Palm's Colligan rebuffs Steve Jobs' 'likely illegal' plea to stop hiring from Apple
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Aug 20th 2009 6:42AM
posted Aug 20th 2009 6:42AM
Imagine the scene two years ago, August 2007 to be precise. Palm was busy preparing to launch its Foleo and the OS that would save Palm was still expected to be coming from ACCESS. In fact, things were looking so bad for Palm in August that we penned an intervention letter that then CEO Ed Colligan responded to. Apple, for its part, was still enjoying the glow of the golden halo rising above its iPhone launched just over a month prior with the help of 2% of Palm's hired workforce, according to Bloomberg. Oh, and Apple had just lost Jon Rubinstein, the man leading its iPod division, to Palm.Now Bloomberg is reporting that Steve Jobs approached Palm's Ed Colligan in August 2007 with a proposal to refrain from hiring each other's staff (read: quit poaching our employees, Ed!). Colligan refused, saying,
Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal.Meeeow.
Bloomberg did not see the actual proposal communication from Jobs but do quote him as saying, "We must do whatever we can to stop this." Jobs also said that Apple had patents and more money if Palm was considering a legal fight. The communications were apparently given to Bloomberg by somebody within Palm in a move that seems to be posturing Palm Inc. into an advantageous position as the US Department of Justice reportedly investigates a collusion of hiring practices between Apple, Google, and other technology companies. In other words, Pre owners shouldn't expect to see device support return to iTunes anytime soon with this cat-fight ready to explode.
KITTYS!
@Meat_Juice
I thought you were joking with abit of /s but then I realized you're a friggen moron with delusional idea's about a tool(Jobs) that resembles a classical rapist.
Yeah man best of luck to you.
@Meat_Juice
Wow... dude... loosen the belt. I own an iPhone and while it's a great phone, it's not something I'd pray to. Maybe you should stop too, it might anger the Cell Phone Gods (read: Join the Circus).
COMMIE!!!
Well a few things meat_juice...that's a special name by the way...
WinMo while a nice OS has many problems...WebOS is a very solid OS for a first release. Substantially better than the Iphone OS v1.0. And yea...multi-tasking...something the iPhone still can't do well. Also...how many revisions did it take for cut and paste again?
While Steve J. is a visionary and very good at creating products...most people leave Apple because of one thing. Steve J. is apparently a perfectionist and somewhat of an ***hole. His way or the highway so to speak...and they chose the highway.
arggg... I cant read the first half of the comments. lol.
Screw the article, I'm just here for the kittehs.
I can haz yur employees?
Wow.... just, wow.
"everything else is a toy"
Riiiight. And the iPhone isn't a toy? I mean don't get me wrong, it's a cool device, but it's definitely less functional and more playful than everything else. That probably has a lot to do with why it sells very well.
And anyways I take offense to your whole argument since life is all about experiencing new things, change, and choices. Plus Android kicks everything's ass ;)
should be:
woof!
meow would be appropriate if it were 2 females...
(here comes the hurt!)
SJ is clearly the white cat... fighting only with karma and mental powers :)
And thats why the Rube will eff him up.
>>> "...Oh, and Apple had just lost Jon Rubinstein..."
That's an interesting spin on his departure.
Lol!
Samurai Pizza Cats. Oh Yeah!
They make great pizza's but that ain't all!
Apple needs to grow up and face the competition. Plain and simple. This is coming from a mac user by the way.
@Meat_Juice
Is name in reference to what you catch in mouth from Jobs when you're both alone?
1. This happened two years ago in 2007.
2. Then the iPhone consequently took over the world. It seems like Apple did, in fact, "face the competition". And crush them along the way.
Not sure how you can look at Apple's success with the iPhone and say with a straight face that they're not facing the competition.
I'm not a fanboy by any stretch but I do think that some folks are being way harsh. As the article points out, we haven't seen this letter/email/whatever from Jobs so we don't know if he was talking about actively cold calling current employees with the intent to poach them. Or as Cooligan wants it to seem, referring to former employees outside the bounds of any legit non compete restrictions coming to Palm of their own accord and, although being the best for the job, being turned away all on the basis that at some point for even one day they worked for Apple.
