Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've wondered about that.

My assumption: Two CEOs might get the most done with each other if they establish trust, and talk off-the-record. But if one looks like they're CYA-ing, that lowers trust, and eliminates some of the potential negotiations and opportunities.

In this particular case between Palm and Apple, I guess they're already in an adversarial situation, and Palm CEO kinda threatening with overt CYA maybe made sense under the circumstances. But, I guess Apple CEO in the future won't be willing to float any idea to Palm CEO that they don't want blabbed or used against them. So Palm CEO has basically written off a lot of potential hypothetical opportunities with Apple?

Or was this case more like it's mutually understood that Jobs was the one who was out of line, in outright illegal conspiracy, and so Jobs would accept Palm CEO's response in that light, and might still be willing to talk with Palm CEO about sensitive (but legal) things?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: