[OT] Apple at it again
bobs at twft.com
Wed Feb 16 15:16:07 CST 2011
I never mentioned the word "parable"! ;-)
I understand that changing the rules after devs invest is very frustrating. But every week? Bit of an exaggeration. And no it's not wrong to be bothered by it, you are invested, and because of that there may be, as I said room for litigation. It's just everyone calling Jobs personal names that my last post is against.
And yes, my employer DOES have the right to change my wages beginning at the time he changes them, so long as we do not have a currently binding contract to maintain them for a predefined period of time. He does NOT have the right to agree to pay me x, and then when it is time to pay, actually give me x-y.
Also, my employer DOES have the right to "change the rules" (whatever they are) anytime he wants. He does NOT have the right to hold me responsible for rules that he did not tell me about. Would I defend him for changing the rules? I doubt it to be honest, but I certainly wouldn't have the right to call him a left wing pinko commie fascist or something like that if he did. ;-)
On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:
> Whatever Apple decides to do is one thing (and certainly open to debate), but what REALLY frustrates a lot of people is the constant changing of the rules. If a developer goes to all the work of getting an app compliant, entering into an agreement, then Apple says, "Oh, now we're going to do this instead." And then they may change their mind next week. And then again the week after that . . . is it wrong to be bothered by that?
> So Bob, if at your place of employment they kept changing the rules on you, and maybe lowering your wages on a whim, would that upset you, or would you defend the right of an employer to do that?
> Sure we can take our business somewhere else, but to expect people to say "Oh well" when they have something at stake isn't fair.
> And in the parable that you've referenced, everyone got what they expected or more, not less - the landowner didn't say, "Well I told you I'd pay you this, but now I'm giving you half."
> Marty Knapp
>> Yes, not directed at you in particular Richmond. But I should make the point that you paid Apple money for those things didn't you? And in return you got a product, right? Isn't your contract with Apple now ended? (Once the Warranty expires I mean.) Certainly, it doesn't entitle you to any direct influence on future Apple corporate policy, does it? Now if you were a stock holder, well that is an entirely different story.
>> I guess what I am on the soap box about is the notion so many people have these days that we are owed some say in what amounts to the private affairs of other people or corporations and even countries. If demanding that Hollywood Stars give up the privacy of their own lives when not in the "limelight" simply because of the jobs they chose, seems "not entirely fair" to anyone, certainly the proposition that a corporation answers to a general public or to specific individuals not invested in their stocks must also seem a bit "unfair"?
>> I am reminded of the words of a great man, who was telling a story about a landowner who had hired some day laborers, some early, some the middle of the day, some late afternoon, and some towards the evening. The deal he struck with each was that he would pay them one shekel for their labors.
>> Upon paying the last ones first, and then the first ones last, they began to complain about the unfairness, because the first ones had borne the heat of the day, and so they should be paid more then the last. But the landowner countered that the amount paid was what was agreed to, and also that while the money was in his hand, it was his own to do what he pleased with.
>> Therein lies the rub, as they say.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode