacy for this reason. It’s just malleable fantasy.
The inflexible narrative that you and others are ascribing to this situation is a compartmentalized post hoc fallacy.
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.
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.
I wonder how many of the fools here claiming: "Rules is rules -- Fire his ass!" have gotten warnings instead of a ticket from a cop after breaking a rule?
For these people, rules generally only apply to those "other" people who break rules.....
Nice try. I doubt anyone considers all rules to be of equal importance with equal penalties. If safeguarding sensitive information is a condition of your employment and you demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to do so, you are not employable.
You can still feel empathy for the guy while believing his termination was reasonable. He is a human being with feelings. It hurts to lose a job no matter what the circumstances.
Well said. So many people here are taking a black and white approach - this was pragmatic and practical!
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.
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.
i guess I just don’t see what is secret about the X anymore. At 12:01am on Nov. 3, you can say and take video of it until your hearts content. This was like a week before availability. Heck, reviews will be coming out from the usual shills in another 3-4 days from now too.
If this came out before the phone was introduced, sure, fire him, hang him, whatever. It would be warranted.
Which just goes to show, it’s not entirely about the specific information that was exposed. It’s likely more about whether this employee, who violated a contract (NDA) can be trusted and is therefore still employable. Probably not would be my view.
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.
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.
‘Could be’ because I’m not involved in Apple’s decision. Therefore I can only conjecture as to the factors involved in that decision. I was tossing out those that seem to make sense to me. But yeah, it’s almost always the case that ‘could be’ does not imply ‘must be.’ So what?
Dysamoria seems to enjoy cultivating a theater of conspiracy. That’s all I’m sayin.
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.
So, should they now also sue all the Apple Event attendees who showed off the iPhone X on camera and on their Vlogs... at the Opening Event hands-on demo... which was held earlier in time? Here's your subpoena, CNET.
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.
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.
So, should they now also sue all the Apple Event attendees who showed off the iPhone X on camera and on their Vlogs... at the Opening Event hands-on demo... which was held earlier in time? Here's your subpoena, CNET.
AFAIK, they were not under NDA contract with Apple.
So, should they now also sue all the Apple Event attendees who showed off the iPhone X on camera and on their Vlogs... at the Opening Event hands-on demo... which was held earlier in time? Here's your subpoena, CNET.
No. That's just nonsense. The announcement was a public event intended specifically to disseminate that information. The presenters are not being fired because that was an authorized disclosure. There is no legal liability for the event attendees. Handing the phone to your daughter is an unauthorized disclosure. And there is probably no legal liability for the daughter--especially since she honored Apple's request to remove the video. I doubt Apple suffered any damages from the daughter's actions.
I don't understand why so many on this forum are troubled by the concept of authorized vs unauthorized disclosure.
OCTOBER 26, 2017 EXTRACT FROM PLATO’S REPUBLIC: ON THAT WHICH IS CORRECT POLITICALLY MARK PAGLIA
GLAUCON: Now that we have determined the nature of justice, education, and proper governance, is it finally time for us to go home?
THRASYMACHUS: We have left out the most pernicious evil that can be visited upon a citizenry.
GLAUCON: Warfare? Lack of investment in marble infrastructure? Converting all programs for the commonweal into block grants?
THRASYMACHUS: No, I speak of political correctness, the greatest scourge we know of, aside from plague. And pestilence. And those other things you mentioned.
SOCRATES: What do you mean when you speak of that which is correct politically?
THRASYMACHUS: You know, politically correct. It’s when something is… politically correct.
SOCRATES: A politician may decry a deleterious policy in front of the populace, and yet still vote for it. Or a politician may make nonsensical promises that are yet popular enough to ensure their election. Is this what you mean by “politically correct”?
GLAUCON: Or perhaps doing the bidding of your wealthy patrons, to ensure their continued support?
THRASYMACHUS: No, I mean like how I don’t think we should let any Thebans into Athens because they’re all criminals, and I don’t think different races should mix, but I can’t just say that because it’s politically incorrect.
GLAUCON: It’s also super bigoted. And what do you mean about races mixing? Aren’t we all Greek?
THRASYMACHUS: You see? I can’t say it because it’s not politically correct.
SOCRATES: You claim that you cannot say it, and yet you just said it. Therefore, it is not true that it cannot be said.
THRASYMACHUS: Well, okay, yeah, you can say it, but then everyone will censor you.
SOCRATES: Has any official censor of Athens levied a fine upon you for saying this?
THRASYMACHUS: No. Do we even have censors? Or is that something the Romans do a few centuries from now? I always get ancient cultures mixed up.
GLAUCON: What’s a Roman?
SOCRATES: Who then is in a position to punish you for indulging in bigotry?
THRASYMACHUS: Okay, maybe I’m not punished, but everyone in the agora will say that I’m racist and that I shouldn’t say insulting things about Thebans.
SOCRATES: Well, as I have already established in our rather lengthy dialogue, one cannot trust the opinion of the masses.
THRASYMACHUS: Thank you. Finally, someone understands how the most oppressed people in Athens are the wealthy male Athenian landowners.
SOCRATES: But in this case it sounds like those who object to your statements have no power over you. It is as if you are the one in a position of privilege, and yet you are driven to pretend that you are not.
GLAUCON: Can we just leave this jerk and go home, Socrates? We’ve been talking for hours.
SOCRATES: In fact, it is as if you know that you are wrong, and yet rather than seek that which is right, you complain whenever others point out how wrong you are.
THRASYMACHUS: Look, if I just admit I’m wrong, can we drop it?
SOCRATES: This returns us to our original topic of the nature of justice. Now, you will recall that the distinction between—
While we don’t know the details, sure a demotion of something could also be considered. But it’s not like Apple cut his finger off... Apple engineers can work anywhere they want. Many will sympathize with him and I doubt he’ll have much trouble finding another gig.
Violation of an NDA in your history, is going be a little tricky to overcome. Let alone with all the follow-up publicity. He can probably get a job selling tools or paint at Home Depot, but I doubt he will ever be hirable in any firm developing some new groundbreaking product.
Wow, um, not the best job taking a modicum of responsibility there. “I’ve apologized to my father, and should have known better,” is probably appropriate.
Wow.
Except that, he appears IN the video, handing the phone over to her, answering her questions, etc.
She was just doing another video blog, he's the one who made the decision to break his NDA.
Comments
What-if-ism is a fallacy for this reason. It’s just malleable fantasy.
The purpose of a corporation is to return a profit to investors at the risk of a loss.
Everything else a corporation can/should do is secondary to that purpose and is optional!
The CEO of Apple (or any corporation) would be remiss in his duties if he ignored a known risk.
That covers any aspects of an NDA that have to do with the information exposed, but might an NDA also cover more ground?
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.
2) Life being nuanced, and issues and solutions requiring a certain level of thought does not imply conspiracy.
Dysamoria seems to enjoy cultivating a theater of conspiracy. That’s all I’m sayin.
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.
I don't understand why so many on this forum are troubled by the concept of authorized vs unauthorized disclosure.
This thread reminds me of:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/extract-from-platos-republic-on-that-which-is-correct-politically
via Gruber