The former is a gentlemen's agreement and possibly very legal. It's not the first deal we have seen. Another example being Google agree not to take advantage of the access being on the Apple Board provides. The latter very likely quite illegal. But it would require proof that right now we don't have. All we have is the word of a man with all good reason to make his company look like the good guys and Apple the bad guys. Same as the stunt with the USB-IF in hoping they would ignore Palm's 'illegal' spoofing of Apple's vendor code when deciding if Apple did anything wrong in rewriting itunes in such a way that the Palm Pre (and presumably all other non Apple devices) were shut out.
innocent until proven guilty seems a foreign concept to some people....
Yikes.
Can't Palm and Apple just get along?
That's like saying:
"Can't Microsoft and Apple just get along?"
Never gonna happen.
Sounds illegal to me too to make deals over people's head that they have no say where they work, or it damn well should be illegal.
And if apple is so big and great and has all that money they would not have to worry at all about people leaving right?
Mind you there is an old contractual rule in these regions where people sign on getting a job that if they quit they won't work in a similar position for a similar company for 6 months or so, and that seems all legal. of course smart employees would not sign such stuff so it would not work on those even if that is allowed.
"make deals over people's head that they have no say where they work"
I don't think that is what is being proposed at all. I don't see anything here that says that an employee that is working for Company A cannot apply for a position at Company B. All I see is a proposal that Company B should not headhunt (i.e. unsolicited approach) employees from Company A.
@Kelmon
Judging from that little snippet, it kinda sounds like Jobs was trying to get an agreement that neither company would HIRE someone who worked for the other, not just that they wouldn't headhunt from each other. Employees are free to apply for whatever job they want, but it seems to me that this kind of agreement would mean that HR people would look at a resume and see "oh, they work for Apple" and toss it in the trash. That kind of collusion probably is illegal.
If this is true, what arrogance on the part of Steve Jobs. "Hey Palm, we just cornered the smartphone market because we hired people who worked for you. Now that we're bigger and stronger because of it, how's about we make a deal where we don't poach talent from each other? Sound good?"
In the IT industry, at least here in Mexico, one cannot apply for a job with "the competition." This only applies if the offered position in the other company is to work with the same client. E.g.
IT_CompanyA has ClientX as its customer, Employee1 cannot apply for a position in IT_CompanyB if it's meant to work with ClientX as well, at least for six months.
Though I was given one of those forms for me to sign, I just spat on it. They were trying to take away my freedom.
They can take my life, but never take my freeeeeeeeedooooooooooooooooommmmmmmm!!!!!
@mldickens
Hmm, on closer inspection of the Bloomberg story, it may well be that what was proposed was a prevention of recruitment of employees from the other company, even if those employees were applying for positions without having been approached first. Mind you, we only have Colligan's word to go on at this time so we don't know exactly what Jobs said, although it seems unlikely that he would make up such statements only to release them 2-years later.
@fLim
Going to work for the competition is an interesting topic. Here in my company, accepting a position with a competitor means that you do not serve a notice period, which seems fairly appropriate. Additionally, we certainly have IT contractors who have it written into their contracts from their contracting company that they are not permitted to work directly for our company, which is supposedly there to stop us from poaching the contractors (which we do, sometimes).
@ Kelmon
To be honest, whether the proposed agreement was "not to hire" or "not to recruit" from each other, they both sound like illegal collusion agreements to me.
In CA, non-compete clauses are illegal. So a way around that would be to agree not to hire each others' workers, which is probably ALSO illegal for the same reason. Though it could just be a 'gentleman's agreement' and not actually a written agreement.
An illegal "gentlemen's agreement" is still quite illegal, written or not.
Wait, I've always stayed away from Apple and never had a reason to buy a Palm, but seriously? After this little spat apple cut Palm support from Itunes? That's... just.. wow, that's childish.
Somebody please tell me they didn't.
I don't think they did, because that probably would have made the news again since everyone loves a soap opera.
