logoalt Hacker News

SilverBirchtoday at 11:09 AM1 replyview on HN

What do you mean for the sake of Apple? This didn't benefit Apple. He screwed with this guy for months because of a mistaken idea that the guy should have somehow known Apple's attitude towards secrecy without being told, and after months of messing him about sent him back the signed contract the second he had given up. There was no benefit to Apple here. In fact he harmed Apple by limiting their music collection in the initial stages. It's also not on the limits of ethics. It's unethical.


Replies

sublineartoday at 11:13 AM

> should have somehow known Apple's attitude towards secrecy

I have to assume you and the author (at that time) aren't familiar enough with the corporate world to realize all discussions containing privileged information (contract details that would never get a press release) are confidential by default.

Of course Apple would never think they'd have to explain this. It's a reasonable expectation for them to have.

show 2 replies