Really weak article with a sensationalist headline. Very reductionist to say Apple is "over", and the analogy to Microsoft as "unsexy" might be apt, but ironically Microsoft is having a great technological resurgence and has seen rock solid 5 year growth in their stock.
Not to mention that Apple has so much cash in their coffers that they can afford to fail and figure things out for a while. Give them a damn second. There are so many interesting, high-investment bets that these tech giants are making, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they pay off. Self-driving cars, drone technology, AR, VR, ... Who cares about iPhone sales.
> But without Steve Jobs, I can’t see Apple pushing the boundaries of these industries and unlocking their true potential
It's unreal to me how people associate so much of Apple's success and ability to "Steve Jobs". The image of one guy rolling up his sleeves and pushing out all of the successful products and ideas alone is ridiculous. He had help. Apple is fine without him.
And the notion that a company just "peaks" once and it's done is also a complete fallacy. Their trajectory can be full of peaks and dips -- in fact many people would have said years ago that Apple had already peaked, and it was on its way into the dumpster.
Building an expensive HQ, comparing that to banks, what the heck does that have to do with anything ? None of these things are predictors for success or failure. Even if Apple's trajectory was directly in line with a similar company that had once existed and then failed, that means absolutely nothing to predict the future of Apple. You just can't. In my view it shows poor judgement on the author's part to even try and make a call like that, you'd have to be insane to think you had that kind of predicting power.
Apple can live or die for all I care but I think it's a huge leap to say they're "over" at this point...
> Your ancestors came here for the same reason as him, and with far less scrutiny, same as mine, and were provided many benefits not recieved today, including land grants.
There has been a dramatic change in economic and social climate in the Americas. Our vague "ancestors" entered Canada and the US in times where it might not have been so magnificent to immigrate, and as such they were presented with incentives to immigrate and contribute to a growing economy. Never mind that some of our ancestors came in as refugees fleeing war and communism.
Today, both Canada and the US have the right to protect their national interests and prioritize the development of their own citizens above the interests of foreign nationals. All countries do this, even those perceived as the most accepting.
Canada just accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees fleeing war and something much worse than communism.
The social and economic climate has changed dramatically, you're right. We no longer have a climate condusive to a free-for-all exploitation of Aboriginals, Africans, and the environment.
> Canada just accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees fleeing war and something much worse than communism.
This is to my point, there is less scrutiny for immigrants in 'dire straits'.
> The social and economic climate has changed dramatically, you're right. We no longer have a climate condusive to a free-for-all exploitation of Aboriginals, Africans, and the environment.
Unclear how this goes to show that anybody should be allowed to immigrate anywhere under any conditions.
> How long did it take for us (the West as a whole) to recognise the situation in Syria, and how many Syrians died in the meantime?
Should probably recognize that civil wars, genocide, and humanitarian disasters are occurring all around the world, right now, and no nation is doing anything about it (nor does the average person even know about these).
Nations of the world have no real obligation to do anything... which is why nothing is done majority of the time. When the interests of "the west" coincide with stopping an atrocity, then "the west" intervenes.
Further, it's fairly naive to believe freighting a few hundred thousand people thousands of miles away from anything even remotely familiar is doing anyone a service. It seems the help Syrian's are getting from "the west" has boiled down into a singular mindset of "just ship them someplace else", never-mind all of the long term issues that arise from this half-hearted solution (housing, income, food, work, cultural assimilation, transportation, etc...).
Bringing these people to the US or Canada doesn't solve any of their problems really - it only trades some problems for others. The real solution is obviously to stop the civil war... and work is being done to accomplish this.
> That's the best euphemism for bombs and sponsoring what we would otherwise consider terrorist organisations I've ever heard
I do believe you have inadvertently made my point.
"The west" (including Canada) doesn't care about any global issue unless it conflicts with their interests. In this case, the Assad regime was/is uncooperative with the US in particular, which is why the US seized the opportunity to topple his control (via many methods, including funding known terrorist organizations which just happen to also be against the Assad regime at this moment in time).
"The west" is not involved in any other civil war or genocide at the moment, although there are many active around the world.
> >and work is being done to accomplish this.
Perhaps you're not current on events, but non-military options are being taken right now, and are looking somewhat promising.
We've gone far into the weeds here and gotten even further off-topic than we already were. I, however, feel you're the type to want the last word, so feel free.
You suggested that those in 'dire straits' are treated differently, and I responded that, yes, they are, however it takes a significant amount of time and lives lost for us to recognise this.
> both Canada and the US have the right to protect their national interests
The unstated premise is that the current structure of our immigration system serves any national interest.
Let's set aside the fact that immigration creates more jobs for natives than it displaces (turns out immigrants buy things just like natives do),[0] and that there's near universal consensus among economists that restrictions on the movement of goods, people, and money invariably hurt a state more than they help, and that we clearly agree with this philosophy when moving these things 3,250 miles from Anchorage to Albany, just somehow don't for the 210 miles from Ottawa.
Let's set all that aside and assume there's some coherent and humane rationale for telling people who they're allowed to do business with and where they're allowed to walk based on the random accident of what hospital they were born in.