But it doesn't matter much anyway because there are alternatives to iTunes that work just fine with both the store and the pre.
"After this little spat apple cut Palm support from Itunes?"
Remember, this article relates to events 2-years prior and iTunes has never supported the Palm Pre. However, it is clear that there was a degree of animosity between the two companies and that is no doubt still in affect.
They didn't. Any company can have their product sync to iTunes by writing an app that can sync to the iTunes XML file. Anybody can do this, even RIM does it.
Palm, however, decided to go the idiot route and programmed the Pre to identify itself specifically as an Apple iPod to iTunes. Not only is that a trademark violation, it's just flat out stupid. Palm could easily have the Pre sync to iTunes like everybody else does. They are CHOOSING not to. The only thing Apple did is prevent the Pre from pretending to be an iPod, which is entirely within their rights to do considering the trademark violation issues here.
All Palm has to do is stop being stupid about it and simply write an app to sync to the XML file like everybody else. Problem solved. But Palm is insisting on being childish and annoying Apple for the sole reason of annoying Apple. There is no need for them to do it this way.
While I am not against people seeking out employment anywhere they wish to. I am personally against companies that do cold call "poaching" of employees of companies seen as competitors. I've seen this in the work place, where people that aren't even looking to leave the company are called repeatedly, during working hours on the company phones and through company email and "courted" with bigger and bigger offers and a lot of talk about how the current company is holding you back etc. I've also seen a lot of those same people a year down the road saying they couldn't have made a worse decision in giving up a job they had for 10-15 years to go some where new. And the whole grass is greener thing. I've personally seen it done by a company that later released the people they hired away after just after the product was launched, as they weren't looking to keep them long term, they just wanted their knowledge while they worked on that one product to get their inside knowledge of the competition. I think there should be a law on the books that actively pursuing someone that is not out shopping around for a new job and working for a direct competitor should carry with it a minimum employment contract length.
@ meat_juice
wow, you're dumb. i don't think it's possible for you to blow apple any harder than you have already.
even the hookers are impressed.
"inflated by inverters"
Sounds like fun.
Seriously, sometimes I do wonder if Apple is acting like a big bully on the playground. Oh wait, they are.
Looks like we have a case of sour apple.
Look hotshot (Steve-o J.), dont call your competetions main dude (Jon R.), and say "please don't hire anyone from our company since they are leaving us"
Its time you leave your office/garage laboratory, head down the hallway, walk into apple's HR Department, and say, "Look guys we've got to see what we can do to keep our people here."
Work on your employee retention suckas.
But oh wait, there are actually people that dont have jobs right now, maybe you can look to them to fill the gaps!
Has Apple just turned into another Micro$oft?
They turned a long long long time ago.
Not really, Apple has been evil since the beginning.
Microsoft has always tried to make money, but Apple goes further into some kind of weird control-freak ideology. Microsoft would never eliminate multitasking just because they feel like it. They may do it to force you to buy a "pro" version, but they would never just not give you the choice and say it was because you will be happier without it.
Has Apple just turned into another Micro$oft?
posting $ instead of an actual "s" in mircrosoft doesn't lend us to believe you are "clever" in anyway. You just come off as a "fanboi" that is about 10years to late.
@UniBroW
In all fairness, using the term "fanboi" doesn't do you any favours either. I'm sorry but that is not a word and should never be used. Frankly, the term "fanboy" seems to be thrown around far too freely these days to refer to "someone who holds a different opinion" as an excuse to avoid debate.
@ meat_juice
dude, every comment i read from you makes me feel dumber. why the f*ck would you want to limit a market to three things? do you not like competition? afraid a company will one-up your 'precious' (apple)?
and i suppose there's no room for android phones in your perfect market.
I honestly don't know about the legality of this but I can see the point. I don't see any suggestion here that employees from either company cannot apply for positions at the other. What I do see here is a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that both companies will refrain from making unsolicited approaches to employees of the other company. From a company's perspective I can understand why this is attractive because no one wants to lose key personnel that impacts the projects that they are running. This may sound unethical but then I don't see much difference between that and headhunting.
