>The rent seeking point from Stratechery is taken directly from Apple's own earnings calls where they are now measuring their success based on revenue from this rent-seeking instead of on devices sold.
I don't follow how talking about it on earnings calls makes it "rent seeking". The App Store cut has only gone down since it was launched (for subscriptions after a year).
A few months ago Bloomberg published a story which I'm 99% sure was directed by Facebook PR, in-line with their strategy being reported on in this story [1][2].
Also can any mods tell me why all my comments are dead?
I don't know if THIS article was directed by Facebook related PR but the times reporting says there is other PR basically identical to this. So I think we can decisively label your conjecture as "credible"
At the risk of earning one of those (dead) tags myself, I'm starting to think that Bloomberg is basically a PR Newswire for people who want to spread BS about something or someone.
The Facebook-planted story, combined with their recent questionable reporting on hacked motherboard hardware that nobody seems interested in corroborating, doesn't paint a trustworthy picture of the Bloomberg organization as a whole. At least not IMO.
Wow, first the embarrassment around that secret chips planted in our data-centers story and now this. It's going to be a long time before I take Bloomberg's tech industry coverage seriously again.
Also can any mods tell me why all my comments are dead?
Write to 'hn@ycombinator.com' and ask --- and report back what they say. It looks like it's because of your comment linking Russia and Assange, but it's not clear if this was because it was too pro, too anti, or just because it mentioned one or the other. I'd guess it's user flagging gone awry, but maybe it's a new automated system that's broken instead.
> It looks like it's because of your comment linking Russia and Assange,
I don't think so, my guess is that it was due to one of the comments prior to the one you mentioned, or some activity that occurred on the same IP IBM was using.
>“We’re not going to traffic in your personal life,” Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, said in an MSNBC interview. “Privacy to us is a human right. It’s a civil liberty.” (Mr. Cook’s criticisms infuriated Mr. Zuckerberg, who later ordered his management team to use only Android phones, since the operating system has far more users than Apple’s.)
I can't get enough of the Apple-Facebook beef. Also kind of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of move from a security perspective.
Bloomberg had a report earlier this year saying they'd have ARM Macs in 2020, which makes sense given that lines up with the work they're doing in Marzipan now [1]. They're also making gains in the legal fight to crack the Qualcomm business model, so that means ARM Macs could have cellular at the same time [2][3].
Almost all of Apple's security features are invisible and by default and don't get in the way. They're striking the balance between user experience and security.
It will force the market to stop viewing them as a hardware company like Dell or HP and instead view them as the ecosystem company they are. That's why they're doing it.
Intel's gross margins are high enough (especially on the higher end chips) that it makes sense for Apple to design their own chips for Macs. Rumors are pointing to 2020 for when it will first happen.
Macs could then be cheaper and better than the competition (or significantly more profitable).
>The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”
This exact snippet could both be part of a SSC (safe, sane and consensual) relationship, or sexual harassment, possibly even sexual exploitation. Which it is, depends on the context; removing or implying context makes it very easy to have one appear as the other.
Exactly. And people would get surprised to know just how many "sexually progressive" (I'm using that term because I don't know a better one) people there are in silicon valley.
I know people who have full BDSM dungeons in their homes, go to all sorts of outrageous parties and have some of the craziest stories.
SV in general has every type of person.
I recall some contractors commenting on a multi-million dollar "pleasure dungeon" they built into a huge mansion in Los Altos Hills....
So, for some this can be SSC, for other context it can be far worse.
One thing is for sure, whatever the context, these situations typically don't turn out good when they get the public eye.
I'm not quite understanding what you are saying. Do you mean kink in general is abusive; do you mean workplace relationships are abusive or are you relating to this specific case?
I was asking samstave. It's complicated... Of course kink in general is not abusive. But often when otherwise private things are exposed publicly, abuse or alleged abuse is the reason for the exposure. It's a general thing, but it's also related to the specific case where some presumably non-workplace relationship details came out and there was apparent (not proven) arguable abuse of financial privilege which shows that, if true, this is not necessarily a wonderful person that I would want as a leader in my company. And the information coming out is not great for the abuser. In this specific case we can say the alleged abuser, if that helps.
