PDA

View Full Version : Web Publishing Manager wanted at Apple?




MacRumors
Jun 22, 2003, 04:08 AM
Several have pointed to this job listing (https://jobs.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Employment.woa/wa/jobDescription?RequisitionID=1978437) as a consequence of the specs leaked from Apple thursday evening.

It's unclear when this job posting appeared (pre or post leak)



nagromme
Jun 22, 2003, 04:33 AM
A little TOO perfect. Does Apple have a sense of humor?

"The position manages day to day publishing requirements such as image updates, third party loads, pricing changes, new feature enhancements, application improvements and application testing. Position also supports product launch deadlines, managing graphic and business resources to achieve business objectives. The job includes the ability to manage resources, prepare appropriate documentation based on business requirements, delegate tasks to team members, effectively and clearly communicate project status and manage project risk."

Neuro
Jun 22, 2003, 07:17 AM
I'd say this proves it was a deliberate Apple marketing stunt. I wouldn't be suprised if the leaked specs were a red-herring, and will be higher than suggested...

punter
Jun 22, 2003, 07:36 AM
if it was a mistake, then we all know someone has certainly been fired.

I sure hope it was a marketing stunt, but I reckon it was a mistake.

hvfsl
Jun 22, 2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Neuro
I'd say this proves it was a deliberate Apple marketing stunt. I wouldn't be suprised if the leaked specs were a red-herring, and will be higher than suggested...

I was also thinking this since someone at Apple recently said that they have something ready to release that is way ahead of the rumors.

nagromme
Jun 22, 2003, 09:38 AM
The main surprise on those specs was Mhz over 1.8. But I've read repeatedly that it's not possible for IBM to make 970s over 2.0 yet. So I'm not sure how Apple could exceed those specs.

They could, though, have some additional product to announce as well. But 970s + Panther seems like plenty to me! (And 15" Al PowerBook G4s a week or two later?)

bennetsaysargh
Jun 22, 2003, 09:39 AM
someone at MacTeens said it appeared after the leak. i think this is just a publicity stunt, and the real G5s or 970s wil be much faster.

theFly
Jun 22, 2003, 10:07 AM
The job posting appeared at least one month ago.

You can tell by the ID number on it which count up sequentially. That job starts 197... Apple's already in th 198 range.

theFly

Shaktai
Jun 22, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by theFly
The job posting appeared at least one month ago.

You can tell by the ID number on it which count up sequentially. That job starts 197... Apple's already in th 198 range.

theFly

Correct. That job posting has nothing to with what happened on the website. Even if it had been the first day it was posted, it would have been planned days ahead of time. Folks are just going crazy with this to the point of being ridiculous.

There is no Apple consipiracy, there is no disgruntled employee who hacked the system. There was a really stupid accident. Whether those stats are real or not we will find out tomorrow.

If you want a more likely real world scenario, then I would guess that the previous manager had either already left or was in the process of leaving. As a result of a lack of supervision, one or more employees got lazy and shortcutted normal procedures designed to prevent those things from happening (and their negligence has probably gotten them fired) The end result was what we saw. It is currently unknown if the image was accurate, or just someone's idea of a cute placeholder.

backspinner
Jun 22, 2003, 11:41 AM
On http://www.macfreak.nl they say that the image was uploaded by someone outside Apple with the correct access rights... so if that is true then there is no ground for the "manager fired" theory.

e-coli
Jun 22, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by backspinner
On http://www.macfreak.nl they say that the image was uploaded by someone outside Apple with the correct access rights... so if that is true then there is no ground for the "manager fired" theory.

Can you post a translated version of that post?

elzef
Jun 22, 2003, 03:05 PM
hello, everybody !
please don't look at my english, i'm from france.
I use a web-translator nederland/english for your question ( so it's not very good, but you can have an idea ) :

"The circulating screenshots in which the specifications to see being
of "the PowerMac G5" proving a joke, thus have to MacFreak have been
confirmed got from several sources, among which a contact Apple
Cupertino. It concerns here an action of (former) an employee of an
office where Apple cooperate sometimes. This person has a blade
ge-upload with in this the "specifications" by means of Akamai of G5.
Akamai are large content Delivery Provider where Apple use of for
leaped about of the AppleStore.

What the aim has not been of this person is clear, but it is clear
that it concerns here no real error of Apple themselves. "

Interresting, but maybe not...:confused:

Bram
Jun 22, 2003, 03:56 PM
I'm Dutch.

A more correct translation would read:

"The circulating screenshots with specs of the new "PowerMac G5" appear to be a joke, as MacFreak is told from several sources, among which is a contact within Apple Cupertino. It turns out to be an action of a (former) employee of a bureau Apple is cooperating with once in a while. This person has uploaded an image with the 'specifications' of the G5 via Akamai. Akamai is a big Content Delivery Provider that provides Apple with hosting services for its AppleStore.

It's not clear what could have been this person's objectives. It's however certainly not a real mistake by Apple itself."

nagromme
Jun 22, 2003, 04:11 PM
Question answered then. An old job. The humor is unintentional!

As for the leak itself... if it were not accurate, even in the tiniest detail, surely Apple would have said so, to restore the surprise of Monday and control the damage. So I think they must be accurate--leaving Apple with nothing to say until after, when they may admit to an error or hack.

bennetsaysargh
Jun 22, 2003, 04:19 PM
i think that the new PowerMacs will be much better than this "leak" apple did this on purpose.

gothamac
Jun 22, 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
Question answered then. An old job. The humor is unintentional!

As for the leak itself... if it were not accurate, even in the tiniest detail, surely Apple would have said so, to restore the surprise of Monday and control the damage. So I think they must be accurate--leaving Apple with nothing to say until after, when they may admit to an error or hack.

Totally agree. As a publicly traded company, false information from their own site would have to be acknowledge or they could be held liable. So I thinks it safe to say the specs are real.

Neuro
Jun 22, 2003, 06:21 PM
I still reckon these specs are conservative, - maybe dual 2.4Ghtz high-end. I also think that we will certainly see a 15" Powerbook 970 at say 1.6Ghtz.

Seems obvious, or why would Apple be so enthusiastic.

TPistrix
Jun 22, 2003, 10:49 PM
I still reckon these specs are conservative, - maybe dual 2.4Ghtz high-end. I also think that we will certainly see a 15" Powerbook 970 at say 1.6Ghtz.

Seems obvious, or why would Apple be so enthusiastic.

Well... as much as I'd like to believe that. The fact of the matter is that this probably isn't the case. I know we all WANT it to be true. There are even reasons to believe it is true... Hell, I've even been saying it's true (at least with the beefed up PM stats - wasn't there something making the rounds about large quantities of 2.5GHz G5 processors floating around). The problem is that if we go into the keynote *thinking* it's true... then we're either affirmed and justified and can say, "See? I told you so," or we feel totally gyped, totally bummed, and/or totally pissed off. Now, I need a laptop for college, so I'm dying for a 970 PB or any kind of update really, but I refuse to convince myself it's going to happen. Wouldn't you like the only possible surprises to be good ones?

TiMacLover
Jun 22, 2003, 11:55 PM
Can't you check the HTML source for a date that it was created or something?

mproud
Jun 23, 2003, 12:02 AM
The true answer is usually the most reasonable, sensible, and often the most unexciting one.

law guy
Jun 24, 2003, 03:17 PM
Of course, now that we've seen the timing of the "accident" in a larger context, it looks like the leak was very deliberate in order to build anticipation and garner media coverage for the Monday morning key note speech. As a planned leak, it was very successful, with major papers and websites picking up the story of the leak. I really don't think there was any accident at this point.

Flowbee
Jun 24, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by law guy
Of course, now that we've seen the timing of the "accident" in a larger context, it looks like the leak was very deliberate in order to build anticipation and garner media coverage for the Monday morning key note speech. As a planned leak, it was very successful, with major papers and websites picking up the story of the leak. I really don't think there was any accident at this point.

I'm with you. Especially since the leak didn't include a description of the case, and the actual specs (on the website now) does. A very convenient mistake.:rolleyes:

DeusOmnis
Jun 24, 2003, 05:58 PM
haha.. steve, what a dork

bennetsaysargh
Jun 24, 2003, 07:32 PM
steve was jokoing arounds about it during the keynote, and he even said
"it was brilliant marketing on apple's part"

that's what he said!