If, however, there was an agreement, or proposed agreement, that neither company will recruit staff that were or are currently employed by the other, then that would be wrong. Employees should be free to choose where they want to work and move as they see fit.
When it comes to running a business, you've got to take care of your employees otherwise they will go somewhere else that will!
dat cat-fight pic is hilarious....jus imagining jobs as that white cat in orange pajamas
I've never owned a Palm device. And I know very little about the company.
I once worked in an Apple retail store and I use a Mac.
However, I'm falling more in love with Palm (and less in love with Apple) by the moment. Gosh, I'm blushing :)
*Just kidding about the blushing part.
I'm sure this kind of thing (and I mean handshake deals between CEOs) goes on all the time. The real question here is what does Colligan hope to gain by whining about it now? Clearly Palm is on the ropes, and as a result is getting more and more belligerent. Do they really think this is going to distract Apple from its mission? Do they aim to score points with analysts and investment banker slime? Or is there really something material here that bears investigation? Methinks Palm is just hoping to do as much damage as it can on its way down.
Well, Apple and Google is under criminal investigation for doing this with Google, so that might be why he mentioned it now.
I think I can see where Jobs is heading with his frustration. When Palm is headhunting Apple's staff, it makes those employees able to go to their boss, and say: "Hey, Palm just offered me a better position and better salary then what I get at Apple right now...so, do you want to keep me you have to raise my salary, and offer me better conditions..." If Palm is poking a lot of Apple's staff, such a thing is very frustrating, and Palm know's that. Apple can't really go the same route, as Palm doesn't have as big a staff as Apple does, so it's Palm being annoying here.
For those of you that don't know the history between Apple and Palm, read up on the Apple Newton PDA and Palm. When Apple discontinued the production and research in the Newton OS, and put it on ice, most of the staff that had been working in the Newton platform left for Palm... Just google for "Newton Wiki" without the quote signs...
Martin - That's just competition. And yeah, salary is a very large chunk of what people consider when hunting for a job. I'm very satisfied with my job. Hell, they pay me wonderfully. But, if I got something I liked a little less for a decent amount of extra pocket change or better benefits, yep, I'm leaving. Also I'm going to shoot for a raise at the current job before I do leave, as it would keep me from leaving in the first place, and it's a common practice to do so, believe it or not. Never hurts to shop a resume and have a higher dollar amount in mind.
Without reading the Wiki, and taking your description as fact, I see no problem whatsoever with that scenario. If your employer suddenly stops all work in your area of expertise, why wouldn't you seek opportunities at other companies that are continuing in that line?
This may well have pissed Apple off, but the onus is on Apple to find a way to retain their talent. It is not on Palm to refuse to consider Apple employees.
In TFA we get this line from Colligan's response: “Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other’s employees, regardless of the individual’s desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal,” That tells me that we're not just talking about headhunting (active solicitation to convince Apple folks to leave their current positions), but a flat dismissal of employees currently employed, even when they initiate the process themselves. You applied for the Lead Dev job here at Palm, eh? Well, let's look at that resume... Currently at Apple? Sorry, go away, don't care how qualified you are. Gentleman's agreemant and all.
You tell me, is it cool to tell someone that they can't even be considered for a job because of their background? That sure as hell sounds like collusion to me, and I will laugh long and loud if Jobs and Apple get smacked for it.
Kudos on going with the kitteh pic for cheap appeal.
Well I see how you could get confused by my post there. What I was saying, wasn't that it was unfair that Apple employees left Apple for Palm in the 90's, just that they did, and that Apple and Palm have those ties as of today, in both their fans, and the staff. Nothing wrong there...I was just seeing some reply to a post saying "can't Apple and Palm get along", that that would be the same as saying "can Apple and Microsoft not just get along?"... Ok, confusing maybe but I agree with you (M67A2 Flame Tank & Level 5). But as many are saying, it doesn't seem like either company should refuse to employ each others' staff, but just that each company shouldn't actively be headhunting for each others' staff, like gentlemen would do...but who knows (Stave Jobs and Ed Colligam do ;)) maybe Apple was trying to do something illegal, we'll find out sometime. In the mean time, Apple will innovate, Palm will innovate (and hopefully prosper) and the world will keep on spinning as allways... ;)
Steve that is ;)
@meat_juice
You are embarassing to the whole Apple community/fanbase, please refrain from posting more bullshit, thank you!