I wouldnt say they are better for anyone - I was saying that regardless of the consent or context - when private conversations of this nature come to light - its never good.
Assume that a couple were consenting in owner/slave BDSM play and their dialogue were recorded and read by those who are not even previously aware that such relationships occur, no matter what these types of conversations will hit ears that were not ready/interested/amenable to hearing them, and judgements will be made.
Co-worker or not, which you mentioned, is not all that helpful in determining whether this is OK or not.
Being outside of the workplace does not make a power relationship that is akin to slavery OK. (You could claim the woman is free to leave, but there are implied threats against doing so, such as an asymmetric implied threat to reputation, with email documentation, at a minimum).
Yes it is true that context matters. However, I think it's safe to say his ex-wife who shared the quote has more knowledge of the context than we do... and again, slavery is not an indicator of leadership to aspire to. Nor is paying massive rewards to such a person.
Andy: Strange. I prefer just "Love." Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people. I am glad you are no longer with that guy.
This is why context, as OP mentioned, is important.
>This is why context, as OP mentioned, is important.
But I agreed with the OP about context being important. So why are you telling me this?
The context, as the article mentioned, is that the screenshot is being used as evidence against him in a lawsuit.
He is said to have had several of these "ownership" relationships.
And you seem to be claiming that not only was a screenshot taken, but then someone came after the fact with photoshop and altered it to remove sentences from it, before submitting it as evidence.
================
Ex-Wife: I'm suing Andy Rubin, here's an email he wrote.
Judge: Why is this stuff blacked out?
Ex-Wife: (makes up excuse) It mentions proprietary information.
Judge: OK, well just show me the original, and we can keep it out of the record, and I'll decide whether this thing is pertinent.
Ex-Wife: OK, here is the original.
Judge: That is not proprietary information. It doesn't need to be covered.
Ex-Wife: But covering it up makes my case stronger because it makes him look like a creepy jerk.
Judge: GTFO
================
You really think this is what is going on? Seems like quite a stretch to me.
I'm not defending Rubin's situation regarding Google, but I don't think the evidence in his ex-wife's divorce suit is automatically relevant to what led Google to force him out. The email may have been used as evidence of infidelity, not necessarily of (other) sexual misconduct -- the article doesn't say one way or the othewr.
What's to answer about what you asked? You're making an unjustified assumption about what the ex-wife knows or thinks about his extramarital relationships -- that because the email was in her lawsuit, that it insinuates the relationship is morally wrong (besides being adultery), i.e. "akin to slavery". We simply do not have the info or context to know otherwise.
God help whoever received that. I won't comment on the perversions in private life, but i hope that was not sent to a coworker. Sending such a message to a coworker, especially if you are in a managerial position above them is… reprehensible to the point of permanent ejection from any respectable company.
Exactly. If that was a private partner and done with consent, it’s fine, even if I personally would never consider such an arrangement for my own life.
If he’s gotten into a consenting relationship with his subordinates, then that’s kinda skeezy, since one has to wonder how much workplace power dynamics come into play. There’s a damn good reason why HR tends to clamp down on workplace dating, it creates a whole host of issues.
If he was using his power to push that, or springing it suddenly on coworkers and subordinates, then he needs to be blacklisted ASAP.
Ironically, HR people I have known in the past have been some of the worst offenders in this area...
Think of Zenefits, for example, an HR tools tech company which had to literally create an official policy stopping people from having sex in stairwells at the office.
> Think of Zenefits, for example, an HR tools tech company which had to literally create an official policy stopping people from having sex in stairwells at the office.
dev1: busy?
dev2: coding wizard for "no workplace dating" policies
I mean this is the same Zenefits that according to friends that worked there only had 1 chair for every 1.5 employees. Everything I hear about their boom time was reminiscent of an old school frat party shit show.
... reprehensible to the point of permanent ejection from any respectable company.
Courts will make any company "respectable," whether they want to or not.
As a matter of principle, people should enter such agreements if the want to and able to give consent. Of course, this doesn't make it right to send such email to the 18 year interne that started last week.
That's perfectly fine to send to a consenting partner. But completely inappropriate for the workplace.
