Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple needs to rethink this, and let people continue working from home. My guess is they want to justify that insane campus they built.
Maybe they can hire the space out as a b&b.
Or build affordable apartments for their workers so they can still work from home.
Henry Ford built Fordlandia for his factory workers, and he wasn’t making the obscene profits that Tim Cook is. Many other companies have built company towns to help their businesses while also caring for their workers.
Too many companies have gotten greedy using foreign sweatshop workers and think all workers are just replaceable cogs in their profit machines.
 
Anyone refusing to come into work should be fired immediately and hopefully be forced to work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives.

Those saying other companies will hire them, yeah, I’ll bet employers are just clamouring to hire people that got fired for refusing to do what their former employer asked of them.
 
I work in a big tech company that went remote and I can definitely tell you that our productivity went down massively. Even after our infrastructure was tuned in to support this, we’re not close to precovid levels of productivity. There’s also a big time loss of collaboration and team building. It’s doable sure but at the lack of similar output. People are getting paid more to produce less right now, while in their PJs.
I currently using a company for software support who now works from home, the left and doesn't know what the right hand is doing, they are terrible. When they were in the same building there was a much better link-up between each team. So for the company owners saving money, they have just made their company worse.
 
So would you point to where in Apple's products machine learning has improved in the last two years,

I recently moved from iOS 12.x to 15.x. Siri certainly hasn't improved, as far as I can tell.

Algorithms for keyboard stuff changed since iOS 12, whenever swiping was added, but I don't know if that was iOS 13 or 14. It's also not enough improvement for my taste. It's enough to expect way more of it than it delivers, and therefore feel all the more frustrated when it constantly screws up. All I ever find are bugs and bad design behavior choices. Two steps forward, 1.25 steps back.

Facial recognition was introduced a little while ago and is probably being worked on more often than finger print reading (masks have recently been made compatible with faceID), and then there's touchID itself, which I suspect hasn't been touched since iOS 9 (or earlier?).

Then there's all the behind the scenes services that some of us spend a lot of time disabling to reduce clutter and distraction on our screens, like Siri suggestions, etc.

Data identifiers? OCR in photos?

Step counting is a disaster. At first I was happy to see that iOS 15 gave me step tracking... until I discovered that it records phone motions when I read or type messages as steps in the Health app. 🤦🏽‍♂️ As so many other things, I am utterly astounded that this is how Apple left this. It's utterly appalling. I have to manually delete garbage data every day or let nonsense activity build up. I want to use the Health app, but, as with everything Apple, it's unfinished piles of "NEW FEATURES!" that are semi-useful and semi-broken.

Today's use of "AI" isn't Artificial Intelligence. It's not "learning". It's algorithms and data collection/statistics and programmer-directed "interpretation". That still covers a wide range of uses, so I'm probably missing other things that are processed via statistics processing algorithms.

and also an argument why it would have been a worse improvement if they had worked from the office?

Is anyone suggesting as much?
 
Hey kids, I am retired now, but worked my entire life in office environments. With minor excpetions I could have done my job working from home if the techology of today existed then. Communiting, clothing expenses, gas, car repairs etc., all contribute to a lower standard of life. You are lucky to live on a world where tech enables you to be productive wherever you are.

Back in the analog world we had no choice. I have been online, in some form, since 1982 but the tech of the 20th century could not support a true WFH lifestyle.
 
I would say a lot of the argument is about people in this thread just loving working from home and can't see why some other people thinks 100% working from home decades after decades is abhorrent.

I've read the entire thread up to this point and I see only ONE person stating that NOBODY should be working at an office. It's an absolute statement, and wrong for that reason.

Maybe I've missed one other person making an absolute statement, but the number is minuscule compared to the people who have repeatedly attacked the now-former Apple employee for the crime of daring to try to negotiate with his employer, and then resigning partially because of them not allowing permanent WFH. That's how it started: attacks on some guy because people here cannot tolerate how he chooses to be employed. The same "good riddance" and "lazy!/entitled!" commentary was still coming in as late as your post, more than a day later.

