Apple sets deadline for Amazon's Kindle app to change - They want 30% per book - <AUTHOR> http://www.tecca.com/news/2011/02/03/apple-sets-deadline-for-amazons-kindle-app-to-change/ <comment><USER2> First off, if you trace the article to its source, you'll end up on a WSJ article that says something slightly different:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477560457612...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120531458250932.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)

As far as we know, Apple has not directly set a deadline for Amazon. In fact, there's no knew information other than the date: meaning there's still a lot of questions about the subscription rates and the actual requirements Apple will have in place.

Personally, I can't see how a 30% fee for what amounts to little more than payment processing can stand. It's one thing to charge the fee for app distribution and marketing in the store. It's another to handle on billing at which even 10% would seem rather high.

I don't see this lasting. Either publishers will charge an extra fee on iPad users and/or Apple will be taken to court for anti-trust, probably in Europe first.

<comment><USER3> I think Amazon could resolve this really easily by doing a cross marketing deal with Apple.

But at least Apple is only taking %30. Amazon has completely excluded Apple from selling books via the iBookstore app on the kindle. In fact, you can't even read iBookstore books on the kindle because Amazon doesn't allow Apple to produce an app for the kindle.

<comment><USER4> There's nothing preventing Apple from signing up to be a Kindle developer and using the KDK to develop an iBooks app for the Kindle.

<http://kdk.amazon.com/>

I'd like you to point out any evidence that Amazon has excluded or rejected Apple's application, because I've never heard anything of the sort.

<comment><USER5> "active content must meet all Amazon technical requirements, not be a generic reader, and not contain malicious code"

Depends on how they define a "generic reader" doesn't it?

<comment><USER6> Does not still prevent anyone from _selling_ books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thus why you should only buy ebooks where you get easily transferrable formats, like unencumbered PDF or ePub.

I'm a big fan of O'Reilly's multi-format approach. This is the correct end-run around proprietary stores.

Regarding this issue in particular, I don't see the problem with Amazon and others kicking their users out to Safari to do purchases, and thus as the purchase wouldn't happen "in app" it wouldn't be covered by this.

Not as smooth of a purchase experience, but not impossible to deal with.

The other alternative would be to tack on a 30% surcharge on any books bought directly through the app.

<comment><USER8> In support of unencumbered formats, think about how Apple became dominant. iPod/iTunes initial success + music labels insistence on DRM, lead to lack of content portability, lead to device lock-in, lead to iPod dominance, lead to music labels loosing power.

This is different from Kindle, where they write a player for every platform. But is what you get if you sell through Apple's store for Apple's reader.

O'Reilly wins with their deals. I buy books I wouldn't otherwise.

I bet broadcasters are glad Apple wasn't around when the first TVs were manufactured.

<comment><USER9> the iPod didn't become dominant due to device lock-in.

<comment><USER10> That's correct. People could rip their CDs and also use MP3s they already had. The Kindle wouldn't even allow Amazon's own MobiPocket books that had Mobi DRM on them to be read! And, of course, neither the Kindle hardware nor software for platforms can read ePub.

<comment><USER8> You can get any content onto an iPod, but you can't take the DRM-protected content bought thru iTunes anywhere else, including streaming with Slimserver, etc. And people now presumably have a large collection of content that is managed the iTunes-way, with a significant subset that is DRM protected. Meaning you're locked to Apple's devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The discussion here at least seems to ignore one thing: 30% will not happen because that would mean Amazon would make -no- profit and still incur expenses. The agency model under which the vast majority of Amazon's ebook sales are done has a requirement from the publisher's that they get 70% of the sale price, regardless of what said sale price is. If Amazon jacks up the price for iOS sales, then they get 70% of that, and Apple gets the other 30%. Not going to happen. Personally, I'd bet on Apple announcing sometime in the near future a drastically reduced cut for in-app content purchases, more like a payment processor's cut, I.E. 5% or less.

<comment><USER12> I don't know... Hearing you say that you expect a drastically reduced cut for in-app purchases sounds like a move Facebook might make to become a ubiquitous PayPal type entity.

I really don't think Apple would let people get away with such a little surcharge within their walled garden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What if Apple started demanding 30% of all sales transacted on every device they produce? What makes an iPhone so different from a MacBook?

<comment><USER7> I'm tempted to call the 30% the AppleVAT at this point...

What makes iOS purchases different are two things:

1\. Apple has oversight of content being sold (helps avoid malicious software in many cases, and age appropriate content).

2\. Ease of use - one password to buy stuff, not multiple accounts everywhere.

That's what you get as a customer. As a developer, you don't have to deal with the payment processing and other consumer financial issues, to a great degree, and they provide marketing.

There's nothing to stop an end-run around any of this - you can still make totally open web apps, content in PDF and ePub formats, etc.

You just can't provide the identical guarantees Apple provides with the oversight of their store (which necessitate a locked down device and limitations on what 3rd parties can do outside of their system).

(edit: formatting fix)

<comment><USER14> "There's nothing to stop an end-run around any of this"

I thought the whole point of this outrage was that Apple was trying to stop the end-run. This step isn't a complete blockage, but they're certainly trying to make it harder for customers to get content from outside and easier to get it through Apple's paywall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've used Apple's in-app purchase system and it has sone serious limitations. First, it's limited to about 3000 SKUs. Second, there is no way to automatically import (or update) the product information. So, from a technical perspective, Amazon simply cannot use IAP - it's far too limited.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's not clear what this means: a) Amazon has to provide a way of purchasing content via the apple store (and presumably can do so at 30% markup). Meanwhile, books that you purchased to read on your computer, kindle, android phone, etc. is still available to you on your iDevice at no additional charge. b) Amazon is not allowed to transfer content that the user has already purchased. Users have to repurchase all content through the apple store and the only advantage of the kindle app is if you like the reading experience and syncing with your existing devices.

If it's (a), then ok. I wouldn't purchase through them, but some people might do so for the convenience (instead of starting safari and purchasing it that way). If it is (b), then as soon as there is a credible android tablet, then it's likely to be goodbye to the iPad for a number of book users. The advantage of Amazon is that while the content has DRMd for the end user, they can read it on a variety of devices. Also, the selection is excellent (not perfect, but for light reading, pretty good). I don't see Apple winning the content war on this one. I suppose Amazon could make a web-based kindle service (again, DRMd) that would could be logged in through one's amazon account and used through Safari. The experience wouldn't be as good, but it would still let people read content on an iDevice and screw Apple.

</comment><comment><USER17> Amazon just closed an entire distribution center in Texas because Texas wanted to take 6.25% in tax. Apple wants 30%? I doubt this will go un-protested by Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER18> The first thing that comes to my mind... This will be a huge sell argument for Android: "Buy Amazon books 25% cheaper than on Apple phones".

<comment><USER19> Oh, yes, because of course, cell providers whose phones run Android would never _think_ of charging any kind of data tariff or making money in other ways.

<comment><USER20> No more or no less than on Apple's platform. In truth, with unlocked devices like the Nexus series cell providers have little to no say in the matter any ways.

That is, so long as net neutrality remains. If they start doing packet introspection and charging based on destination or traffic type, well, that is going to be bad for all mobile users.

<comment><USER19> I didn't imply, and also didn't mean, that it was more likely than on iOS. I simply meant, this is going to happen everywhere in the industry.

As for net neutrality, I'm viewing that as a mostly-lost battle at this point, until proven otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well that's one way to attempt and make your eBook store competitive.

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe it's time for an HTML5 based Kindle app. From a customer point of view I wouldn't care as long as the functionality is the same.

However, a main issue with this would be the limit space available via HTML5 databases on the ipad - afaik something like 25 megabytes.

<comment><USER23> That's not a terribly big limitation - ebooks are pretty small files, generally in the .5-1mb range. Conservatively, let's call it 20 active books on the app - if you do some decent database management or incorporate some streaming ability, 25mb should be plenty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article is incorrect, as far as I am aware.

Apple has implemented a policy where by everyone who sells something through their app needs to provide the same set of products and services through In- app purchases. That means that the kindle app _can maintain_ their current store but must also implement an in-app purchase alternative, powered by apple, and thus with Apple's 30% tax applied to it.

<comment><USER25> >sells something

Something electronically distributed. If you buy a physical book via amazon, then they do not.

Actually amazon should make a "Screw the apple tax" bumper sticker, sell that and include various free kindle books with purchase of the bumper sticker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Pretty greedy isn't it?

<comment><USER27> For everyone's complaints about Microsoft back in the day, at least they didn't also control the hardware.

<comment><USER28> In addition, Microsoft made great development platforms available for their programmers, for free.

Apple never really cared about their developers, which is evident in the way they are treating them.

<comment><USER29> Which development platforms did Microsoft make available for free?

The Express Editions of VS are a relatively recent phenomenon, and are crippled. Apple's tools are free and fully featured - paying gets you the ability to publish on their store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm wondering if the OS X Lion edition is going to have these encumbrances as well.

<comment><USER20> Unlikely. Although iOS is worrying, I have to assume that Apple understands that locking down OS X on the desktop in the way iOS is locked down will severely cut into their user base.

I can tell you that myself and everyone I know would immediately drop the platform if that were to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> is it me or is 30 a robbery? I feel like Im watching goodfellas and any italian mafia movie where the mob asks for unfair piece of the business so they can protect you from unwanted guests...

</comment><comment><USER32> Dear Apple, quit being douchebags, I love my iPad, please don't make me go out and buy a kindle as well which is what I will end up doing if Amazon pulls out of the App Store.

<comment><USER33> The Kindle is soooo much better for reading. Less eye strain, much lighter, amazing battery life, it's frickin $140, free news subscriptions with Calibre open source software. The 3rd generation has lots of nice improvements, most importantly in page turn time and contrast. At least try one if you haven't already.

<comment><USER32> I actually fall into the group of people that had a Kindle, sold it once I got my iPad and could use the Kindle App and keep my entire library. I am pretty sure that nothing is going to get me to start buying books from the iBooks App.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> How will this work for O'Reilly books I purchase in pdf format? How can Apple stop me from reading it without blocking all non-DRMed pdfs?

<comment><USER35> I'm pretty sure they are only interested in books purchased on the device. If you don't purchase it on the device they don't get a cut.

<comment><USER14> AFAICT, the article is saying that if there's a way to purchase content externally and move it onto the device, there must also be a way to purchase it internally with the AppleVAT.

So they're definitely targeting books purchased off device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> So, what do HN recommend that Amazon do now? Or at least expect them to do.

        * Leave the app as-is. (With what specific motive?)
        * Jack up the prices. (Perhaps they'll include a notification when the user is on the relevant purchase page.)
        * Leave the prices as-is and take the 30% hit.
        * Let Apple kill the app.

<comment><USER20> I would like them to let Apple kill the app and focus on other devices and operating systems. I do not wish this due to a dislike for Apple, but rather as incentive for Apple to open up the iOS platform.

I find it a shame that there is so much focus on Apple devices due, it seems, almost exclusively the market buzz around their products. Competing platforms have similar user numbers, good technology, and far better market options as far as I am aware. That is a model I would like to see winning out over Apple's more restrictive platform.

<comment><USER37> "Competing platforms have similar user numbers, good technology"

Citation needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's interesting watching rivalries/standoffs develop between companies that didn't seem likely to happen - who would've thought in 2006 that Amazon and Apple would be at each other in 2011?

That was before the iPhone or Kindle came out, never mind the iPad. Interesting to see how these things develop.

</comment><comment><USER39> If true, I think the market will make some obvious adjustments. In-app content will be vastly (%30?) more expensive than "out-of-app" purchases. Apple will counter with more reasonable rates. The end result will mean nothing has been lost and that app content will be more accessible. As with similar Apple initiatives (music, apps, etc.), users may find themselves more eager to pay for content at the end of the day.

Apple are canny about their relationships with content owners - I'm hesitant to believe that they'd attempt a flagrant "Apple tax". Many of their most important products - the iPhone comes to mind - have a relatively small slice of their market. In this atmosphere, it would be untenable to risk losing important content sources with exorbitant fees.

</comment><comment><USER40> Here's the actual source article, which has much more information:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477560457612...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120531458250932.html)

</comment><comment><USER41> I still think this whole thing only applies to apps that let you shop/browse internally and then whisk you away to Safari to coplete the payment. And apple's reason for objecting to this is to protect users from fraudulent payment gateways. Just one customer who had their credit card ripped off after making a 'purchase on an iPhone app' would be extremely damaging to the reputation of the whole iOS ecosystem.

<comment><USER42> If that was the case, they could require Amazon to use their inapp purchasing platform without taking a 30% cut.

It seems pretty clear to me that 30% of all Amazon's iOS business would be a nice addition to anyone's bottom line, and Apple feel like they're in a position to take it.

<comment><USER41> I don't think they're actually requiring Amazon to do anything, at least not until either party actually confirms this situation. Amazon can sell eBooks from their website to be opened in the Kindle app, just as long as you don't select the product inside the Kindle app. They could allow Amazon to use Apple's payment gateway free of charge, but why bother?

It's a simple separation of concerns: if you're going to initiate inapp purchases that are completed in Safari, then to prove trustworthiness you need to offer purchases via Apple in parallel; if you're going to avoid Apple then you lose the privilege of making the purchase seem sanctioned by the iOS ecosystem.

How big is 30% of Amazon's ebook sales to iDevices really? I'm betting _less_ than what Amazon's presence means as a boost to Apple unit sales. The parallel purchase option is really a sign of _more_ flexibility from Apple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is clearly legal, as Apple don't have a monopoly.