Edit: not sure why this is being downmodded (not complaining about it, just curious). Is it somehow not completely fine for consenting adults to have whatever kinks they want?
Rubin deserves to be punished for sexual harassment. Kink shaming is unnecessary.
Slight nitpick: it's not clear that this particular email was about a workplace relationship (or sent on company time/servers). It was an email included as evidence in a civil suit by his ex-wife:
> In a civil suit filed this month by Mr. Rubin’s ex-wife, Rie Rubin, she claimed he had multiple “ownership relationships” with other women during their marriage, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. The couple were divorced in August. The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email...
The email was from 2015, but he had left Google in 2014, so it wasn't sent on company time/servers.
Even if it had been sent earlier, Andy Rubin had been named in enough patent lawsuits and deposed enough times to know that multiple plaintiffs had lawyers billing $700/800 per hour (at the very least) to go through all his corporate account's messages. He must have had tens of litigation holds.
Vanilla person here. Do women actually find it "hot" to be "loaned" like a sex slave? Given the circumstances I don't think it's absurd to assume that this was his fantasy and his only.
In my experience at a college in the northeast, it was about 10% that had actually thought a lot about it already and really wanted to do it. Around 50%, however, were more than happy to try it after learning about it.
This is definitely pretty far on the spectrum (the loaning part more so than the slave part), but I've said the 'loaning' part to people many times in a certain context and never actually meant it. I'd bet it just stayed as a fantasy between them.
Since the comments here seem to be mostly like "well at least some of them do", I'll just go ahead confirm your suspicion as a woman who has talked to other women about their relationships. Liking to be denigrated is not the norm at all, it's kinda gross and demeaning. However, much like many other sexual practices that many women find distasteful, some women will play along or pretend that they're into it to make their partners happy. Most of the time the partners aren't trying to be controlling or whatever, they're just imitating porn which normalizes that kind of thing. So yeah, there's a high chance this was a one-sided fantasy like you suspect.
> woman who has talked to other women about their relationships
That's less relevant as actually having sexual encounters with a woman. People often don't know their close friend's fetishes, but they do (or should) know what their lovers enjoy.
For a counterpoint: open a book of women's fantasies written by and marketed to women.
Rubin deserves to be punished for sexual harassment....
IF, in fact, he sexually harassed, right?
A) What in the hell was his partner doing reporting to his place of business that she felt like he had compelled her to have sex with him in a hotel room? What does that have to do with work? That smells like using an accusation as a weapon to me.
B) What does "compelled" mean? I had a girlfriend once who was into kink and I wasn't. We did kink all the time and it wasn't fulfilling to me, and once time in particular I was trying very hard to just get her to have sex with me (which I thought was going to be part of the relationship and was just beginning to realize it was not). I kept asking, she kept saying no. Eventually she gave in. After our break-up she cited this as a rape to a friend. Is this rape? Is it even sexual harassment?
There are so few details here it's shameful it's even being reported on.
So what if Google gave a severance to someone who was accused of harassment? It's not even clear, from the details, that he did. Shit, what if they did an internal investigation and determined that he didn't?
What's wrong with people here, acting like this is something we know he did?
A) The article states that the two were in a relationship. Meeting someone at their hotel room doesn't automatically mean a consent to sex.
B) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your particular experience. But keep in mind that many sexual misconduct accusations involve the victim refusing but eventually "giving in". Harvey Weinstein, for example:
> Shit, what if they did an internal investigation and determined that he didn't?
I hate to say "did you read the article?", but your question suggests that you may have skimmed the details. The article specifically states that Google investigated Rubin, and decided to terminate him as a result of the investigation. The investigation did not "prove" the accusation, but apparently the accusation was credible enough for Google to decide it was better to part ways with one of its most important executives.
> Google’s inquiry ultimately found the complaint against Mr. Rubin credible, said the two company executives familiar with the incident. While Mr. Rubin denied the accusation, it became clear that — at the very least — the relationship was inappropriate, they said. Mr. Page decided Mr. Rubin should leave, they said.
So what? People who work together have sexual relationships, and people who have relationships will have conflict.
"People who disagree with me are ignorant." Come on, man. Seriously? You sounds like a college kid on facebook.