Even then, the current administration of immigration law is nonsensical in several ways. If a citizen's brother was born in the Philippines, they would have had to apply 23 years ago for the State Department to even read their application.[1] We have a bunch of categories where we've picked quotas out of a hat that have no meaningful relationship to the country's needs. Quotas are a particularly terrible approach to rationing, especially when you have to apply in a single category, so there's no extra consideration for someone who would be valuable for multiple reasons (ie, someone who holds a unique advanced degree, is a family member of a citizen, and is fleeing persecution in another country).
The fact that all countries do something does not make it right, or even necessarily rational.[2]
N.B. - Thank you for your civil comment on a difficult topic, this is exactly why I like discussions on HN, so upvoted even though I'm adding a counterpoint.
Yeah I'm with you. My argument was regarding the reasons behind why immigration policies might exist, and why I think it's ok for countries to say "sorry you can't just come in whenever" if they want.
The concept that immigration policies are usually very flawed is real, and also has been a source of frustration for me personally. I however do not expect things to change quickly at least in the US.
Worth noting that very conservative immigration policy seems to be the most "safe", the strict policy of "nobody can enter, ever" is very easy to understand, predict and monitor over time. I can imagine a situation where immigration policy is too lax, and yield unforeseen badness.
PS: thanks for being equally civil, and for a very relevant comment.
+1 from someone who has been on H1-B, I recognize it as a great opportunity and privilege.
The option to return to my home country was never taken away from me, and at every step I knew I retained the freedom to simply quit my job and leave; I did not do that.
No, an H1-B does not afford you the privilege of switching jobs or careers easily. There's no reason to think it should, and that is made very clear during the application process.
Does anyone have any more information about the "52 hour online training program" that "the Macro" allowed them to skip? If that training program is any bit as useless as "online driving school", I can sort of understand how the Macro came to be...
California requires 20 hours of training to get a license for health and accident insurance, 20 hours to get a license for life insurance, and an additional 12 hours on ethics training for people wanting to pass the exam for either. These are tick-box requirements that allow you to take the exam you need to pass to get the relevant license. Several providers have online courses you can take for $50 < N < $100 which fill up the required 52 hours and, importantly for the purpose of box ticking, generate documentation certifying that you put in your 52 hours.
Here's the regulator's description of half of the requirements:
There exist many tick-box requirements in the vast, vast field that is compliance in regulated industries. There is a political valence to this observation.
My personal favorite one is the time where I had to threaten to fire myself if I ever misused patient information. I threatened to fire myself if I ever misused patient information. I then documented the fact that I had threatened to fire myself if I ever misused patient information. If I am ever investigated on suspicion of failing to have threatened to fire myself if I ever misused patient information (a crime which is separate from misusing patient information), I will be able to produce adequate documentation attesting to the fact that I threatened to fire myself if I ever misused patient information.
As further detail, the way these things work is the following. The "training" consists of watching some powerpoints and listening to a voiceover reading the slide. You can't click "next slide" until the voiceover has finished. The voiceovers add up to 52 hours.
Typically the voiceovers are short, e.g. 60 seconds, to ensure that you are actually at your computer clicking "next" rather than just letting the voiceover run while you do something productive.
Once you've clicked "next" 52x60=3120 times you are then permitted to take the exam.
Zenefits "Macro" automated the clicking, allowing their people to simply learn the material and then take the exam.
tl;dr; The state of California says "you must learn this material very slowly" and Zenefits employees are fast learners.
> If that training program is any bit as useless as "online driving school", I can sort of understand how the Macro came to be...
One of my proudest hacker moments* a while back was taking online defensive driving school (to have a speeding ticket excused) and figuring out what to type into the Javascript console to make the 'next' button clickable before the timer on the page ran out. (This technique would have been subverted had there been any server-side checks whatsoever, but nope...they completely entrusted the client to keep the time. I suppose they don't have much of an incentive to make it any more difficult given that the government probably doesn't have a very rigorous accreditation process for these courses.) That cut whatever was left of the required 6 hours down to about 20 minutes. I guess I'm an unethical monster that should never be allowed to run a company. :\
*I know, it's pretty lame in comparison to, say, figuring out how to jailbreak an iPhone, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't proud.
If everyone agrees it is a "silly" requirement (especially because it was circumvented so "easily"), why are we so mad at Zenefits?
We certainly don't want giant companies influencing policy changes (though, that happens frequently). I think a good indicator of whether a policy can justifiably be circumvented is if it actually hurt anybody. Has the "macro" hurt anybody yet? The articles have been vague.
The employees who used it and then signed a false declaration are at risk of jail.
That was their choice, but they were seemingly under pressure from their CEO, so it seems fairly evident (to me) that Parker created a real problem for his team, even if the customers are OK.
I still don't see how the macro allowed them to do anything different from just scrolling to the end of a list of terms and conditions. AFAIK, they still had to pass an exam?
Some of the compliance training I've had to take didn't have an exam. But the software tracked how quickly you went through the training. If you went through too quickly, you didn't get credit.
The problem is that they were getting the advantages of being licensed while not actually following proper procedure for licensing. They were effectively lying to everyone. Sure, it's a pretty harmless lie, but I can see how people in the industry would be pissed.
Lyft and Uber skirt similar kinds of regulation but they're completely up front about it. They don't pretend that their drivers are licensed or claim any benefit for having licensed drivers in any way. They're simply offering a different product than what taxis offer - getting a ride with a random unlicensed stranger. They're not trying to get the best of both worlds - the legitimacy of being licensed and the cost saving of not bothering with it.
Lyft and Uber, and Airbnb too, are simply offering a new product that doesn't come with any reassurance for consumers from regulatory compliance. They're betting that reputation systems (ratings, reviews, etc.) will provide assurance for consumers just as well if not better than government regulation. So far the market is showing they just might be right.
I suspect that if Zenefits had offered a platform where anyone can sell insurance to anyone from the beginning then people would be less pissed about it. Of course offering an unlicensed insurance brokerage product would probably be a lot harder to pull off than offering an unlicensed taxi product.
Hmm? I'm not sure I care if the "industry" is pissed if said industry accepts regulations that we all agree are silly
P.S: I'm totally for sensible regulations. However, sensible regulations usually require wide amounts of nepotism, cronyism and backstabbing to break. If a regulation is important enough that people could be hurt by it, then it should not be circumventable by a web script.
The solution to silly regulations is to change them, not to ignore them or subvert them. Think what a can of worms would be opened if regulatory compliance was contingent on some ephemeral, arbitrary, socially defined notion of "silliness."
Nope. I don't want monied corporations anywhere near my regulations. Let's just have the pertinent regulatory agencies realize that making someone stare at a screen for 'X' minutes doesn't make a training program. You are asking for someone to side step that stuff.
I would actually rather have companies like Zenefits sidestep regulations like that to show the regulators where they screwed up than Zenefits pump money into skeevy Lobby groups.
So you don't want the government to change regulations because it would give rich corporations an opportunity to leverage their lobbying dollars. Instead, you want rich corporations to cheat their way around regulations at leisure. (Note that what Zenefits did was not a legal loophole, it was a method of falsifying compliance documentation.)
In any case, what's the point of "show[ing] the regulators where they screwed up" if you don't want them to change anything anyway? What's the point of having regulations at all if you're going to let them be a joke?
I think we are arguing for the same thing. I just don't want agencies to change regulations because a large company wants them too. Id rather an agency be smart enough to find out that companies are using a loophole, and then close that loophole. A company will always use all loopholes available to it, to not do so would be silly
'Making trainees watch a video' seems like silly regulations asking to be circumvented. Why not make the exams more stringent so people are forced to actually pay attention.
It is perhaps a silly requirement, considering that the salespeople still passed the required exam.
But I see it as symptomatic of a cultural contempt for regulations. It seems like a conflict of interest for a company to wantonly decide which regulations are worth following and which aren't. Especially when the salespeople could be personally liable, and the catastrophic outcome is somebody finding out that their $1m surgery isn't covered by their insurance despite promises it would be from the salesperson.
It is perhaps a silly requirement, considering that the salespeople still passed the required exam.
Supposing that the exam is supposed to test the candidate's actual knowledge -- i.e., their ability to correctly represent things and act in compliance with the law while engaged in conversation with potential customers -- I certainly can see a risk of someone just saying "eh, I'll skip the material, take the exam with a reference open on my desk, pass it and be fine" and then getting into major trouble later when it turns out they did actually need to know a lot of that stuff off the top of their head in order to do their job.
This is great! Many times I've thought it would be cool to develop a programming logic harness for elevator logic, but I've never come close to starting.
I think many developers have been waiting for an elevator thinking "Damn this thing is DUMB! I could do a way better job coding the logic for this..." Can finally test it out.
Not to mention that Apple has so much cash in their coffers that they can afford to fail and figure things out for a while. Give them a damn second. There are so many interesting, high-investment bets that these tech giants are making, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they pay off. Self-driving cars, drone technology, AR, VR, ... Who cares about iPhone sales.
> But without Steve Jobs, I can’t see Apple pushing the boundaries of these industries and unlocking their true potential
It's unreal to me how people associate so much of Apple's success and ability to "Steve Jobs". The image of one guy rolling up his sleeves and pushing out all of the successful products and ideas alone is ridiculous. He had help. Apple is fine without him.
And the notion that a company just "peaks" once and it's done is also a complete fallacy. Their trajectory can be full of peaks and dips -- in fact many people would have said years ago that Apple had already peaked, and it was on its way into the dumpster.
Building an expensive HQ, comparing that to banks, what the heck does that have to do with anything ? None of these things are predictors for success or failure. Even if Apple's trajectory was directly in line with a similar company that had once existed and then failed, that means absolutely nothing to predict the future of Apple. You just can't. In my view it shows poor judgement on the author's part to even try and make a call like that, you'd have to be insane to think you had that kind of predicting power.
Apple can live or die for all I care but I think it's a huge leap to say they're "over" at this point...