
Apple Poaching Auto Engineers to Build Battery Division - antr
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/02/18/business/18reuters-apple-autos-lawsuit.html?ref=business&_r=0
======
tessierashpool
What if the whole deal behind all of this media stuff is just that mainstream
journalists have figured out that iOS requires software engineers, and
hardware engineers, but they can't wrap their head around the idea that iOS
also requires battery engineers?

I'm not saying Apple _isn 't_ making a car. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool
if they were. I'm just saying that if you're at all familiar with the history
of how the media has _always_ interacted with Apple - if you read Daring
Fireball, for instance - then something that mind-bogglingly stupid might
actually seem completely typical, in context.

~~~
tfinniga
There is definitely a bias in the media to write the most interesting story,
even if it is less plausible.

Having a car in the works is more interesting than needing better batteries
for existing/announced product lines. Much better batteries would be a strong
advantage for apple watch, for example.

------
MiguelRus
An anecdote: I recently went to a conference where a senior member of
Foster+Partners, the architecture firm close to Apple (the studio behind
Apple's new HQ, many new stores), presented the design for an autonomous
vehicle, which resembles more the "Apple minivan" concept that is being
mentioned by the press, here is that part of the presentation:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&t=14m32s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&t=14m32s)

~~~
bpodgursky
I think the minivan concept makes a lot of sense. The demographic that is
likely to own a minivan is likely to have their own garage, which makes
charging no hassle. A family with a minivan most likely has a second car they
could use for long-distance driving, making range anxiety less of a problem.
And they are likely to have the disposable income to invest in an electric car
in the first place.

~~~
roc
The size certainly makes sense, if driverless technology turns cars into
mobile living rooms.

If you're not driving, the entire "sporty" side of the styling and image are
out the window. Limos aren't "sporty" and no-one cares. They care that the
limo is comfortable and luxurious.

------
mdasen
Apple is smart to be grabbing A123 engineers. While people seem to remember
A123 for its auto pursuits, it also produced batteries for things like tools
from Black & Decker.

The problem with cars was that no auto manufacturer wanted to make themselves
dependent on a single source for batteries. If someone built a car around
A123's batteries, that put them in a bad position. If A123 had difficulty
producing the volume needed, there wasn't an alternative. Similarly, it would
give A123 incredible pricing power at the end of the contract term.

For a company like Black & Decker, they could offer a premium tool line based
on the batteries, but they would still be selling lower-cost tools with less
battery life or more weight. With a vehicle, altering the range or weight is a
much bigger deal.

If Apple can increase the power density of the batteries in iPhones or
MacBooks, that's a big win for them. "Solving" transportation is a very
attractive problem and everyone seems to want that. But better batteries have
much easier applications. Apple may be working on a vehicle, but if Apple can
increase its battery power density by even 30% that gives them a huge
advantage in their core markets (phones, tablets, and laptops). That's a much
more modest increase than A123. If Apple's battery efforts work well in their
current devices, one can see how an electric car might eventually happen. But
hiring people from A123 can directly help the markets where Apple makes so
much money today. Maybe electric cars are in Apple's future, but even if they
aren't, batteries definitely are.

------
Tloewald
I'm pretty skeptical about the Apple Car rumor (Jean-Louis Gassee wrote a nice
debunking piece [http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/02/15/the-fantastic-apple-
car...](http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/02/15/the-fantastic-apple-car/)), but
when the NY Times suggests that Apple specializes in mobility and electronics
it seems to make the car seem more likely.

In "Being Digital" Negroponte made the insightful assertion that the wired /
wireless world was flipping -- TVs were becoming wired while phones and
computers were becoming wireless (TVs have kind of flipped again since then).
The next shift is that we may ourselves become unshackled from our homes.

In _City_ , Clifford Simak has people living in flying houses and they simply
park where-ever they want to live for a given period. Well, flying is
impractical, but mobile seems to be coming.

------
DanielBMarkham
Battery technology is the #1 problem pervading tech right now. From robots to
iPads, we need about 10x battery storage for the same weight as we have now.

Having said that, it's shame to see all of this work in cars. I get the
feeling that Apple is just going for a huge "me too" play, hoping to make the
car into the next iPad.

But if that's what it takes for us to finally see progress? Count me in.

~~~
UUMMUU
Since the iphone all Apple seems capable of doing is playing the "me too"
card. Their innovations have stalled and they've gone from being that awesome
company that makes great dev/design laptops and really cool smart phones into
Microsoft 2.0. Tim Cook == Steve Balmer??

~~~
tashoecraft
That's pretty harsh and also ignores how Apple creates its products. It didn't
just see that everyone was doing smart watches and decided to hop on the band
wagon like Samsung or LG. They have been building and designing a product they
thought would actually do well in the market. They do purposefully try to
become the first to announce just because they can.

The iPad was considered a flop by every news outlet when it was announced.
Mocked openly about how stupid it was and how no one would buy it.

They aren't producing as many "market breaking" products, but I am sure they
are working on them. Apple needs to be careful to release products that do
very well, as sales that would be excellent for most any other company are
considered a failure for Apple.

That's not at all to say they haven't been leaving behind a lot of old
products. I will be very happy if IOS 9 is focused on debugging the software
and improving the overall experience. I just hope the next os x will be doing
that as well.

