

Steve Jobs personally asked Eric Schmidt to stop poaching employees - benjlang
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini

======
neves
The problem is not just that the employees have less options where to find a
job. The real problem is that the employees don't know about the agreement!

If I work at Pixar and prospect Intel for a job, they will tell my boss and my
carreer at Pixar will be messed for ever.

I had a boss that liked to fire employees who he knew were searching for jobs
elsewhere. He would announce in job sites good offers asking for candidates
with the skills used in his company, and didn't disclosed the company name.
When he got answers from his own employees, he would fire them in the best
opportunity. A great way to create a culture of fear.

~~~
msg
So who stayed to work for that boss?

~~~
gsharm
Exactly. That's the real problem.

------
josefresco
I can only imagine how hard it is to have fair negotiations when a prospective
employee applies at a competing company only to be told "no thanks" simply
because of a hush hush agreement between the executives of said companies.

This flies counter with Google's "do no evil" statement and certainly doesn't
paint a positive posthumous picture of Jobs.

~~~
omonra
I'm tired of people bringing up 'don't do evil' EVERY time Google does
something they dislike. New search results using personal targeting - EVIL!
Anti-poaching agreement with Apple - EVIL! Closed down a bagel cafe next to my
cubicle - EVIL!

Can we all agree that the word Evil has a more sinister use - ie knowing
endangering lives, environmental damage, maybe closing press freedoms? And,
therefore, we should be more selective in its application?

This is turning into another version of the Godwin's law - whereby it only
takes so long before Google is accused of being evil (by breaking the not-be-
evil pledge).

~~~
va_coder
No. The "do no evil" was a way of saying let's not be like Microsoft and allow
ourself to engage in unfair business practices.

Google is now like Microsoft.

~~~
omonra
"That's like..your opinion, man" :)

So if someone wants to say that Google is becoming like MSFT - say that
(incidentally regarding MST being evil I recently read this:
[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills.html))

But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil.

~~~
rooshdi
_But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil._

Tell that to the employee who was "terminated within the hour."

------
ajays
CEO to the Board: I am indispensable; therefore I need the 10s of millions of
dollars as compensation.

CEO to the employee: You are indispensable; therefore you can't leave for a
better paying job.

~~~
nluqo
CEO to the Board: please give me 1 dollar in compensation.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Salary is not the same thing as total compensation.

~~~
nluqo
Very true.

Unless we are talking about Steve Jobs.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Jobs was given millions of dollars in stock options. His total compensation
was far far beyond $1/year.

~~~
nluqo
The last time he took options was 2003. His total compensation for the last 8
years has been $1/year.

~~~
ajays
Since 1997, he was paid $1/year in salary. But he certainly wasn't living in
the poor house.

In 2001, the company gifted him a $90 million Gulfstream jet, and paid for all
related expenses.

According to Apple’s proxy statement from February 2011, Jobs owned about
5.5-million shares of Apple stock. In addition, he owned about $5 Billion of
Disney stock, which gave him an annual dividend of about $50 Million.

------
Maxious
"If a Pixar employee applies to Intel without being recruited by Intel,
contact Pat Gelsinger and explain to him a Pixar employee (provide the
candidates name) has applied to Intel without being recruited and he will
contact the CEO of Pixar for approval to hire"

Scary.

~~~
coffee
I'm surprised that people in these threads say "I'm not at all surprised by
this behavior" - It's a sad state of affairs when we, as employees, wholly
expect this behavior between the few leading companies in this area.

~~~
codeonfire
We have to work among the group of people for which this behavior is standard
procedure. We are reminded daily of how insane, sociopathic, and child-like
middle managers can be and that it only gets worse (far worse) the further up
the chain. If I were working at a place where someone didn't expect this
behavior I would think that person was very inexperienced. If I found a
company where management didn't behave like this, maybe because it is
relatively young, I would expect them to start misbehaving within a few years
as the sociopaths start working their way into the corporate structure.

~~~
coffee
I'm sorry, I just have a problem with this mentality.

Things are fucked up, so we should expect it to continue being fucked up, and
now that it is expected, we shall deem it acceptable...

> It's a sad state of affairs when we, as employees, wholly expect this
> behavior...

~~~
codeonfire
Just because something is expected doesn't mean that it is acceptable. On the
contrary, if someone fucks up, like they always do, and you EXPECT it, you can
act on it. In this case, thousands of people are about to have a payday
because some evil execs who probably don't even know how email works fucked
up. Someone, somewhere expected it, got the evidence nailed down, and went
after them. After this settles, there's going to be lots of people (and many
lawyers) expecting this behavior and actively looking for it.

~~~
coffee
hmmm...

Well, this isn't an attack against you personally, or a tit-for-tat sort of
comment, but...

> We have to work among the group of people for which this behavior is
> standard procedure.

You ARE saying that this is acceptable, since "we have to" work among them,
and I just don't agree :)

~~~
codeonfire
Well, the alternative is homelessness and early death.

~~~
coffee
I believe comments like this is why I'm constantly finding disagreement with
what you say. You have a very hard slant. Personally, I've found, and seen
others having, a wide array of alternatives available to them.

If "we" don't show that this behavior is wrong, through our actions, it will
continue...

~~~
codeonfire
Rank and file workers work among middle managers who would see no problem with
illegal collusion with other companies, but they themselves lack the power to
actually organize something like this. The general population is pretty much
on par with middle managers culture wise, and would drive the average worker
into the ground so their couple shares of GOOG stock can go up 1%. So it
doesn't rise to something that would make a person quit, and since the general
population are ok with and identify with middle management practices, its
unlikely the situation would be better elsewhere.

As far my views on alternatives there is: unemployment: bankruptcy, couch
surfing or living in a shelter self funded startup: doesn't pay and likely to
fail. without external factors like connections or rich uncle, probably won't
get off the ground before bankruptcy. small team of equal partners: doesn't
pay, requires capital to pay in, "equal" partners will probably try to push
each other out. incubator: pays very bad, greeks bearing gifts, silly
patronizing, reality tv-like environment. angel investor: can't find these
unless you're famous, have well-connected family, or already successful. small
company/startup: founders will shit all over your day. will take everything
personally (including payday) and want you to conform to their values. Don't
like golf? Not a drinker?, gtfo. pay is shit. big evil company: Half a dozen
middle managers are trying to figure out how screwing you improves their
situation. ceo is probably doing bad things. pay is good.

So, yeah, if you take the financial aspect out of work, there are a wide array
of alternatives.

------
malandrew
The one argument I get sick of hearing bandied around in cases like these is:
"but those companies invested a lot of money in training their employees. How
would you like it if you owned a business and trained someone only to have
them poached?"

In the words of Dwight Shrute: "False!". Most of the employees in question in
this case and probably every other case where poaching is worthwhile are
autodidacts. These employees are valuable precisely because they work hard to
increase their own value. They know that, and they deserve to be paid
accordingly by shopping themselves around.

It is in the market for autodidacts where actions like these are most damaging
to the individuals affected.

~~~
fleitz
When most people make investments they take steps to protect those
investments, if they don't want to lose the investment they should match the
salary of the competitor.

~~~
fabjan
Matching the salary of the competitor is pretty easy when the competitor has
an agreement with you not to offer a higher salary for your employees.

~~~
fleitz
Which is exactly why they are before the courts.

------
m__
This seems like a pretty poor strategy for the involved companies.

1) It makes other companies (not involved in the agreement) more attractive,
as their salaries will be closer to the salaries offered by the companies
involved in the cartel.

2) This means that the pool of potential employees is reduced due the
agreement, which means that the companies involved in the cartel will have to
bear higher recruiting costs.

3) These recruiting costs make a mistake in hiring more costly. It gets harder
to "test" employees and let them go when they are a bad fit, because
expenditures from your HR budget are shifted to the front (on the promise of
savings down the line).

4) Further, when the cartel breaks (as it will, each company has an incentive
to cheat on the other members) the payoff of this inflated recruiting
"investment" disappears.

~~~
asmithmd1
Yes the free market can work - if the employee knows to discount an offer from
one of the cartel companies because they will not be able to move to another
cartel member.

~~~
meric
A hiring cartel basically acts like super-duper large company doesn't it? So
by that logic we would discount offers from large companies compared to ones
from smaller companies. Oh wait, we do, as large company pay > startup pay. ;)
But is it for this reason?!

------
tlogan
It is getting clearer and cleared that Google is just as any big corporation
which will do any illegal and un-ethical thing as long as they are not caught.

Now, many of companies started with excellent ethical standards, but that is
getting slowly lost as companies grow.

I wonder if there is some similar work as "Innovators Dilemma" but about
company's ethical standards: explaining why and when a company's become very
prone to "fuck ethics" approach.

------
nyellin
Everyone is commenting on the "no evil" thing, so I want to give my take on
that.

Yes, companies are large entities that maximize shareholder profit and
therefore talking about "good companies" or "bad companies" is meaningless.
But I always understood the "no evil" slogan to be accepting of that. To me,
"do no evil" was the mentality that no matter how corporate the company may
become, the humans who are part of it wont let anything blatantly horrible
happen. The company might become a giant corporate machine, but the human cogs
will always retain enough power to stop horrible mistakes.

Increasingly, I'm starting to believe that every company mutates into the same
corporate mass given enough time. Pick a large corporation with dirty business
practices. If you look far back enough in history, it was probably a wonderful
place to work with great work ethics.

~~~
BadassFractal
To quote another poster in this thread:

Tell that to the employee who was "terminated within the hour."

------
timkeller
"Please make a public example of this termination with the group."

Yikes. Sounds positively medieval.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
That quote stood out for me as well. I now have an association with "Shona
Brown" and evil sociopath. What a sick woman.

------
wtvanhest
It just occurred to me that when I told Intel I wouldn't be returning after my
internship, HR was very pushy about where I was going. I'm glad I was going to
a company outside the agreement or I would probably have had no job.

~~~
wtvanhest
Now that I have been thinking about this comment that I posted earlier, I am
infuriated.

~~~
sounds
I don't want to sound cynical, so please respond. I'm willing to see both
sides the issue. I have known some great people in HR, as well.

I worked for Intel. Their HR is a nightmare. Be careful about telling them
anything (more than what you are legally obligated).

When they get pushy, push back. Intel has deep enough pockets to handle a
little push-back from their employees.

~~~
wtvanhest
They systematically ruined people's lives and systematically reduced market
pay. They rely on paying market wages and site that in their negotiations. I
was able to make 40% more at the other company. The only other side should be
removing all HR employees and rehiring. Someone should have been a whistle
blower and any and all HR people at those companies who did not say something
should be ashamed of themselves.

------
asmithmd1
imagine how fast Congress would get involved if something like this were
revealed to exist between basketball or football teams for free agents. If
these companies don't want employees to leave they are free to sign long term
contracts to lock them up. This is plainly illegal

~~~
malandrew
"Hire slow. Fire fast."

Would fast firing even be possible with long-term contracts? Firing fast isn't
something that is done for the sake of saving money. It is done for the sake
of avoiding the damaging effects of keeping someone on the team that hurts the
productivity of the other team members.

~~~
asmithmd1
You have never heard of a football player being cut from a team? Or being
offered a one year contract?

I am saying there are legal ways to prevent an employee from leaving a company
but it costs the company money to have that privilege.

~~~
malandrew
One year is a long time to have someone on a team that turns out to be a wrong
hire. You normally figure out that someone isn't working out within the first
1-3 months. I've made a wrong hire before and it impacted the work of 5 other
people. I and any other manager has an obligation to get rid of that one
person if they are having a net negative effect on the work of others. To do
otherwise would be a failure in my responsibilities to others on the team.

It's not like a manager can just "bench" an employee that isn't working out
for them.

What would make sense, especially in a market where there is a crunch for
talent is a guarantee from the company that if it doesn't work out, that the
applicant, would get 1-2 months salary after being cut to look for another
place to work.