On topic:
Palm is looking mighty interesting with their new WebOS. Sadly I live in europe, so I haven't been able to try one out myself yet, but I hope it will soon be launched here, or a new device with the WebOS on. Bring it on! ;)
just re-read the engadget letter to palm, and ed's response again...
must say, it's surprising how close they have come to addressing all the points you made in your letter.
guess it's congrats to both of you.
(im)patiently waiting on the pre to drop britside
Not trying to take sides here but I must say it scares me to even think Apple loosing the edge over time.... hope it never happens and never should for the sake of consumers. I mean where would the gadget world be today if it was not for Apple squeezing every ones balls so tight that they had to cough up better products just to survive? Hello people!!!... no introduction of ipods!!! then no zune HD's or Walkman to drool about today.... No iphone!!! haha... then just turn your clock back to 2006 and start living with the phones on the market then. You think if Apple wasn't in the picture then ANY other would even have dreamed to come up with such cool products? NO, NO way and I'll say it again NO for sure!
You the Apple haters! How can you even hate a company for doing so much wonders for the industry.. if you don't like the Apple logo then don't buy em but not for one second should you hate them. People wake up! Rather than bashing Apple for its every mistake and yes its sometimes controversial approach to doing business, you should hope and pray to dear God that Apple always gets to keep a head start so that it can show those lazy bums how innovative one can be. I'd really love to see another company (let’s say Microsoft) step in the shoes of Apple one day but sadly this isn't going to happen any time soon and when it does and Apple dies for good...then God help us all. Like it or not most companies of today are just too lazy to be innovative (except a few)
Unbiased and people with common sense here will agree with me.
Funny how you say "not trying to take sides" and then launch into an entirely biased and inaccurate diatribe about Apples' products. For the record, Apple DOES make some great products. That cannot be denied.
However, Apple is NOT resposible for the innovations that you're talking about. Apple popularized these technologies, but creating something and making it popular are not the same thing. For example, McDonalds did not invent the Hamburger, even if they have sold the most of them and made them popular. You see where your logic is faulty? You're giving credit for the technology to Apple when they simply are the people who have sold the most of them.
Apple did not invent the MP3 player. They did not invent the touch screen. They did not invent the smart phone. They didn't invent the idea of a touch-screen phone that has downloadable applications, a mobile browser, an mp3 player and email connectivity. That award goes to Windows Mobile.
Are Apple's products better than the competition? Usually, yes. Apple makes a sexier device with good specs and improved interface-- when they launch, they are better than their competition. However, improving on current technology is NOT the same as being responsible for it. Apple makes people who know nothing about technology THINK they invent it, simply on the fact that it is the first device that they themselves heard about-- but that's the difference between making something popular and actually inventing the technology.
So either you really need to go back and do research befrore you claim that others should "wake up", or you're already so blinded by Apple love that your claims of not taking sides are laughibly suspect. I'm hoping it's the former, if only because it'll be easier to teach you the difference between fact and supposition a lot easier than it will be to show you that your Apple love is mostly a result of you being susceptible to advertisements rather than an objective look at tech specs.
@ Abacus "You think if Apple wasn't in the picture then ANY other would even have dreamed to come up with such cool products?"
I absolutely think that. Maybe the products would have been a little different, but the entire history of technology development shows that someone will come up with the ideas that drive technology. Capitalism nearly demands it. The constant drive for bigger and bigger profits means that companies will continue to try new things (even if those "new things" are really just a new combination of old things) in the hope that they will get a new blockbuster product. Apple's success with the iPod and the iPhone are proof of that. Before the iPod, Apple was essentially sitting on the sidelines as a niche computer hardware company that sold to schools and consumers with a very specific taste in computers (that is still their market in computer hardware, and doesn't look likely to change any time soon). But then, Apple hit it big with the right combination of storage capacity, product size, and product design at the exact right time with the iPod and it exploded. Similarly (although less dramatically), Apple hit at the right time with a mobile phone that also plays music (building on its iPod success), movies, and has a very well-developed mobile web browser with the iPhone. You don't think that other companies aren't trying desperately to hit that magic combination that gives them a huge blockbuster product that will transform them into an Apple-like rise in revenues? You're dreaming.
This isn't Apple hating... this is just the facts of life. If Apple weren't here, someone else would have done it. Period.
@OG_Phenix: Seriously dude you are arguing with me?..with that!... I never gave Apple credit for inventing the technologies.. i give them credit for being innovative. Im quoting you now... "McDonalds did not invent the Hamburger, even if they have sold the most of them and made them popular" .... you see but they did take the step to bring the product to the masses, if they hadn't billions of people on earth wouldn't have dreamed to know how a Big Mac tasted like.
Quoting you once more..... "Apple did not invent the MP3 player. They did not invent the touch screen. They did not invent the smart phone. They didn't invent the idea of a touch-screen phone that has downloadable applications, a mobile browser, an mp3 player and email connectivity. That award goes to Windows Mobile"..... my previous logic remains, why didn't then Microsoft put those ideas in a phone in an innovative way so that people as far as Kazakhstan (or somewhere) would dream to get there hands on (yes i mean the iphone) one day.
It doesn't matter who invented the ideas but who used their imagination and innovation to delight the masses. there is no use inventing something and then not utilizing it to its maximum.. you have to get the idea around the world for it to matter.
About me not taking sides... i didn't, I am just being factual that if it wasn't for Apple the products in the market today would have been Oh so boring! ... and I'm sure you won't deny that. Personally I and most sensible people love competition cause it only benefits us (the consumer). I'm not forcing anyone to become an Apple fan... but just reminding them how important they are for innovation in the industry.
@Mikey M.: I get what you are saying Mikey my friend.. but you are deviating from my point... Before others keep on tying to disprove my point I'll say it again.... I have watched and read post after post related to Apple and its easy to get the feeling "where in hell is all that Apple hate coming from?" yes i know there are a few losers claiming themselves as Apple fan freaks (F*** you guys) who does more damage to Apple than the actual haters, but i don't see the same bashing against those other freaks who worship anything other than Apple with ridiculous and absurd points. The actually get praised and high ranks for that and for hating Apple. I mean come on!
All I'm saying is that I don't want Apple to lose its edge... they have been leading the industry for some time now... and with them out of the picture we'll see a slowing trend in innovation. Yes without Apple some other would have taken its place but like it or not for now its Apple who made them up their game for which we all benefit.
"All I'm saying is that I don't want Apple to lose its edge... they have been leading the industry for some time now... and with them out of the picture we'll see a slowing trend in innovation."
Fair point. I too want Apple to keep innovating and pushing the competition to improve. But, I also think that Apple cannot be allowed to be the only real option in any market (which is why my next mp3 player will probably be a Zune or Sony, and my next smart phone might be a Palm, Android, or WinMo phone, depending on when I actually buy it and what is out at the time). When that happens, Apple really will lose its edge (if it hasn't already) and will definitely lose its motivation to push the edge even further.
I also don't really see where the vitriolic hate of Apple comes from, just like I don't get why people hate Microsoft with such passion (although it is easier to see, since MS is so huge). Probably it just stems from them being a leader, and when they do stupid stuff (like arbitrary App rejection, or going after a school for trademark infringement for having a logo with a similar looking apple) there is just a bigger backlash. For the most part, I think Apple is doing a lot of things right... but at the same time, I think it is legitimate to push back when they do something wrong.
Yes, I'm arguing with you. Imagine that- someone on the internet with a difference of opinion. Call the press...
Regarding our discussion: The definition of "innovate" :to introduce something new for or as if for the first time. I disagree with you on the fact that Apple "innovates" and thus is "innovative". They improve upon existing design. They do not introduce new products and it is my opinion that no, their changes, being mostly cosmetic, are not innovative.
As far as the McDonalds argument-- you miss the point entirely. Your assumption is that if Apple didn't create the product, the industry wouldn't have moved forward. That is akin to saying if McDonalds didn't exist, nobody would have chosen to sell cheap hambugers. It's foolhearty. The market is there, somebody will fill the gap. Yes, they won't know what a Big Mac tastes like, but again, that's simply one example of a product. Somebody would have come up with something similar, just called different. That's the point. Even without Apple, the world would have moved forward, because they didn't create something new, they just took what was and made it better. The industry will ALWAYS try to improve upon itself.
As for your last paragraph, poor grammar aside, I absolutely DO disagree that "without Apple the products in the market today would have been Oh so boring!". As I said before, all Apple did was improve on stuff that existed. Supply and demand are the most basic laws of commerce. The desire for new products will always be there, as will the desire for a popular item. Apple hit the desire for a popular device well, but the demand for MP3 players was already growing, because the product was already mass-market. Personally, I don't think that putting the device in a white plastic shell is "innovative".
The one field I think Apple has innovated in? Marketing. They are fabulous at selling not only a product, but an entire image.
Finally, since it is an OPINION-based discussion, you are not being factual. You have an opinion. and your is obviously skewed towards thinking Apple is innovative, and you'll defend that in the face of logical arguments to the contrary. Hence my statement that you aren't taking sides. You took a side and are defending it. Not because it is fact, but because it is your opinon.
@ OG_Phoenix
I don't really have a dog in the fight you're having with Abacus, but I do think your definition of "innovative" is a little too restrictive, just like I think Abacus's is a little too broad.
Yes, I agree that when it comes to core functionality, Apple isn't innovative. They did not invent the mp3 player. They did not invent touch screen smart phones. They did not invent the mobile browser. BUT, the huge success of both the iPod and the iPhone is a very strong indicator that something about these products is innovative, if not entirely new. Something about the synergy of Apple products is innovative, or else it simply would not continue to be SO popular. Now what that innovation really is, I can't put my finger on, but there is something about the iPod and the iPhone that just *is* and that just resonates with consumers.
I know, I know... your counterargument is that marketing is the X factor that explains the huge success of Apple... and that may be true with respect to the iPhone, but I remember the iPod's popularity blowing up BEFORE Apple really pushed hard with its marketing (or at least the original iPod started becoming popular before Apple did its huge marketing pushses). And while I don't have a ton of respect for the intelligence of the American consumer, I don't think a glitzy marketing campaign is enough to explain the level of success of the iPod and iPhone. (Obviously it has an effect, but eventually people would start saying "Hey, this thing isn't so great... I'm going to buy a Zune next time"). No matter how big Apple's marketing campaign gets, we are still talking about products that cost $200+, and in the aggregate the average person will look at the merits of a product before making a purchasing decision.
Okay, let's get to agreeing-
I agree that Apple is good for everyone in business, because what they do very well is create demand for something which may otherwise not have been as popular. They also have made some strides in the appearance of devices, which is definitely nice. Aethetics DO matter, and if there is one thing that Apple done well, it's the aethetics of the iPhone.
I don't want to see Apple go away. I do, however, want people whose knowledge of gadgets doesn't extend prior to the resurgence of Apple to stop talking about how Apple is the most innovative company ever. Being an Apple fan has become the trendy thing to be, and it's sad because so many good products and truly innovative designs lose out to Apple not because they are a worse product, but because people will only buy what is trendy.
Apple may help drive a new product class to being popular, but the devotion with which people buy their products stagnates the market. You can see this in the flash-based iPods. The most recent generations have been of lower built quality than many other products, but despite improved features in their competitors, the iPod won, simply based on brand name.
If everyone chose the best device for them based only upon tech specs, Apple would be forced to change their strategy a great deal.