If a company is not going to prohibit employees from having sexual relationships with each other, horizontally or vertically, that company also need to expect those employees to work their conflict out outside of work. If google does want to prohibit this, they should have disciplined both of them the moment they heard about it and fired them if it continued.
What's with people expecting companies to be mommy and daddy when we have conflicts in our relationships? That's crazy.
Ignoring the 'she worked for him' part, where her pay and career were subject to his whim? That's the issue. Its classic blackmail. Google doesn't have to be 'mommy' to oppose blackmail when it finds it occurring within their walls.
And what if she's using the relationship to get ahead? What, are we going to pretend that women are powerless, agentless puppets that smart, capable men can use?
If the company you're in doesn't prohibit relationships, if you get into one you need to resolve conflict in those relationships outside of work.
I've posted this a number of times before but it's apparently not common knowledge (and for good reason Apple doesn't seem to talk about their situation in China often). Apple's position in China is completely consistent with the rest of the world.
In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establishment water holders were putting out the idea that Apple makes exceptions for China, and the Department of Justice parroted it [1].
From Apple's filing [2]:
>Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5.
and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [3]:
>Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world.
>Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device.
>It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services.
>I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice [4]. The new law means Apple's Chinese iCloud data needs to be stored in local data centers, but Apple continues to maintain sole control of the keys. Whether you believe them or not, or whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you. But end-to-end encrypted services like iMessage or iPhones itself, remain so and are still unblocked in China.
You might be wondering why Apple seemingly gets an exception when services like WhatsApp are blocked. The answer should be obvious: Apple being an old-world company that still makes products in meat space, (indirectly) employs a lot of people in China. That gives them leverage that other companies don't have.
So they have to comply with certain Chinese laws such as taking down the NYT app, VPN apps, being unable to operate iTunes Books or Movies in China, etc. But that's a small price if it means their core products remain uncompromised.
> That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice
At that time they were also storing iCloud data on their own servers, correct? To save myself and others from having to watch the Vice video, what did Tim Cook say that reaffirms no blanket Chinese government data access (honest, not sarcasm, I did not watch it)? Why are public statements about privacy always about the US or EU but never China? Surely the lack of consistency/transparency is clear here and causes mistrust.
Be open and honest to your users you claim to care about and there's no problem. Just simple statements like "We have privacy concerns with [insert country here]" or "We aren't allowed to talk about privacy concerns with [insert country here]" or "We do not give blanket data to [insert country here]" or "Although we follow the rules, we disagree with [insert country here]", etc would go a long way. Or continue to be secretive and hidden and anti-user.
>Why are public statements about privacy always about the US or EU but never China?
As much as Apple/Cook may believe privacy is a human right, and have seemingly extracted some important concessions regarding their products, they aren't going to shoot themselves in the head so everyone can feel good about Apple publicly standing up to the CPC. That's a job for governments (the recent efforts by the Trump administration to reset the relationship with China is a good example).
Had to watch with CC on, no audio for me atm. But he is saying the encryption is the same around the world and they own the keys. I'm afraid this doesn't allay fears of blanket data access. But a simple public statement on Apple's website like "we only provide icloud data on per user requests" or "we do not give the Chinese government large swaths of data". Or how about something as simple as "We disagree with the lack of privacy laws in China and the US and the [insert other country here]"?
What does it say that you had to link to segment of a YouTube video of an HBO show for Apple's policies left open to interpretation? To me the lack of clarity is 100% indefensible and not worth twisting your personal ethics to do so.
> so everyone can feel good about Apple publicly standing up [...]. That's a job for governments
Only in some cases where it benefits them. In other cases, they absolutely stand up. It is blatantly obvious that their principles are based on borders and are inconsistent here.
>Only in some cases where it benefits them. In other cases, they absolutely stand up. It is blatantly obvious that their principles are based on borders and are inconsistent here.
It's your prerogative if you want to continue to insist they're being hypocrites. I don't need Tim Cook to be a saint, I'm happy with the practical wins they've managed to maintain.
I don't follow how talking about it on earnings calls makes it "rent seeking". The App Store cut has only gone down since it was launched (for subscriptions after a year).