Numerous people have expressed it as "WFH doesn't work for me", and that's fine. WFH being "abhorrent" is your characterization of it, and you're certainly not the model for everyone else. Numerous people here have already been doing it for decades and it's something they prefer, or something they would never go back from.

And we shouldn't really care about Apple workers well being but how they can produce better products.

Not sure what you're referring to here. I did see a ton of anti-worker BS, and most of it was directed at the now-former Apple guy the article is about, and anyone else who wants to be able to work from home without limits.

If they can do that with unhappy employees, so be it.

That might be more of the anti-worker rhetoric I came here to pointlessly challenge. Being fully honest with myself, I don't think anyone here will ever be convinced of anything they didn't already believe. The level of hostility toward work-from-home, and employees in general, seems too deeply entrenched, and people don't want to change their minds when they come here to rant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirAnthonyHopkins
It’s about the disassembly of apple, not any persons life choices. It’s about berating apple for being a tough And demanding company. It’s about apple being a soulless company. It’s about apple not kow-towing to the “demands” of the employees.

Huh. That's the first post I've seen from you that just reads totally off the mark. Is it sarcasm? If not... You've apparently missed a ton of commentary. It absolutely started as an attack on one person's life choices. Far fewer people are berating Apple over this, and it did not start there. Most people are arguing about work-from-home being more or less productive.
 
Lot's of computers with just a single CPU could only to one thing at a time just like the human brain. Yet, when they switched rapidly from task to task it was called multitasking even though only one instruction was executed at a single point in time.

👍🏽 And when it initially appeared on Windows, it was "cooperative multitasking"... and applications rarely cooperated.
 
Anyone refusing to come into work should be fired immediately and hopefully be forced to work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives.

Those saying other companies will hire them, yeah, I’ll bet employers are just clamouring to hire people that got fired for refusing to do what their former employer asked of them.

Suuuuure xD
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirAnthonyHopkins
Anyone refusing to come into work should be fired immediately and hopefully be forced to work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives.

Those saying other companies will hire them, yeah, I’ll bet employers are just clamouring to hire people that got fired for refusing to do what their former employer asked of them.
Who's doing that? Employees (including this man) are changing jobs, not being fired for insubordination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dysamoria
I would say a lot of the argument is about people in this thread just loving working from home and can't see why some other people thinks 100% working from home decades after decades is abhorrent.

Some people even argue that the employer shouldn't be allowed to decide where and how their employees work. It's like reading Karl Marx and that workers should own the means of production.

And we shouldn't really care about Apple workers well being but how they can produce better products. If they can do that with unhappy employees, so be it.
Nobody is making this about workers' rights, other than the right to switch jobs. If Apple wants their employees to work in the office, that's their decision. Whoever doesn't want to do that will leave, and whoever prefers that will stay or join.

Like what did you want exactly, for Mr. Goodfellow to stay?
 
Last edited:
Even pre-industry people didn't work from home. Farmers in the farm, wood workers in the workshop, cooks in the kitchen, soldiers in the field, and bakers in bakeries. Only small fractions of jobs could be done at home, maybe like women (or men) sewing or knitting clothes at home.

Most of those workplaces were people's homes, especially rurally. The "boss" owned them, but they were homes. Cities were far less densely populated and built up than today, of course, so not really industry or offices, but did have workhouses, which literally were places people lived and worked. Here's some interesting info:




People even slept differently before the industrial revolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirAnthonyHopkins
I think I misunderstood you when I initially read your comment. I took something you said as wanting to go to the office because they don't enjoy being at home. My response was that it's not that they want to be at the office, but rather they don't want to be home, so the make an excuse for why they need to be there to do their job.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. 👍🏽
 
Anyone refusing to come into work should be fired immediately and hopefully be forced to work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives.

Those saying other companies will hire them, yeah, I’ll bet employers are just clamouring to hire people that got fired for refusing to do what their former employer asked of them.
he didn't get fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dysamoria
A lot of people choose to work like this for a varied number of reasons.
Choose, or "choose"?