But also clearly not in my interest as a putative Apple customer. (Alas, I fear I am not in Apple's target market.)

<comment><USER2> Clearly legal, because you're a lawyer? Don't be too surprised if this lands Apple in court eventually. Leveraging their OS to disrupt competitors in other business markets is the exact sort of behavior that got Microsoft in trouble with Netscape.

<comment><USER14> AFAIK, this behaviour is only illegal if you're deemed a monopoly. Certainly Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, but it could be argued that they have a monopoly on app store purchases, since I'm sure that they have a greater than 70% share (by dollars) of app store purchases.

<comment><USER25> Naw, there is stuff that can land them in court for restrant of trade issues.

I hope this motivates amazon to support the jailbreaking community and release a new amazon store, but really how this will pan out is apple will get like 5% of amazon sales on top of the fees for CC processing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Yet another demonstration of the folly of purchasing DRMed media. Why subject your ability to read your books to the possibility of bizarre, irrelevant problems like this? It's like O'Reilly had a falling-out with Barnes & Noble and suddenly I can't read a book that's been sitting on my shelf for a year. Is the convenience really worth it?

</comment><comment><USER45> Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it.

But it strikes me as an unnatural state of affairs. This idea that I can make a computational device, then _own the right for you to put material on that device_ , is technically correct -- if you think of the iPad as some huge proprietary version of a CD player.

But if you think of it an extension of your brain -- as a prosthesis which helps you share commonly understood experiences in common formats, which it is -- then Apple is basically saying it has control over what you _think_. That it deserves a cut for any experience you have.

Certainly it's still more of a player than a mind-extension device, but this line will get more and more blurry. It's already making many uncomfortable. My belief is that some sort of change in law is required to clear up this confusion. An iPad is not a record player.

<comment><USER46> > Of course this is legal or Apple wouldn't be doing it.

Right, because corporations never do anything illegal in any country.

Microsoft has been fined hundreds of millions for including a browser with their OS (not even restricting other browsers). Something Apple and every other OS manufacturer does as well. The problem is, neither Microsoft, nor Apple cares about fines of that scale.

<comment><USER47> One does not need to go all the way to Redmond to find illegal activity, one can find it in Cupertino as well, e.g. Apple back dating stock options.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The whole article is complete speculation.

</comment><comment><USER49> <http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/img_2196.jpg>

\- Vic Gundotra

</comment><comment><USER50> Who cares about Amazon, they've got volume. While this one precedence might instantly bump Apple's revenue, it means that indie developers that deal with licensed/purchased content without in-app transactions will also have no choice but comply and take into account Apples 1/3rd.</comment>


How Apple can fix 3D Touch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@eliz_kilic/how-apple-can-fix-3d-touch-2f0ca5ea589e <comment><USER2> They should probably just remove it. Long press would almost always achieve same thing. And is slightly more intuitive.

<comment><USER3> In something like Safari, long press and 3D Touch already do distinct things (traditional right-click-esque menu vs. content peek-pop), which are both useful.

Elsewhere, those visual indicators mocked up in TFA seem pretty good. Probably offend Jony Ive's sensibilities though.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: When an iPhone is released how far off are Apple in the next gen iPhone? - <AUTHOR> e.g. the iPhone X was released September 12, 2017. At that same day, how much of the next gen iPhone (iPhone XS, released a year later) had Apple already built? <comment><USER2> I've worked in hardware development for a long time, though not for Apple.

The answer can't really be reduced to a single number. At this scale, products might released to manufacturing somewhere around 3 months prior to the launch date to allow time for ramp-up. This means the design must be finalized and tested several months before release to manufacturing.

The majority of hardware and software development doesn't require a complete prototype that matches that final iPhone form factor. Early internal development would be performed on large development boards. The original iPhone prototype board was easily 10x the size of the final iPhone. Photos available here: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18263844/apple-iphone- pro...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18263844/apple-iphone- prototype-m68-original-development-board-red)

Apple quotes the original iPhone development time as 2.5 years. Later models are built as an evolution of previous models, so start to finish development times are likely shorter for newer models. Development likely operates on a rolling schedule, where each team moves on to their next generation iPhone work as soon as they finish up most of their work on the upcoming model.

New features like face unlock or thumbprint fingerprint readers are likely prototyped separately and will only be included in the upcoming iPhone model if they're sufficiently far along when the design is locked down. If a new feature is too risky or isn't mature enough, it can be pushed to a future model, at least until the design is locked. This means that some features could be in development for many years, across several iPhone generations.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure about now, but when Steve Jobs passed in October 2011, the iPhone 4s was about to be released, and CNET published an article saying that Steve Jobs had already been involved with the final design of the iPhone 5, which didn't launch until September 2012.

[https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-last-big-project-the- ne...](https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-last-big-project-the-next-iphone/)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's typical for US based consumer electronics companies building products at that scale and complexity to have prototypes (Protos) that are form and function complete but made only partially with proper mass production processes (e.g. some CNC parts instead of injection molded) at least a year before launch. Places like Apple would have non-form factor boards, ID mockups, and some key modules in place at least two years ahead of launch.

Some companies work on much more aggressive schedules though. Samsung for example often has a bunch of paths running in parallel that they downselect late on, and Xiaomi will compress a full development cycle into a year for some products.

</comment><comment><USER5> Depends how you define as "already built".

The design is mostly done if not finish. The only wiggle room are spec and components. Which can change depending on whether it is single sourced and market demands. For example as per court Document during Apple Vs Qualcomm Case, Apple state they required Modem Supply Agreement to be signed and samples to be ready by no later than July for their next year's iPhone. ( That of course only applies to new Modem )

Even the Apple Silicon for next year's iPhone are already finished.

Yes, that means they are already working on iPhone _14_.

And that is why the widely reported Rumours of Apple deciding not to ship the iPhone SE _Plus_ in the last minute by certain famous twitter user or so called leaker are complete horse shit.

<comment><USER6> How do you know this?

<comment><USER5> At the scale of iPhone production. There are just something in Supply Chain and Production you cant change. Everything works in a tight schedule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At least on the SoC level the silicon for the next two chips has been more or less finalized with the next one most likely being already taped out for sampling.

Everything thing that Apple outsources has also likely already been finalized for the next model at the least especially the screen.

Other components that are closely tied to the SoC like the memory have been selected and contractually procured.

One year before launch PCBs are should already being finalized, fully assembled phones with some features missing like maybe the next years cameras also probably exist in labs.

Apple launches phones relatively very shortly after their announcement and these phones need to be certified around the globe by various agencies a process that can take months and probably around half a year if not longer, other certifications like their IP rating also need to be completed well in advance.

So overall on a yearly cycle the next model is pretty much already ready to go, and the one after that is quite close to being finalized too.

</comment><comment><USER8> Keep in mind that Apple still has "factories" here in the US for doing small- scale prototype runs. This also helps them work out the processes that will be required for manufacturing in the full scale facilities.

They will do prototypes that are as good quality with final fit and finish, and build maybe a few hundred of them for testing before they give final sign off to their partners overseas.

And they will do internal prototyping of dozens or hundreds of concepts before they ever get to that final pre-production run.

Meanwhile, companies like Samsung squirt out 50+ models per year, at a rate of about one per week, just to see what will stick. And then they test them on the public, gather the information they need, and then effectively abandon almost all of those units in place because they have to be ready for the next model to come out next week.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've always wondered is the iPhone X built Sept. 12th 2017 the exact same hardware as one built on iPhone X 2018? Is the one built in 2018 better, do they fix hardware issues on later builds?

<comment><USER10> If I remember correctly, back in the days of the... 4 or 4[s] there was a change in screws that secured the case/enclosure. IIRC they went from regular Philips screws to Torx?

Someone else can possibly correct me.

But I'd assume things like these happen during production over time. Probably nothing significantly different.

<comment><USER11> They've switched from Philips to Pentalobe screws: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentalobe_security_screw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentalobe_security_screw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Check out the MacRumors Buyer's Guide [1]. It has the number of days between releases for most products.

[1] [https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/](https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't know about Apple but apparently OnePlus closes the next design 9 months before launch ([https://youtu.be/W-VInHvlrZo](https://youtu.be/W-VInHvlrZo) at 16:40)

</comment><comment><USER14> My uneducated guess- not much other than ideas on paper.

I suspect maybe new chip versions are in progress and maybe have engineering samples of said chips, and probably a rough idea of the new design. I think the software probably isn't more than a few months ahead of what will be released.

as you get closer ~ 180 days from release you probably start seeing a more complete device ready.

Totally a random guess though. I know movies hint that there are devices 2 and 3 generations ahead floating around in companies...</comment>


"Damned if you do, damned if you dont"? I won't - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@angela_62804/damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont-i-wont-1a09ba853018 <comment><USER2> Essay seems to imply that the author is famous and give no further details, but I've never heard of her.</comment>


Ask HN: HN Enhancement Suite - <AUTHOR>

I'm thinking of building a simple tool(chrome extension) to enhance my time here. I want to know if others are interested before I build. Here are the features I'm thinking:
1. Notifications when some one responds to your comment. Like the adblock/ghostery red counter
2. Message users
3. Follow users
4. Light UI enhancement i.e. big vote buttons
5. Interesting user stats.
If you're interested put your email in the box here. I want to get a minimum of 150 people before I build it. Feature requests are welcome.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1l-vpNNPhCoGvkCamMiRNuWTYlwMpvPTmQVV36x5jdnI/viewform <comment><USER2> #1 already exists in HN Notify

I asked about #2 recently and the only responses I got were strongly negative.

#3 exists - I think it's actually called HN follow, although I don't use it and can't remember exactly - you could do some searching.

Many people have produced versions of #4

#5 seems under-specified - everyone you ask will think you mean something different.

As a single data point, if you build it, I wouldn't use it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1l-vpNNPhCoGvkCamMiRNuWTYlwM...](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1l-vpNNPhCoGvkCamMiRNuWTYlwMpvPTmQVV36x5jdnI/viewform)</comment>


Ex Google engineer claims she was harassed and "Google did nothing about it" - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/03/07/former-google-engineer-claims-she-was-sexually-harassed-google-did-nothing-about-it <comment><USER2> I hate the public shaming. If you're in a position like this, two choices:

1) Leave and get a better job

2) Leave and sue

I've been in companies with claimed harassment. It's gone both ways -- about 50/50\. In about half the cases, the victim perceived something that was clearly not there, ranging from:

* Complete delusion, in the case of one person with severe emotional problems

* A case where we had an someone with autism who would treat everyone in the same inappropriate way -- not understanding eye contact, personal space, etc., and one person who interacted occasionally felt targeted and harassed).

* A case where someone was just an asshole and hard-ass. Equal opportunity. But one person felt targeted.

People aren't perfect. This kind of accusation, even unsubstantiated, can ruin a career. I wish people wouldn't pull this shit.

<comment><USER3> In case of public shaming, it is important to note that it is a public defamation. If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages, so you may have to go for a trial anyway. Moreover, too many male's careers were broken by illegitimate morale accusations, which doesn't do any good for peace with women. So I agree wich cpks, either sue and prove your point or don't say it.

Edit: klodolph is correct, I didn't think laws of US could be that much opposite from Europe (France in my case).

<comment><USER4> > If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can > ask for damages

This is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. US defamation law is much less friendly to plaintiffs compared to most European countries, especially the UK (for example). This may surprise you, but in the US, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory statement is false. You have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false, or you have to prove negligence by "clear and convincing evidence". This is for private plaintiffs, the standard for "public figures" is higher.

I can recognize the attitude that "if you can't prove it in court, then shut up", but there are always going to be a few really important things that you want to say that can't be proven in court. I'm not saying this is one of those times (it really isn't) but those times exist.

And I'm not taking sides on this particular case, just to be absolutely clear.

<comment><USER5> English defamation law recently (2013) changed.

If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:

1: truth

2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)

3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).

To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Off-topic, but not unrelated. She is also the author of this article:

[https://medium.com/@kellyellis/commuting-by- myself-714e6dc47...](https://medium.com/@kellyellis/commuting-by- myself-714e6dc47c18)

Directly from the article:

"This is why any man who is a stranger and tries to talk to me when I'm minding my own business is likely to be met with defensiveness and/or aggression. [...] If you are a strange man trying to talk to me on my way to or from work, when I am commuting alone, you are a harasser, pure and simple. You are threatening. And you need to leave me the fuck alone."

<comment><USER7> What she describes in the first few paragraphs of the article is obviously horrible, but the closing paragraph, which you quote, is also totally insane.

I was in London a few weeks ago, meeting some clients; my aged iPhone had run out of battery and, not being blessed with a watch, I had no way of telling the time (yes, this is a stupid situation and I felt like an idiot). I was loitering outside my client's offices and knew it was roughly the right time because the coffee shop I'd been in just before had had a clock, but I didn't particularly want to arrive overly early. A person, who happened to be a woman, walked past me, and I stopped her, politely, and asked her for the time, which she duly told me. I thanked her and she went on her way.

Does that count as harassment or threatening behaviour? After all, I'm a white male, a little over 6ft tall, with a shaved head and often a beard, and she was a woman, alone, probably walking to or from her office.

<comment><USER8> I'm 95% sure sure that "tries to talk to me" means "approaches me and tries to have a conversation", not "asks me if I have the time".