(Also, to the person who down voted me: This is HN, not Reddit. You don't down
vote because you disagree with what was said. You down vote them because their
detracting from the conversation, such as trolling.)

~~~
smokinn
I'm a hockey fan. Specifically the Montreal Canadiens. There's a guy on that
team right now that makes 8MM/year and the whole team has a 55MM cap they can
spend on their "employees".

He's 8 days away from not having scored a single goal in an entire calendar
year.

And his contract is for 2 more years.

And you know what? The team is still going to pay him. Because that was the
contract that was signed. If you think having a software guy around for a year
when he wasn't a great hire is a long time what about having someone around
for 5+ years that not only isn't any good but (due to the cap) actively
hinders the team's ability to get anyone better to replace him.

And yet the sports world seems to get along just fine this way.

------
xal
I'm the CEO of the fastest growing tech company in my geographical region (
off the beaten path ) and I get calls by other CEOs asking for stuff like this
very very often. In our case it's because those other CEOs don't want to
compete on perk and benefits with us which makes it even more sad.

This happens everywhere and at all levels.

------
donaldc
Once again I am happy that non-competes are generally not enforced in
California. Otherwise, the companies involved wouldn't even need to reach
illegal agreements to interfere with the employment free market.

------
eugenejen
In east Asia, poaching is viewed as bad taste and disloyal. A person has to
leave a job first before looking for next job. A company tries to recruit
employees from other companies gets blacklisted for a period.

But despite of distaste, people does it.

------
benologist
Summary of [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-
lawsuit-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit-
idUSTRE80Q27420120127)

Kind of ironic that The AOL Way was supposed to be the reason The Verge guys
_left_ to start a new blog. It looks like the only thing they were tired of
was Engadget's layout. The AOL Way doesn't deserve traffic.

~~~
natrius
The Verge article consists almost entirely of quotes from the source document.
They did nothing wrong here.

------
SonicSoul
somewhat related. Last week a friend of mine that is growing his recruiting
business tried to put me in contact with someone at this firm in NYC, for a
position that sounds ideal for me and my background. Once he got to the HR
department, and as soon as they saw where i currently work, they told him that
they have some agreement about not hiring people from my current company and
that was it. They didn't even seem to want to explain the details of said
agreement. Now, i definitely didn't sign a contract forbidding me from going
to that place. Is this even legal?

~~~
tsuyoshi
It is not legal. That is precisely why Apple, Google, etc. are being sued.

~~~
cdr
The defendants are claiming bi-lateral agreements are legal, and only bi-
lateral agreements existed rather than a 3+ party conspiracy. Whether either
claim is true, I have no idea.

------
usedtolurk
I'm surprised just how ruthlessly this was enforced. When Jobs complained to
Schmidt, the person who contacted an Apple employee was "terminated within the
hour." A Senior Google VP replied: "Appropriate response, thank you. Please
make a public example of this termination with the group."

Mind you, they have a great incentive. Only a handful of companies recognise
10x (or 100x) developers and they would like to continue paying just 2x for
them.

~~~
tim_h
Which companies recognize 10x or 100x developers?

------
itmag
Gee, I didn't know that employees were akin to the King's game, making it a
Bad Thing to poach them.

In my world, poaching employees == offering them better options in exchange
for the value generating capabilities that they bring to the table. Quid pro
quo, and if someone else offers a better quo...

~~~
marshray
Really. I always considered "to poach" to be a slightly whimsical way to refer
to recruiting employees. It never occurred to me that a colluding cartel might
be using it as intentional language engineering.

------
jcslzr
That is what is funny about all those people that treat ¨conspiracy theories¨
as nuts. Is like corruption must have a limit just because they have not seen
it first hand.

------
bwarp
This is 100% why you shouldn't work for a big corporation. You're a resource
rather than an employee.

~~~
vacri
Same in small companies. In our company of 14 people, my last HR meeting had
the officer dismissing my mention of doing 30-60 minutes unpaid daily overtime
as 'it's a small company, that happens'.

They were trying to nail me into a contract doing even more unpaid work:
'Sometimes that happens in a small company' -> 'Yes, I do the in-house IT, and
it's part of the job, but I'm letting you know that it's every day' -> 'Yes,
sometimes that happens' -> 'Every day is 'sometimes'?' -> 'Yes, sometimes that
happens...'.

The other great comment was 'You have to expect a little overtime when you're
on a good salary'. My salary is right on the national average wage - neither
good nor bad by definition.

~~~
jeremymcanally
...you have HR meetings in a company of 14? It sounds like the culture is
what's causing that, not the company size. I've worked in companies of 50 that
don't have "HR" people (of course, they have people who cut checks, etc. but
they didn't create and enforce crazy policies like that!).

~~~
vacri
We have an HR 'consultant' that does half a day a week

------
pnathan
According to [http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/921674/In_Re_High-
Tech_Emp...](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/921674/In_Re_High-
Tech_Employee_Antitrust_-_Unredacted.pdf), the source pdf, defendants are:

* Apple

* Lucasfilm

* Adobe

* Intuit

* Google

* Intel

* Pixar

Good to know. I shall follow this case with interest.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
I'm curious if the list is exhaustive, or if it is just the ones who got
caught.

~~~
hga
Heh heh, that's what discovery is for.

Of course, they might settle to avoid among other things more dirty laundry
coming out or being solidly confirmed.

------
michaelochurch
I am surprised that people are surprised by this.

Who do VCs spend their skiing trips with: ramen-fed, sleep-deprived startup
founders, or other VCs? Of course, they hang out with each other.

Same with executives at large companies. They might be nominally
"competitors", but they've already learned that they have more in common with
one another than with employees in the companies they run.

~~~
nyellin
We are surprised by the blatant disregard for employee rights and that they
would do something so illegal.

~~~
michaelochurch
I guess I'm cynical, but I'm not surprised. I wouldn't have expected some
specific individuals (I thought more of Eric Schmidt; I always liked him) to
be involved but the behavior is not shocking. Yes, it's shitty and illegal.
No, it's not at all surprising.

Let's say that you're talking to an investor and you tell him that you're
being courted by another VC and that he needs to act fast. What's the first
thing he'll do, if he takes you seriously? Pick up the phone and call the guy
(they were classmates in business school, and it's "bros before schmos", man.)
If there was proper competition, that sort of thing would never happen.

Social class is an ugly reality and people in higher social classes _always_
look out for each other first. The _real_ competition is insiders vs.
outsiders. Human societies are naturally conspiratorial. I don't know what the
solution to this problem is (other than, individually, to just keep working
hard and trying to be awesome enough that the general wankbasketry of humanity
doesn't matter) but it's obvious that our current regulatory machinery is too
thin.

~~~
badclient
Actually I am shit surprised. Is there any chance of this becoming criminal?

~~~
jamesaguilar
It already is, hence the lawsuits.

~~~
nyellin
No it isn't. IANAL, but I believe class action lawsuits deal with civil, not
criminal, offenses.

Don't be so fast to downvote the grandparent if you didn't understand the
question.

~~~
zedshaw
Yes, it is illegal in a criminal way, thus the original DOJ investigation and
settlement between these companies and the DOJ.

~~~
Drbble
That's not what "criminal" means under law.

------
martinkallstrom
Serious question: if an accelerator asks participating startups to not hire
employees from one another, does it violate laws governing fair competition?

~~~
tikhonj
Even if it isn't illegal, it's probably contrary to the interests of the
accelerator: if one of your startups needs somebody more than another--enough
for an increase of pay or some other benefits--then, for the whole program,
having that person move is probably better than artificially forcing him to
stay.

------
AlexV
I would be curios to see a LinkedIn graph showing (and proactively finding)
evidence of this whole saga. That is, I would expect to see less movement of
employees with certain talents, between conspiring companies.

~~~
wtvanhest
Absolutely. I bet there is a huge statistical relationship there.

~~~
AlexV
Is there a way to get this information off of LinkedIn?

I am guessing it would be possible to pull it out of Google+ profile pages,
but I am not sure it has historical data, or been around long enough for that
matter.

Facebook would surely have it but I doubt this information is accessible.

------
malandrew
I think this Betabeat article is really relevant since it shows that this is
happening at the startup level in NYC as well:

[http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/17/poaching-etiquette-how-
to...](http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/17/poaching-etiquette-how-to-love-thy-
startup-neighbor-while-coveting-their-devs/)

This is important because it means that new hires are probably getting less
equity than they should be getting. Equity and belief in what the company is
building should be enough to not require anti-poaching agreements.

------
ypcx
To hell with this "nobody will know so let's do this" mentality - it's twenty
fucking twelve in case you haven't noticed, the year when the "all seeing eye"
becomes public property.

------
00101000100101
Why does it seem like everybody cowed to Apple in this case?

Would they have engaged in collusion without Jobs at the center?

------
badclient
So is any of this criminal that one or more of these execs may goto prison?

------
fabjan
Unionize.

------
dsolomon
Great way to keep employee salaries low.

------
publicus
Gates = Great person, despicable businessman. Jobs = Despicable person, great
businessman.

------
OoTheNigerian
Here is a different perspective.

As an entreppreneur, I would not want my employees poached. I do not miind
them seeking out other opportunities, but I would want them to make the move,
not an external entity. Poaching can create artificial demand.

