Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Hires Point to Apple's Continued Research on Next-Generation Health Sensors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't go that far. It's a fashion statement. In fact in the high tech industry aggressively casual dress and punk-freak body stuff is considered de rigueur. It's the new business suit. If you wanted to be really unconventional, and weren't worried about being ostracized, you'd wear a business suit, not color your hair, pierce your body, or have tattoos.
When it comes to hiring people, nobody gives a **** what color your hair is. In the South Park area of San Francisco (Where all the startups are). There are TONS of people with some very amazing dyed hair. They get hired because of their skills.
----------
It's called having restraint and professionalism. If you can't look someone in the eye when talking to them, the problem is on your end.
----------
I have seen a few people from the east coast fly out for interviews and not get the job because they were wearing a suit. Companies and hiring managers don't want to disrupt existing culture by introducing corporate culture.
If they do, you will just end up with a bunch of people leaving for another company that doesn't have the problem. It's a very employee focused market here, obtaining and retaining talent is very difficult for companies.
As someone who works for a grocery store that enforces long-sleeved white shirts and black ties, I can empathize.
I find these two statements a bit contradictory. They get hired for their skills -- so long as they don't wear a suit and "disrupt" the culture.
And isn't that just the thing about fashion? It's so arbitrary.
Yes, it is strange that the contradict but it makes sense. The culture is open and free, not about restrictions. Wearing a suit is corporate and about restrictions.
It's about fashion, whether it's colored hair, body piercings, tattoos, or business suits. They are all equally arbitrary restrictions. The moment any of this required or expected, it isn't about free and open culture.
How was this determined? It simplified the security on the iPhone, but where is the evidence that it increased it significantly?
I get your point, but you must agree that suit is the business style norm and is by far the broadest and it's in many areas of business expected that you wear a suit. I haven't heard of any category of business/employment were you're excepted to have a tattoo to be accepted and fit in. Well, I guess a tattoo shop is the exception.
I think people should be able to wear whatever they want and not be judged by their clothes/style. It might be a good idea to have limits in some cases, but at least in some areas I think it should be less restricted than it is now. One thing that shows this is the true is this thread where it becomes noteworthy for some that Nancy Dougherty has dyed her hair.
Anyone who doesn't hire a person for the sole or primary reason that the person is wearing a suit is an idiot.
It's true and it's really a great marketing tool. Look at how they keep releasing identical phone over and over and people still speculate they have something awesome they are hiding. It truly is an excellent example of marketing genius.
And...
Don't forget mythical Apple TV. By the time they release it will be one of many. Curved screen? Mem. 4K? Double mem. Apple ecosystem integration? Already exists with the $99 atv. Content? Can you say Roku? So it will come down to apps....and of course, price. We'll see. I can't wait for the buzz words that Apple marketing will create for this device. They'll need something besides
Awesome
Cool
Unapologetically plastic
Transformative
Magical
Incredible
Amazing
Great
Wonderful
Really nice
Really easy
Better and better
Smarter and smarter
Faster and faster
Really fast
Really wonderful
Really outstanding
Developers, developers, developers.....oops, that one is owned by Steve Balmer
Don't forget mythical Apple TV. By the time they release it will be one of many. Curved screen? Mem. 4K? Double mem. Apple ecosystem integration? Already exists with the $99 atv. Content? Can you say Roku? So it will come down to apps....and of course, price. We'll see. I can't wait for the buzz words that Apple marketing will create for this device. They'll need something besides
Awesome
Cool
Unapologetically plastic
Transformative
Magical
Incredible
Amazing
Great
Wonderful
Really nice
Really easy
Better and better
Smarter and smarter
Faster and faster
Really fast
Really wonderful
Really outstanding
Developers, developers, developers.....oops, that one is owned by Steve Balmer
Last edited:
No' it's just that woman are more prone at deliberatly choosing to expose what society deems taboo/sexual parts of their body and then being upset over the reaction it causes, when really the reaction is what they were tring to achieve in the 1st place, but will not admit it.
Say a guy cut his pants in just a way as to expose part of his penis shaft or a area away to expose a section of testical skin, so there were these 1 or two areas of exposed skin in his crotch so you could not quite see it all, but enough to cause a reaction.
Shoul he then get annoyed that at a speech he was giving this was highlighted and talked about, and his choice to wear such an item was brought to attention rather that totally focussing on what he was saying?
That's not the world we live in, like it or not. You "choose to be different" and the more different you deliberately choose to be, the more that aspect will be an attritional topic to be discussed about you.
Wild hair, facial piercings, facial tattoos etc etc.
Naturally mostly done for unfortunate reasons where the person has some other issues, not happy or at peace with themselves perhaps, and needs to do this to compensate for something.
Very interesting, but what does this have to do with this news item? You turned a discussion of Apple hiring two new engineers into a discussion of women exposing their sexual parts and complaining, based on a picture with purple hair. Why? do you find the picture sexual? It's a valid topic, but it belongs in another section. It's also a bit insulting to this apparently highly skilled woman; who, as far as I can see, is not exposing any of those offending body parts.
Nothing....
I didn't start any talk about her hair colour others did, I was just expanding on that issue others had started.
What I did say was, after watching a video of hers that was linked to here, she appeared to speak for what, 30 mins or longer on almost nothing.
A major yawnfest
I trust she has some meat to her and it's not all (how does this items make you feel) type of thinking.
I get your point, but you must agree that suit is the business style norm and is by far the broadest and it's in many areas of business expected that you wear a suit. I haven't heard of any category of business/employment were you're excepted to have a tattoo to be accepted and fit in. Well, I guess a tattoo shop is the exception.
I think people should be able to wear whatever they want and not be judged by their clothes/style. It might be a good idea to have limits in some cases, but at least in some areas I think it should be less restricted than it is now. One thing that shows this is the true is this thread where it becomes noteworthy for some that Nancy Dougherty has dyed her hair.
Different presentations are expected in different places and situations. We've already been told that in the San Francisco tech startup world you can forget about landing a job if you come to the interview wearing a suit. Right qualifications, wrong pose. Kind of ridiculous if true, which I don't doubt it is in some cases.
Funny, but every generation believes that they have discovered true self-expression, but it always really means conformity to a new norm. In the end, it's just fashion, folks. Nothing to get too excited about, but nothing to defend like it's important somehow either.
I didn't say Dougherty's hair color was noteworthy. More like mildly joke-worthy. But it's okay. If I ever met her I would not stare at her hair, let alone laugh. It's a personal choice, and I respect that. But it's still a pose, one that tells me a little more about the person than perhaps they wanted me to know. If they don't mind, neither do I.
But she's not in a pants suit and holding onto the rigid norms of corporate america, how could anyone respect an independent person like that in the era of Big Business??
Yah, **** me for not wanting hardware designed by a Lady-Gaga wannabe, right?
While I agree there's probably not something like ”true self-expression” when it comes to clothing/fashion I do think there's a difference between different areas of style in that some are more ”mainstream” than others. The suit is more mainstream and the magenta dyed hair is not. But just because someone chooses to stand out with their type of clothing it doesn't mean it's right to judge a person based on that.
If it's all about fashion like you say, why is there no one that think it's worth pointing out that Mr. wears a suit? I'd say because it's ”normal” and generally accepted to wear a suit.
So, even if it's all ”about fashion” there are some areas of it that are more accepted than others so I'm not convinced the situation isn't really that ”even” like you make it sound. Or it should be even but the thing is, in people's minds it's not.
Her LinkedIn photo doesn't really do her justice. She's attractive regardless of the weird hair color and based on a photo of her on her personal blog, seems to have a great body. What's not to like?