See also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9165486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9165486)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Ellis' Twitter profile reads, "bitchy software engineer. doing what i can to > smash the patriarchy."

Stopped reading here.

<comment><USER10> This article is another symptom of journalism becoming sensationalism. The fact that this snippet was included, and that the public shaming was made into an article at all, is extremely deplorable.

Because of the way this article was presented, I've reserved forming an opinion of Ellis or her alleged harasser. It's skewed to make both parties look bad, and based off hearsay. The article did not reveal Ellis' overreaction to her harassment until after the allegations were repeated multiple times. It's ridiculous they didn't present everything at once, instead of attempting to lead our opinions.

The whole article was crap.

<comment><USER11> I hesitate to call this site journalism. Top _news_ on their front page right now:

What to Take on Your Bikepacking Trip

Man Beaten While Boozing in Washington Square

The Bay Area Is Full of Skinny People

Unruly Patron Gets Booted From Bar, Returns and Shoots Out Window

<comment><USER10> Reprehensible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _About 83 percent of its software engineers are men, according to a recent > New York Times report._

On a side note, I'm tired of _high percentage_ arguments, I've seen it in countless articles. There's NOTHING inherently wrong in the ratio itself.

<comment><USER13> Exactly. Look, boilermakers are 99.8% male. You never ever hear feminists complaining about that.

[https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chal...](https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chalabi- datalab-flightattendants-2.png)

<comment><USER5> Yes you do.

This point has come up on HN so many times that anyone continuing to repeat it is at best willfully ignorant, but probably deceitful.

A simple websearch [boilermaker women] shows you're wrong with plenty of sites calling for more female boilermalers.

<comment><USER14> You hear a lot less about calls for more males into nursing or primary teaching (lower paid generally than male dominated professions, like engineering).

<comment><USER5> False.

 _You_ hear a lot less anout it because you don't read any nursing or teaching magazines or blogs or message boards.

This is now a great dogwhistle -- anyone saying things similar is clearly dishonest.

<comment><USER14> I hear a lot less of it, not only on HN but on general newspapers and sources that are not focused on tech. Does that make the point more valid to you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Earlier discussion, with many comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9163309](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9163309)

The submitted link is different there, but the link on this submission is cited in the comments there.

</comment><comment><USER16> I dont live in US, so it is rather strange from an outsider prospective seeing US as being "open" with sex. (Must have been largely influenced by US TV series )

"You look amazing in that bathing suit, like a rock star" Why does that, count as sexual harassment? May be he said it with his tone, eyes and looks?

<comment><USER17> It makes her uncomfortable and it has nothing to do with her job. In the workplace, you don't blurt out everything that comes to mind even if you feel a certain way or even if you mean it with good intentions. She wasn't hired by Google to look good, she was hired to be a good developer. Vic G telling her that she looks good in a bathing suit makes her question why she's there and what her bosses motivations are. Everyone has a right to feel comfortable in the workplace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Pretty terrible situation for all involved.

Whenever there is a he-said/she-said situation without objective proof there really isn't a lot of options. All that is really left in terms of options for the victim is to leave whilst the perpetrator continues their life. This leaves public shaming as the victim's only way to fight back.

The only way to solve this is basically to limit social activities in which incidents like this can happen e.g. drinking or going to the beach.

<comment><USER19> You're right, but some dangerous situations can be tolerated if the benefits outweigh the negatives.

But anyway, what happened to keeping a work diary, building evidence, and then creating a court case? It's not a perfect system, but filing a lawsuite has way less chance of creating blowback than starting a social media battle. Plus it can be useful to keep a work journal for many other reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm just as much pro-women's rights as anybody, but a few things I was thinking while reading this:

1) "grab your ass" comment happened in Maui, which I'm assuming is not on work premises or during a work-related event. In cases like this a simple "please keep your comments to yourself. I don't feel comfortable with you saying this." would be appropriate and I think respected. It nips the issue in the bud. Pouring a drink on someone is not necessarily the best way to communicate that. And next time don't accept the invitation if you don't feel comfortable around them. In my experience it's not common that this sort of comment will be made without some level of prior assurance (flirting?) that the comment wasn't entirely inappropriate.

2) claims "let me be in a position where I couldn't be promoted" but without details. This sounds like paranoia to me. I have never heard of a company explicitly denying promotions to people in certain positions. Google is in the internet business, but most importantly they're in the business of making money. If you prove that you're valuable to them making money, then you're valuable to the company. Bottom-line.

As a side-note, Google has just as much of a responsibility to the other employee to get the story straight. Allegedly nothing was done to reprimand the perpetrator. This is likely because 3rd party observers (also Google employees?) probably provided 3rd party testimony that it was no big deal which would likely help as a deciding factor. Of course they likely told the guy not to let it happen again. If there's no 3rd party testimony and it's not on premises or at a work-function what do you expect your employer to do about it?

Another point I would make is that the paranoia could be because people stopped interacting with her as often or inviting her to social gatherings. What you don't think about necessarily is that people will stop talking to you if they think you'll accuse them of something or if you're overly sensitive. It's human nature. I don't want to offend someone if they're overly sensitive, and it's less fun being around people like that, so if I'm just socializing I'm going to be considerate and NOT invite them to social gatherings because I don't want you to be offended. After all I can't control what others will say or do when we're out having a drink.

3) "you look amazing in that bathing suit" seems like an attempt to flatter someone. I didn't know they wear bathing suits to work at Google :) It's what guys do to girls. They compliment them. And girls generally accept the flattery and say thank you. If you don't like that it's fine, just let people know and they more than likely will be happy to oblige.

4) "drinks after work". This is again a situation outside of work. You're not required to be there. If you find that it's not a social circle you want to be a part of you don't have to be. I do get that social settings is where you can establish deeper levels of trust with people within an organization, and so that can be perceived as a roadblock to advancement. In this case I can't see how Google the organization can legally control this, except to work on balancing the ratios. But that is also not necessarily a gender-related issue. Girls don't get along with girls in social settings also at comparable ratios if not more often. But if the organization you're a part of is controlled by people with personalities you don't mesh well with, and you can't be moved laterally within the organization then it's time to move on. If someone finds it hard to get along with most people within an organization it is always worth the time it takes to self-reflect to determine if it's your issue and not theirs. Especially in a company as large as Google.

5) Unrelated, but similar situation. A past co-worker complained in a meeting they felt awkward when we used the word "penetration". We were an internet marketing company, so "market penetration" is a common term within the industry. But to satisfy her wishes we did our best to stop using the term. No questions asked. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_penetration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_penetration)] I can assure you no one in the meeting was thinking of that other kind of "penetration" but her.

<comment><USER5> > 3) "you look amazing in that bathing suit" seems like an attempt to flatter > someone. I didn't know they wear bathing suits to work at Google :) It's > what guys do to girls. They compliment them. And girls generally accept the > flattery and say thank you. If you don't like that it's fine, just let > people know and they more than likely will be happy to

Do not "flatter" people on their appearance unless they are a family member or close friend.