A satisfied employee an become unsatisfied overnight if he is offered a higher
salary elsewhere which you don't/can't match.

If I had the way to stop poaching, I will. If my employee wants to seek new
opportunities, I will not stop him.

The sacking of the person that was doing the recruiting is totally
unacceptable to me. He was just doiing his job

~~~
notatoad
In what way does poaching create artificial demand? If your employee is
valuable enough that another company wants to recruit them, that's not
artificial demand, it's real demand. If you won't or can't match a salary
somebody else is willing to pay, you deserve to lose that employee.

If your employee can't do the tasks you require of him, you fire him. If you
can't pay your employees what they are worth, they go elsewhere. That's the
way the world works.

~~~
OoTheNigerian
Lets take a scenario. You Hire a guy and pay him $120 K a year. Within 6
months you spend say $60k training him. He now theoretically becomes worth
$120K per year.

Would you be happy if someone just came and offered that much? Considering the
time taken to recruit and money to train him.

In essence, Facebook (or big spenders) can make a small talented startup their
official recruiting arm.

As the guy being recruited, it is great. As an employer, it sucks.

I reiterate, if the employee wants to leave and initiates the process, I would
not have a problem it that. However, I would not want my employees or business
unsettled.

~~~
driverdan
Money is only a small factor. If that's all you focus on as an employer I can
understand why your employees leave for another company when they offer to
match their salary.

You may not like it but guess what, tough shit. Suck it up and offer your
employees more incentive to stay other than salary.

~~~
OoTheNigerian
You are right. Money is only a small factor. And an employee that gets swayed
by money only might not deserve be bet on.

===

On a tangential note, I am worried about the groupthink of HNers (I am not
talking about you). the one directional thinking is astounding sometimes.

Is there a problem looking at a situation from an alternative view point?

~~~
natrius
Ignore the downvotes. You started a good conversation.

------
jphackworth
So let's say I am running a startup with two employees. A friend of mine is
also running a startup and needs to hire people. Is it wrong for me to ask him
not to hire my employees?

~~~
pullo
there is a good article by Ben Horowitz to this point.
[http://bhorowitz.com/2011/02/23/is-it-ok-to-hire-people-
from...](http://bhorowitz.com/2011/02/23/is-it-ok-to-hire-people-from-your-
friend’s-company/)

what happened here is much bigger than a deal that goes between two friends
who run a startup. it by all means seems like collusion by the overlords to
ensure the minions are kept where they are to 'serve' them ( a minor
exaggeration). Parts of this story is revolting, like firing and making an
example of the recruiter who poached a google employee.This sickens me and is
surprising , probably cause, I am not cynical enough..

~~~
jphackworth
An interesting article - thanks for the link.

In summary, these practices are extremely common, and Ben Horowitz recommends
them. However, they are technically illegal in California.

------
jballanc
I think anyone whose opinion of Steve Jobs is changed by this knowledge needs
to take a good look in the mirror and ask if they are not the hypocrite. Jobs
always was a consumate businessman. Before Apple, even, he was scheming his
way through a job, getting Wozniak to do his work and going back on his word
to split profits.

But isn't that what America is all about? Aren't your shoes, clothes,
electronics, etc. made by low wage workers at companies run by men and women
who are willing to do anything for an extra dollar? Isn't that capitalism?
Isn't that their "fiduciary duty to the shareholders"?

In the world of engineering, engineers are a resource just as oil is a
resource for an oil company. Do you also get angry when oil companies hire
lobbyists to wine-and-dine politicians until they give favorable exploration
rights on federal lands to those companies? How is this any different,
morally?

Ultimately, the really hard question is: would we have the iPod, iPhone,
MacBook Air, iPad if Jobs had _not_ done what he did?

~~~
JabavuAdams
You're invoking a tired ends justifies the means argument for ... consumer
devices? Not societal survival, not space travel, not some other grand
enterprise, but ... iPods?

~~~
jballanc
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm merely pointing out that there is a
mythos surrounding Jobs that he was some sort of design god or product
messiah. The only thing he ever was was a businessman. If your opinion of him
changes knowing that he colluded to keep his cost of engineering low (much the
same as he manipulated the market for flash memory to keep those prices low),
then you probably didn't pay enough attention in the first place.

Of course, that's the danger in a cult of personality, isn't it?

