
Apple co-founder says Apple Card discriminated against his wife - Ibethewalrus
https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_7ff61b1a9cb38fa656944d61df75f056
======
zepto
Since when does Wozniak ‘continue to work for Apple’?

~~~
eesmith
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#Post_Apple_caree...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#Post_Apple_career)

> Though permanently leaving Apple as an active employee in 1985, Wozniak
> chose to never remove himself from the official employee list, and continues
> to represent the company at events or in interviews. Today he receives a
> stipend from Apple for this role, estimated in 2006 to be US$120,000 per
> year.

At the top of the same page:

> As of November 2019, Wozniak has remained an employee of Apple in a
> ceremonial capacity since stepping down in 1985.

One of the references is to a tweet by Wozniak at
[https://twitter.com/stevewoz/status/1193424787248279552](https://twitter.com/stevewoz/status/1193424787248279552)
directly concerning the Apple Card issue:

> I'm a current Apple employee and founder of the company and the same thing
> happened to us (10x) despite not having any separate assets or accounts.
> Some say the blame is on Goldman Sachs but the way Apple is attached, they
> should share responsibility.

~~~
zepto
Why does he refer to Apple as ‘they’ instead of ‘we’ then?

~~~
eesmith
The second person plural was already used as "the same thing happened to us"
so using "we" there would ambiguous and confusing. That is, saying "we should
share responsibility" would imply that _Wozniak and his wife_ should sharew
responsibility.

I also believe "they" refers to legal responsibilities of the company as a
whole, which are distinct and independent from the responsibilities of
individual members. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)
.

Even if you don't like corporate personhood, "they" can also refer to those
people with an executive role, that is, the people who collectively made the
decision. He does not have executive authority in this decision, so is not a
member of that "we".

Why is "we" specifically meaning employment? Can't being a shareholder also
count as "we"? That is, I can own a company, and control a company, but not be
employed by the company - surely "we" still applies there.

Consider that, if Wozniak own shares of Goldman Sachs then, as shareholder, he
could have a role in guiding its policies. (Ditto for Apple, of course.) But
it wouldn't make sense to refer to both roles as "we", as that would make it
even more confusing.

~~~
zepto
True but a paid company spokesman typically says ‘we’, whereas a shareholder
does not.

~~~
eesmith
Where does anyone claim or suggest that Wozniak is a company spokesman in
regards to this issue?

"Representative ... in a ceremonial capacity" is not "spokesman" except in the
broadest of senses (eg, all employees, in some sense, can be spokespeople). It
certainly isn't a spokesman for all of Apple's policies.

I'll note that
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokesperson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokesperson)
comments "it is the job of a spokesman to faithfully represent and advocate
for the organization's positions, even when these conflict with their own
opinion."

This strongly suggests that Wozniak is not a spokesman, in the usual sense of
that word, for Apple.

------
joezydeco
After reading up on the DHH situation I'm starting to wonder if social media
is beginning to sneak its way into American banks as a credit worthiness data
point.

The Chinese are at least up-front about it, but I've heard talk out of the US
financial software area for a long time beforehand as being something that was
inevitable.