<comment><USER20> I agree to a point. I think the general rules of thumb would be more along the lines of, "don't flatter someone in a suggestive or inappropriate way". Some people work very hard on their appearance. I would go so far as to say it (their looks) is, to a large extent, who they are. That's not to say they are necessarily shallow people either. They find pleasure and take pride in keeping up with their looks and overall aesthetic. So if you're out and meet someone who might be a friend of a friend / co-worker, or a co-worker from another department who you may not have met before, if they look like they've gone above and beyond to look good, they more often than not will appreciate the compliments. If you don't look like you've put all that effort into your looks (which is not to say you purposefully try to look ugly) more often than not you will not receive those compliments.

<comment><USER5> You are wrong. It is not appropriate to comment on another person's appearance if that person works for you, or works with you. (Unless their appearance falls below whatever minimum standard your company has).

Women do not appreciate those comments. By making those comments you are being creepy and unacceptable.

<comment><USER20> At work yes. I was under the impression we were talking about social settings outside of work with co-workers. Since none of the scenarios from the OP appeared to have happened at work. Or at least that's the case with all the scenarios I cited in my original comment.

I don't see why compliments of one's appearance outside of work must be off limits. As long as they're not inappropriate or suggestive. It's a common courtesy in some social circles. And I'm also not against women complimenting men on their appearance, or women complimenting women or men complimenting men. I'm an equal opportunity complimenter :)

Now if they report directly to you yes I agree it's inappropriate and boundaries need to be in place. But I didn't get the impression that was the case.

And for the record I'm not talking about "cat calls". That's inappropriate in all cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's gonna be fun watching all the HN libertarian-types clutching their pearls at an American exercising her First Amendment right to free speech.

</comment><comment><USER22> google.com

</comment><comment><USER23> There are women who have a deep dislike of men. Can be caused by not that great fathers, or maybe a string of horrible boyfriends. Maybe watching too many of the wrong sort of movie or reading the wrong sort of books. Who knows!

So... it's not the woman's fault. Everybody starts out wanting to be good.

But women that do not like men really do exist! (Speaking from some experience here)

</comment><comment><USER24> Even if the events took place as she claimed, where's the harassment? Two guys found her attractive and told her so, what's the drama? Pretty sure if this went any further (i.e. they had power over her and tried to coerce her into something), she wouldn't hesitate to tell. So far, it looks like tumblrina with a mission.

<comment><USER25> It's considered harassment because they (or at least one of them) were her superiors. The problem is the power dynamic.

<comment><USER11> That's what I thought too, now I'm not so sure:

"If you are a strange man trying to talk to me on my way to or from work, when I am commuting alone, you are a harasser, pure and simple."

<comment><USER25> Her attitude and what happened are two separate things.

Given that she isn't lying, it doesn't matter what her opinion on interacting with strange men are (radical as they are). It doesn't change what happened to her.

<comment><USER11> What harassment is depends on who you ask.

If you mean the legal definition, consider that even different courts often disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Reminds me of the GitHub case. "harassment" is the new "I didn't like how things shook out".

</comment><comment><USER27> Let's see, Twitter shaming and a Twitter history of feminist trolling...

From the article, more disclosure of the possible events:

> She then added "full disclosure. I'm not proud, I poured a drink on him. It > became about that."

Seems to me when you combine beaches and alcohol while on a staff getaway, things may get slightly out of hand. Not exactly sexual harassment in the office kind of stuff...</comment>


Facebook loses 3 more executives - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/02/with-stock-price-at-low-facebook-loses-3-more-executives/ <comment><USER3> Keep in mind, this is also a great time to leave FB, there is a talent crunch in the tech world and sometimes the easiest way to advance your career is to go to another company. If your goal is to be a CEO, you will never get there by staying at FB.

</comment><comment><USER4> Remember when "Executives" were C-Level or at least SVPs?

I'm not saying anything about these particular folks, just noting that the tech press tends to overuse the term executive.

<comment><USER5> The tech press loves bloodshed, just like the regular press.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As expected. Many people have and will leave Facebook. They came to cash-out thats what they did after the IPO. And now they are off to new ventures.

Same has happend and will happen to all big hits who go IPO. You will lose a lot of talent. Maybe this was one of the reasons they pushed out the IPO date so many times.

Golden Handcuffs are good sometimes.

<comment><USER7> I thought they were locked up until 6 months after the IPO?

<comment><USER8> 3 months for some people: [http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/05/17/facebook- sho...](http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/05/17/facebook-shortens- lock-up-period-for-some-holders/)

Also, once your options have vested, nothing to stop you leaving before the lock-up expires.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Whomever took the google deals to stay at google must be so happy with their choice given the poor performance of FB.

<comment><USER10> If I could have taken a job at Facebook five years ago, I would have. I'd still have made out like a bandit despite their recent troubles.

<comment><USER11> No you would have not, lockup for employee is in November. Might be below $5 a share by then.

<comment><USER12> Prices are meaningless without knowing what the option grant price was. Or if someone got 10,000 shares, $5 is still just fine.

<comment><USER13> $50K over 5 years, not so much. 100,000 shares, maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Are these the same sort of people that quit their other companies a year before the IPO for Facebook stock?

</comment><comment><USER15> I think that it is inevitable execs and talented developers will leave an organization at some point because there is only so much value you can get by sticking around indefinitely. The issue here is the timing of when they are leaving. You can't ignore the signals that Zuckerberg is in way over his head. He did a great job getting the company to this point but perhaps the next major departure/reassignment is his. It is not unprecedented to have the board of a public company replace the founder with a more experience CEO and that is what it seems like is needed in this case.

<comment><USER16> _> You can't ignore the signals that Zuckerberg is in way over his head._

Yeah, you can. You can chalk them up to statistical noise resulting from a few engineering and business model problems that need to be solved, which shouldn't be surprising in the relatively early days of a unique new business model like Facebook.

Just ignore the Silicon Valley and Wall Street news industry echo chamber, their fundamental business model is about turning statistical noise into ad impressions and cash flow. This too will pass.

 _> He did a great job getting the company to this point but perhaps the next major departure/reassignment is his. It is not unprecedented to have the board of a public company replace the founder with a more experience CEO and that is what it seems like is needed in this case._

As pointed out above, Zuck owns a controlling interest, so this won't happen. But more importantly, there _no CEO alive with more experience in this domain than Zuck_.

Who are you thinking of, Tom the Myspace founder? An ex-Yahoo CEO? There's still no one better than Zuck for this, so even if he could be replaced it would be foolish to do so.