I know some people who are workaholics. I'm doubting that's the majority (especially seeing how those workaholics react to people who aren't like them; they feel like everyone else is lazy or unconcerned about making money, when I think it's more that other people generally want a better mix of life in their life).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirAnthonyHopkins
Yes, he jumps around/job hopping. Google 1.5 years, open AI 1 year, google 2 years, apple 3 years. How can you contribute enough within that short time? He’ll be back to Google, and in 2 years time, back to Apple again. Every time to get pay rise. Lol.
I have no idea how many code contributions a person makes in a month, let alone 1.5 to 3 years. More than I could ever do, surely 😅, but I have neurology working against me there, and some amazing programmers have the opposite. Looking at his contributions to research is also worthwhile, as posted by a couple of other people here, many many pages ago.

He has been consistently involved in one specialty, but has done that at various employers. He is probably much younger than myself, and his first job in this area was as an intern (if I read his LinkedIn correctly), so probably right out of school? Who stays at one workplace for many years at that stage of life?

This guy clearly has attained the knowledge and privilege to jump from one company to another, and seems to do so as it suits him. That's great. I'm not sure why anyone should consider that a problem when these companies keep hiring him. Maybe Apple wont rehire him in future, or maybe they will, if they realize they chose incorrectly for their own best interests in retaining expertise. Who knows.
 
It's the hostile people who have the least amount of courage to ask and face what other people get because those people who get are the ones who are brave enough to take the risk.

I'm not sure I can absolutely agree with that statement. I am not ambitious or assertive with employers, partially due to being introverted, partially due to not knowing my worth, and now largely because people convinced me I have none. But I definitely don't turn around and throw hostility at people in jealously of their work lives. I may express envy, but that's not hostile. I only get up in arms over the topic when they make sweeping statements about opportunity and success/failure through survivorship bias (because, no, hard work isn't all anybody needs), or when they make unreasonable criticism of others (like this thread).

Some of the most chip-on-shoulder anti-worker people I've met in real life have been people who were small business owners, showcasing success, demonstrating the ability to be assertive, willing to grab at opportunities, but also some kind of childhood issue that made them overcompensate/develop bitterness toward anyone for critiquing them, and then targeting scapegoats for their continued gripes.

One of these was a general contractor who worked on my house for a rehab grant. He seemed great: the ideal of professionalism. "We do it right the first time"... and all that... until he one too many times spewed his "people are lazy" rhetoric AND, upon realizing he'd underbid the contract and wasn't making as much profit as he expected to, vanished for weeks at a time to do other jobs he thought he'd make more money on. This was expressly forbidden by the county contract, but here he was, demonstrating a selfish/lousy work ethic, after spending the prior weeks trash-talking employees and young people everywhere for their lousy work ethic, and showcasing an inferiority complex that manifested as egocentrism and toxic masculinity (getting him and his partner to wear protective eyewear and face masks when pulling apart my ceilings and breathing huge piles of shredded insulation was a process of offering and suggesting and being rebuffed until he finally said "hey, do you have those masks you offered" about three hours into breathing the mess).

This same guy also hired a sub-contractor to do new drywall, and this contractor SUUUUUUUCKED. How did this guy NOT KNOW this contractor was THIS BAD? He said "We do drywall ourselves, but we tend to do it more slowly because we're perfectionist about it". I would've been fine with perfectionist drywall work, but it wasn't MY time he cared about. It was his. So he hired a dumbass with a bunch of careless guys to throw the sheetrock up with incredible laziness. Oh I could go on for hours.

The point is, there are plenty of people I have known in the real world who behave like this IN SPITE of having their own success. It's like some success isn't enough to fill the gaping maw of bitterness inside them, so they lash out at other people. It's bully mentality. The only way to feel bigger is to try to shred other people.
 
Ad revenue is just a disguise under bigger picture of human replacement. One thing Portal game portrayed pretty well is the idea of replacing human with robots because “they are better”.
Come to think about it, when AI evolves enough, what advantage do human have left? I’d say very little. “I, Robot” also expresses concerns of that outlook.

Anyways, off topic. :)
Hm. They'll still want money from us, and we can't give them money if we no longer have jobs. Maybe they'll just turn us into the new kind of cattle, or finally promote universal basic income AND a tax on people for living in the same region as a corporation... Same old same old: pulling money from the public and locking it up in the private. Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.