@ OG_Phoenix "If everyone chose the best device for them based only upon tech specs, Apple would be forced to change their strategy a great deal."
Very true... my only point was there is more to picking a device than tech specs alone, at least for most people. For example, iPods and iPhones are not the most advanced devices based on specs. But, people are familiar with these devices and their ecosystem, and it is tough to break people out of something that works very well for them and that they are familiar with.
People voting me down just proved my point I made in the third post.... haha and I'm sure its inevitable regarding this one as well. I actually think Palm is on the right track here, if for nothing they get all my credit for creating such a great OS on their first try. They made it right and they got it out fast.
And Phenix... it seems you're just arguing because you just can't stand all that love Apple is getting. The numbers speak everything... same reason the Xbox 360 has been the front man for so long when compared to the PS3. Here I am saying not to hate Apple because they are innovative/ (valuable in your words, btw have you seen the new Palm Pre Ad?..lol) and you get all personal. Not everyone's 1st language is English you know. That's what you guys do when you can't control your hate.
Mikey you might have gotten the words out way better than me...and I thank you. Clearly telling people not to hate one makes them think you hate all the rest, since of course Apple is involved here.
I think you ment to say
"Now Bloomberg is reporting that Steve Jobs approached Palm's Ed Colligan in August 2009 with a proposal to refrain from hiring each other's staff (read: quit poaching our employees, Ed!). Colligan refused, saying," not 2007.
Hard to be "right" in something like this but in my opinion I think it's fair game.. from the shoes of an employee who should be thinking about him or herself, their families and whatnot. If another company thinks your worth more and offers to treat you better, pay you better then I say that's fair and for the better.
Just my opinion.
so after apple took some of palms workforce it helped to launch the iphone then after some people quit and went to palm cause they got tired of playing wow at work with mazes and tunnels 15 card swipe doors and 12 security camera and audio recorded monitoring each employee having to wear mage robes i'll think the fu@ckes are crazy and good work at palm too
dude, stop hogging all the acid!!
Colligan is dead wrong. It is not illegal to not hire someone who wants to work for you. If it were, any time you interview a candidate and didn't hire them you would be breaking the law.
Try to stick to making sense, Colligan.
I hate spoiling the fun, but Colligan did qualify his statement with the word "likely" (I guess after briefly running it by the attorneys).
It's called collusion and is quite illegal.
Wow, I should have read the whole article. What a ridiculous ego piece. This is a clear attempt at some kind of bizarre marketing by Palm to try to associate themselves with Apple.
As mentioned in the article, Apple has hired Palm people too in the past, but you don't see them making press releases about it.
Hey Palm, how about concentrating on your products more and less on press releases like this?
"egardless of the individual's desires"
That line is really scary.
Employee: "But I don't want to go work for Apple!"
Employer: "Too bad, muahahaha!"
I think Steve Jobs needs to remember his employees are human. They need money, and they like friendly work environments where they feel appreciated. People don't move from Apple to Palm by some act of malice; these people are, given the choice, expressly selecting Palm over their existing employer (Apple).
The solution to this should be readily obvious, although difficult. It has nothing to do with Palm.
This sounds very typical. In 2003 I was working as a principal security engineer for Symantec and was being actively recruited away by McAffee. I already had an accepted offer letter and a company laptop when I got the call that McAffee could not hire away from Symantec due to some high level gentleman's agreement. I ended up staying with that company for another two years and finally jumped ship to a startup that didn't care about playing nice, only about getting ahead in a inventive and capitalistic nature.
Okay, this is VERY VERY stupid! Apple is sending letters to Palm to stop hiring Apple's ex-employees? Dude, apple might as well put up a billboard, promoting the increase of unemployment! Apple needs to f'ing grow up and let these people go where they want. It's competition and it's a JOB!
Steve Jobs is seriously about to make some wrong business decisions, thus losing more market share with only the casual consumer keeping them afloat.
What does this have to do with Bill Gates, absolutely nothing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCRUE4Bip8
bwah ha ha!
does this come from the same source as the fake 'apple threatens poor British family with gag-order' story?