<comment><USER17> > _"But more importantly, there no CEO alive with more experience in this > domain than Zuck."_

This is a big mistake in the corporate world: thinking that you need a CEO with _specific_ experience. On that high of a level, business is business. There are plenty of corporate executives who could do as good a job or better at running Facebook.

But that's not to say Zuck doesn't have unique advantages having built the company. He is also going to learn as he goes; no one is born with CEO experience.

<comment><USER18> >On that high of a level, business is business.

Now, I have about as much experience at that level as you likely do, which is to say, none, but one of the primary functions of a leader is choosing empoloyees. And it takes one to know one.

I'm sorry, but it's extrordenarily difficult to hire outside of what you know. Do you know how many people have approached me /this week/ as an expert? I mean, I laugh, but I really am the best those people could find. This wasn't due to lack of money; this was because they didn't have much knowledge of my field, and because I'm loud. (I mean, some of that has value; I do write better than most people. I am more outgoing and have more tolerance for bullshit than most people that are actually experts. But that is mostly bullshit.)

I mean, sure, get a trusted co-founder or what have you. but if you don't have those skills? you won't know if that co-founder is a real expert... or me.

<comment><USER17> > _"but one of the primary functions of a leader is choosing empoloyees."_

With you 110%. This is, really, the role best filled by the leader.

> _"And it takes one to know one."_

Nope, disagree here. I am fully confident that I can hire a great rocket scientist, especially with the resources of a major corporation. And I'm most certainly not a rocket scientist.

We're disagreeing on the fundamentals here. I believe that a good CEO knows that he doesn't need to understand the engineering of a social network in order to run a social network. At all. He has to put together the right strategy and the right team. It's not _easy_ to accomplish, but it's certainly not complicated.

<comment><USER18> >Nope, disagree here. I am fully confident that I can hire a great rocket scientist, especially with the resources of a major corporation. And I'm most certainly not a rocket scientist.

How would you hire a rocket scientist?

I mean, I'd go ask a friend who is one, but that's... largely blind luck. I mean, I know the guy is smarter than I am; I can tell he knows more physics than I do. but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot. And even if my friend is a good rocket scientist, I then have to trust he's good at picking other good rocket scientists.

It's a similar problem to how I'd hire an accountant. I mean, super important job, right? keeps me outta jail. Me? I found someone that ran a public q/a site. I knew she was good at explaining things, and I know she had certain certifications... but really, I had no idea (and still have no idea) if she's really doing the acccouning correctly. I mean, I have refered her to a few friends, who all have said positive things about her, so it sounds like I made a good choice, but I don't really know. I can't, at least until I get audited.

I mean, picking good people is a skill; sharing a knowledge base with the role you are picking is not sufficent to pick someone good. I have a very good friend that is a much better programmer than I am. But, her initial impressions, like most people's, mostly focus on confidence. She was interviewing for her boss, and was very excited about one prospect. "I think he's better than I am" she gushed. But, being a rational person, she gave some take-home work. The next day I got a call. "Would a person fail a take-home test on purpose?" Turns out, the guy was just a big talker. But still; the take home test saved her from an embarrassing co-worker. If she didn't have the knowledge to make and judge that test? she would have ended up hiring the idiot.

<comment><USER17> > _"How would you hire a rocket scientist?"_

Without getting bogged down with literals, I'd do my best to determine what constitutes a good rocket scientist, and work away. I suppose I'm just confident I could do it. I've had to hire good people in my field (pharmacy), but I have no formal connection to the industry. Sure, _maybe_ if I _was_ a rocket scientist, I'd have a slight edge in this specific case. But don't forget, being a CEO doesn't mean you're hiring all rocket scientists (or in FB's case, engineers). You have to hire people of all types, so you lose any competitive advantage rather quickly.

<comment><USER18> >CEO doesn't mean you're hiring all rocket scientists (or in FB's case, engineers). You have to hire people of all types, so you lose any competitive advantage rather quickly.

eh, but depending on the company, some roles are more important than others. I mean, in facebook's case, it'd be marketing. Facebook, really, doesn't need top of the world Engineers; paying 5x what they would otherwise on infrastructure won't kill them. (they do need good people for the places where Engineering and Marketing colide. They need people that are good at psychology and at least mediocre programmers.) But marketing is what they /do/ - <USER2> business plan and their P/E is predicated on capturing a huge percentage of the world's advertising dollars. without best in the world marketing types, they are sunk.

This is why having even a relitively small edge in hiring the best people in one particular area can make such a huge difference, and one of the major reasons why I think CEO experience is not particularly portable across fields.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder what a "mobile marketing manager" for Facebook does, seeing as how they don't have any mobile advertising.

99% of mobile downloads are from people searching their respective app stores for "Facebook" and clicking download.

Easiest job ever?

<comment><USER20> You're misunderstanding the breadth of what marketing is at Facebook (and most modern consumer software companies). It certainly isn't "if we aren't getting downloads, go buy some ads". It's about increasing the rate of acquisition (inbound and outbound marketing), improving activation (signup to active user), increasing the rate of sharing (viral), increasing the rate of conversions from sharing, internationalization, etc. Check:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+growth+team>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's a boon of new money and fresh funded interests to the community. Better for everyone but I would not have gone public. (limited actual knowledge of real world pressures.. but still. They were not in control and give up more.

It is not your thing if it's everyone's thing and when everyone is bored of their thing. Well...

</comment><comment><USER22> It's relevant that they can sell their shares after they leave, but if they continue working at FB they have to wait a few more weeks to months for the lock-up period to expire. Maybe they're scared about the stock and want to prevent further losses.

<comment><USER23> Just curious, why do you say this? Most lockups are structured in such a way that they are binding whether or not you continue to be employed by the company. Your shares can only be sold via the company stock plan manager (often the underwriter) and they will enforce the agreement.

Is there any reason you believe FB's lockup is structured differently?

<comment> nerd-on-bay First: I know nothing about facebook lockups.

There is a intersecting web of securities law and the terms of the original share sales to private investors.

Here is some information about registration rights and investment term sheets:

[http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/venture-capital-term- sh...](http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/venture-capital-term-sheet- registration-rights)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Good. Less management, more engineers. Facebook is profitable, and Zuckerberg has 56% voting stake in the company, so screw everyone else. I say let Mark do whatever he and his engineering team want to do, and don't bow down to people who would rather make a quick buck than build a great company.

<comment><USER25> So you're saying that no one will fill these roles?</comment></comment>


Osada – ActivityPub and Zot6 social networking - <AUTHOR> https://zotlabs.com/osada/ <comment><USER2> wish this stuff would take off, but I'm sceptical if it will ever happen. Somehow I feel something is missing in the general concepts of these decentral projects. You don't want to emphasize the latter, people want to come together to the same spot. Don't want to make them feel they meet at the wrong place.