I'm only a little facetious...
 
They do to a lesser extent. When I was in college, my friends were taking out subsidized student loans to buy Bitcoin. They maybe couldn't legally spend it on that directly, but they had some other source of money that went into BTC instead of school because the loans would cover that. And it was wise of them.

The more common abuse is, people go to college for no good reason, maybe partying the entire time, because someone else is picking up the bill, whether it's their parents or the government or both. Some of them extend it as long as possible with an MS then a PhD; this leads to the common saying that PhD students are either brilliant or aimless, with nothing in between. Anyone trying decently hard towards a career they actually want to pursue will go through the required schooling then pay off the loans easily. The others are either mooching or didn't plan things well, and I have no interest in supporting that.
"Aimless" and "poor planners" doesn't connect with the people I know who did higher education. Most seem to feel like they were mislead by culture, and angry to realize how naive they were when they were lead into the whole thing, especially when their degrees aren't getting them living wages and healthcare.

I think that there's some of every type, and that includes poor planners or people who just went through the motions mindlessly, BUT I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, especially in considering exactly how much social pressure there is on young and inexperienced people for them to follow a specific path toward "success".

I accidentally saved myself from this path by not being scholastically ambitious out of high school. My parents pushed me to community college, anyway (which they paid for), and it was a total mess for me because I was pushed into programs in which I had no intrinsic interest (because they were more "practical" than my own would-be choices), and several instructors did little to no teaching, and some did the reverse (this isn't an attack on community college whatsoever, though my school DID change management in the art department suddenly, and it was a DISASTER for the program, which I took up a petition to protest, and was put on a "do not hire" list, according to my later-to-be-revealed-as-a-sociopath boss, so I'm not sure I trust his claim).
 
After 20 years of having remote workers and quite a bit of that being remote myself… no you won’t lose your job to someone in India or anywhere else. The best person for the job gets it, regardless of where they are. The pay differences between someone in Europe, USA, and Asia are so incredibly minor. And the pay differences aren’t a deciding factor in in who we picked, not for the last few hundred applicants and it won’t be for the next few hundred applications. The only fuss we have is shipping your computer to some places so we ask the employee to expense it. And someone from India might need to fly over to pick up a console dev kit, but we have remote builds since the pandemic so that is less common.
Ummmmm - tell that to the accountants at Deloitte who got fired for an army of accountants in India. Or the Simpson’s animators who saw their jobs go to South Korea?

And the salaries are the same??? LMAO.

Do you know how much an accountant in India costs, versus America? Now factor in that than you have to pay the American fica and benefits, on top of the much higher salary.

Our professional and (what’s left of our) manufacturing economies are on the verge of collapse if we don’t cut FICA taxes by at least half within the upcoming decade. Trump brought capital back by cutting the corporate tax almost by half - the same now needs to happen with FICA, or we’re headed to catastrophe.
 
While I agree with you in my heart be careful here. The obligation of which you speak is an ethical or moral obligation. The best of humanity understand this and support it but we can’t fault those that do not. They are still human just none of us are perfect. This obligation is largely fulfilled by humans as a whole (some 80% of people who have means beyond survival give in a fashion) but it can not rightly be expected of the individual. Tricky stuff I know but that’s the mess that humans are. Sorry for dumping philosophy. 😝
No apology needed 👍🏽

The challenge for this obligation notion is that people who feel as though they have very little will get nervous and possibly angry that someone is suggesting they lose something of theirs. I understand it, because I have very little and am terrified of losing what little I have, but not for that reason. I don't understand why they seem to put themselves in the shoes of millionaires/billionaires, which are the ones people like me actually want to see some wealth distributed from. Most of the so-called philanthropy being promoted by our lineup of "world's richest guys" is actually just more entrepreneurialism, political plays, and tax write-offs
is an amusing quick take on this.

I don't think it's reasonable for multi-millionaires to even exist (and definitely NOT billionaires), and our society just keeps trying to prove this correct by continuing to get more visibly dystopian. Hypernormalization slows people's recognition of it, but it's not invisible. We are already ruled by corporations; do we need to be ruled by wasteland warlords before people really start to object en mass?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.