~~~
prapam2
They did hop on the phablet band wagon which i believe was mocked just like
the iPad.

~~~
dba7dba
The best ever quarter Apple has had definitely was helped by hopping on the
phablet band wagon, started by Samsung. I remember the universal mockery most
reviewers had when it was introduced.

Also Samsung (Samsung Chemical) has been involved with battery business for a
long time but they recently got rid of it.

------
julianpye
The key thing to remember is that Tesla's battery competence has its
foundation in their work with Matsushita/Panasonic - who are supplying the
tech for the battery farm in Arizona. The main reason is that manufacturing
and QA of the battery is critical. It will be interesting to see if Apple will
work with Panasonic in this space.

That said, Apple of course may be able to sell at higher margin and be able to
endure higher manufacturing cost.

------
freshfey
So is it illegal for companies to approach people about different job
opportunities? Or is it the tactics used by Apple that give A123 the right to
sue them?

~~~
tfinniga
No, poaching is legal. Apple also got sued for no-poaching agreements with
other tech companies.

I think poaching is good in many cases, since hiring someone away from their
current company usually means a higher price for their services. This means
that you're moving developers to where they're most productive for the market
as a whole.

The problem is this:

> in violation of their employment agreements

It's very possible to break an employment contract by leaving to go work
somewhere else. These might not hold up in court (depends on the state), or
Apple might just pay whatever fine the court levies.

~~~
andyjohnson0
That explains why A123 are suing their former employees, as they individually
had contractual agreements. It doesn't explain why A123 are suing Apple, since
they apparently had no contractual relationship.

IANAL, but my guess would be that the case is based on Apple allegedly
inducing one of the A123 engineers to recruit other engineers into Apple. I
don't know if that is actionable, though.

According to [1] the action is in the Massachusetts District Court, Boston.
Looks like the details are paywalled inside Pacer.

[1]
[http://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2015c...](http://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2015cv10438/167626)

~~~
Retric
Your _often_ not allowed to induce people to break contracts. It stems from
Lumeley v. Gye and has a lot of caviots.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumley_v_Gye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumley_v_Gye)

------
skywhopper
Rather than evidence of developing a car, one boring possibility: Apple is
trying to develop large-scale battery systems to more directly harness its
solar farms' ability to power its datacenters.

Or: large-scale battery systems in cars have innovations that might be scaled
down for use in computers, phones, and watches.

~~~
0942v8653
I'd _much_ prefer the latter...

------
cha-cho
"Around June 2014, Apple began aggressively poaching A123 engineers tasked
with leading some of the company's most critical projects..."

June 2014 is right around the time of Tesla's "All Our Patents Belong To You"
announcement: [http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-
yo...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)

------
nastygibbon
> A search of LinkedIn profiles turns up more than 60 former Tesla employees
> now employed by Apple.

I can't tell - is this a lot or hardly anything?

~~~
ghshephard
And, more importantly, how many of those Former Tesla Employees are actually
Former Apple Employees who became Tesla Employees, and then decided they would
rather go back to work for Apple?

~~~
q2
Are you suggesting that they are sent intentionally to join and know the
future plans?

~~~
echoless
It could simply be a case of disillusionment at Tesla. Also Apple employees
are known to leave Apple, either to start a company or for a sabbatical but
then go back to working at Apple once they're done.

------
o0-0o
From the article: A123 Systems is a pioneering industrial lithium-ion battery
maker, which was backed by a $249 million U.S. government grant. It filed for
bankruptcy in 2012 and has been selling off assets.

So, they take taxpayer money, go bankrupt, and then attempt to block former
employees from getting jobs?

~~~
AVTizzle
That part stood out to me as well. A123 doesn't come out of this one looking
very good at all.

------
chrismcb
Why is it when a sports team goes after another player, it us a trade. But
when a company goes after an employee, it is poaching? Yeah I get that the
sports guy is under contract. But the word "poaching" has a negative
conotation and it makes them look like a big bad evil company. When in reality
it is a win for the employee.

------
njloof
It's considered poaching to hire engineers from a company that's been bankrupt
for two years?

~~~
hga
It was a Chapter 11 reorganization, not a Chapter 7 liquidation, and the major
parts of the company were bought by two others.

------
ajays
This is pretty rich, coming from A123, since they stole their ideas from
Professor Goodenough.

------
bborud
No Apple Watch jokes? I'm disappointed in you people.

------
illumen
'Poaching' makes workers sound like slaves owned by a company.

People are not owned by companies, it's the other way around.

They are not illegally hired, so poaching is incorrectly used.

~~~
d_theorist
"Poaching" in this context does not imply illegality.