<comment> phoe-krk Make it possible for them to meet wherever they come from. "Decentralized" doesn't mean "disconnected"; I can use my Mastodon account to have conversations with people from tens, if not hundreds of different servers, each being able to see the full conversation anyway.

<comment><USER3> Not only that, but you can follow their "Instagram" (i.e. Pixelfed) account from your "Twitter" (i.e. Mastodon) account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nowhere does this say what Zot6 actually is or why this matter. Lots of buzzwords... what actually _is_ "hyper-drive"? Star Wars stuff? Dat protocol? I know about ActivityPub already, but what the heck is actually going on here?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://macgirvin.com/wiki/mike/Zot%2BVI/Home](https://macgirvin.com/wiki/mike/Zot%2BVI/Home)

Quoting:

Zot is a WebMTA which provides a decentralised identity and communications protocol using HTTPS/JSON.

Earlier revisions of the zot protocol dealt with the creation of nomadic identities and cross-domain authentication to enable a decentralised network with features rivaling large centralised providers.

Zot/6 builds on those concepts and streamlines many of the interactions, applying lessons learned over decades of building decentralised systems.</comment></comment>


How Airbnb Launched in Cuba - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3044895/most-creative-people/no-internet-no-credit-cards-no-problem-how-airbnb-launched-in-cuba <comment><USER2> The most interesting part I thought was that they double checked everything with the US Government. Also, that they are not allowed to book travel from other countries to Cuba, only the US to Cuba. Is that because AirBnb is a US company and so it can't encourage other citizens to go to Cuba? That seems odd since Canadians have been able to travel to Cuba for decades.

>Turner says she "gut checked everything" with the U.S. government. Could Airbnb hire a Cuban photographer? (yes). Could it publish photos taken by a Cuban photographer on the website? (yes). Could it book travel for people outside of the United States to Cuba? (no).

<comment><USER3> It's because as much as we want to believe that we don't, largely because we are fed a constant barrage of self-congratulatory propaganda ourselves, we live under a similar type of regime as those we chastise all over the world. The only difference really is that we are far more sophisticated in our propaganda methods and can largely leverage our size and resources to defer challenge and realization that we live under such a regime. Essentially it's a matter of the best way to convince someone of something is to get them to believe it was their idea.

As you have pointed out, Cuba has been a great vacation destination for such inclined for decades and essentially in an unimpeded manner for basically everyone else in the world besides the USA.

What's kind of sad is that I have a really bad feeling about how this will go for Cuba. No, I don't think they should remain stuck in the past and play the role of a quaint, impoverished Caribbean island, but I also hope they can stave off the immense pressure that will come down to bear on Cuba that will attempt to sabotage, undermine, corrupt, and exploit every little opportunity that represents itself to dominate the island and its residents. I would not be surprised if within 20 years the whole island is essentially a replica of something like the USVI or Bahamas, where the vast majority of native residents are essentially nothing more than live-in local service staff in grotesque resorts and harbors of cruise ship tourist shipments.

<comment><USER4> *we live under a similar type of regime as those we chastise all over the world

We don't, and it's a disservice to all the people stuck under those regimes to pretend that we do.

<comment><USER5> You're right, our government only has better surveillance capabilities, a much more compliant population, and presents itself as a straightforward, albeit imperfect, republic in order to give it an air of legitimacy. Apples and oranges, really. I'm sure Erich Honecker and the "State Security" could only dream of such a scenario.

Cuba isn't North Korea level bad, but they suppress dissent, hold political prisoners. Perhaps the best could be said is our poor are a little more well off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see this step as a great 'highlighter' of future opportunity for other businesses, both entering Cuba or other, difficult(?!) markets. It's not that there isn't a way, it's about looking at all options and adapting or evolving to fit a need. Where there's a will, there's a way!

</comment><comment><USER7> This sounds kinda similar to what's happening with the legalization of marijuana for recreational use - a lot of huge opportunities are being created for the companies willing to dive into waters that are still a little legally dubious. A huge amount of money may well be coming into Cuba in the next 5-10 years, and it may be easy to get a dominant position in a particular market just by being first.

And then we can hope that the increased economic activity will be more effective at triggering political reform there than the sanctions have been...</comment>


Managing career path in a high growth startup - <AUTHOR> This week I'm speaking to the employees of a 10 person start-up, about to grow to +25, about managing their career path through the stages of start-up growth.<p>Any tips from those who have been there before? <comment><USER2> I worked for two start ups of roughly that size back in the days of boo.com

...make sure the people are kind :)</comment>


Should Everyone Go To College? - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106636657

<comment><USER2> The headline is a bit deceptive. Obama isn't stating, or even implying through policy, that 'everyone should go to college.' The policy is promoting enrollment in community colleges, not declaring that it should be mandatory.

Personally, I do think that 'office clerks, home care and health aids' should have a couple of years of post high-school education under their belts, if only to learn the things that they should have been taught in high school.

<comment><USER3> It seems like it would worthwhile to improve K-12 education before swelling community college enrollments by 50%.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, let's just write off another generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Vedder says that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only five of the 25 fastest-growing occupations over the next decade require any kind of college degree. The rest include jobs like office clerks, home care and health aides, janitors and maids--not exactly the nursing or green technology jobs Obama highlighted in his speech. Vedder says the president is cherry-picking his data."

</comment><comment><USER6> If your future plans require being credentialed as associating with similarly credentialed people, then you should go to college. "Certified Impressive" I think is the term du jour.</comment>


Every Movie Ending Is Improved by That One Stupid Dire Straits Song - <AUTHOR> http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/every-movie-ending-is-improved-by-that-one-stupid-dire-1764315963 <comment><USER2> <The Matrix, Dr. Strangelove, Dark Knight Rises—they're all better if you replace the soundtrack to their final scenes with Dire Straits' "Walk of Life.">

Actually, I think "Industrial Disease" would be a better fit.</comment>


Users: New Oracle support portal a 'fiasco' - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/software/84237/users-new-oracle-support-portal-a-fiasco <comment><USER2> The old metalink was not pretty, but it got the job done. Nobody I know has liked the Flash version since the day it was unveiled. Everybody continued to use "classic" metalink. Why Oracle has persisted in pushing this on the world I don't know. The LAST thing you want when your database is down is to wait on a g __damn flash app to load.

Support ticket systems are not SUPPOSED to look like a marketing site. They are supposed to be fast, lightweight, and usable because most of the people using them have a problem to solve. Now.

<comment><USER3> _Why Oracle has persisted in pushing this on the world I don't know._

They don't want to admit that they wasted X amount of dollars on something that no one uses. Better to make some money and try to justify the development costs.

You can also tell that the company is run by marketing people by this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oracle DBA here. I dislike the new metalink interface quite a bit. The UI is very poorly designed; cluttered, slow to load, and confusing.

Of course, the old metalink was also poorly designed. I guess you could say that it just went from bad to worse.</comment>