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.
Tesla-Bound Chris Lattner May Have 'Felt Constrained' by Apple's Culture of Secrecy [Update: Denied]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An anonymous source to Business Insider. This story was so weak why did MacRumors decide to post it in the first place? And why not remove it all together rather than letting it sit out there on MR front page for the weekend?
Is that the same friend who leaked this fake news? Or perhaps was it you comrade since you are apparently putting out the same propoganda?
[doublepost=1484334703][/doublepost]
I know what you mean, but perhaps showing how Business Insider put out clearly fake news is helpful. The media just keeps sinking lower and lower and they wonder why no one has any faith in the media today. It would be helpful to perhaps change the headline to something more accurate such as "Anti-Apple Fake News Debunked"
You come up with the some of the funniest things on here. I always end up laughing. Thanks for that.
Isn't every tech company like this? Secrecy in the business is nothing new.
One has to wonder why that mbp had been getting bad rep.
[doublepost=1484339188][/doublepost]
Yeah their stuff were copied. It quality couldn't be compared.
Secrecy was needed when they were fighting for their lives then fighting from being okay to really getting ahead in the market.
Now...not so much.
Time to change.
What do you mean you doubt this rumor? It has already been debunked as fake news meant to harm Apple
Mac Rumors won't change the title of the fake news article now that Chris Lattner is saying that he was credited with doing things that someone else was actually doing. It's one thing to say a rumor is a rumor but to misreport news then not correct it in full is sleazy. They should take down the article or at least change the title.
I think a lot of folks forget the days when there were no leaks, even at the manufacturing level let alone inside of apple. Wasn't there an article that talked about how new employees were given fake projects to work on to see if they would leak the information out?
It creates the illusion that Chris left for any other reasons than the ones he himself has stated. He even went out of his way to say that he hasn't been leading the Swift effort for quite sometime and that other more qualified people have been doing most of the leg work. That's a pretty big difference from [Update: Denied].
Whether this is true or not and whether people here like it or not, Apple's secrecy is kind of backwards business strategy, especially when it comes to software (for hardware it doesn't work anyway). If you have people doing research, you just need to let those guys go out to talk about what they do. Nobody who is serious about research wants to spend their days locked in Apple's basement without ever talking to anybody else in their fields. That's just not what research is supposed to look like in 2017.
Really, the rebuttal should be noted in the opening paragraph. That is how I was trained at writing college.
If the guy wants to move on to other opportunities so be it. Just means Apple Inc. is not the darling child of Silicone Valley. If I was in his shoes, I would do the same.
Tesla and SpaceX are the rising starts, I cannot blame him for the intelligent decision.
Tesla and SpaceX are the rising starts, I cannot blame him for the intelligent decision.
Nothing like friends who talk to the press on your behalf....
LLVM, Swift and now Tesla... I'm a fan of Chris and am excited to see what he'll do next. I hope the Swift 4 source compatibility promise he made at WWDC is kept.
If you read the article you will realize that Chris had little to do with Swift. As for source compatibility, we are still in an era of rapid evolution of Swift so I don't expect 100% compatibility but rather 99.9%. In other words source compatibility only goes out the window if they have no choice. By the way this is Swift core, the rest of the system is very open to changes.
Someone moving on to other opportunities doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or another about the company that person is leaving.
A very high paying VP position at Tesla could entice anyone, let alone someone who's been at the same company for 11 years. People just don't stay at jobs that long anymore, especially in Silicon Valley where there's so much competition for employees. I don't think this says much about Apple. It's just the current narrative about Apple losing its way.
Here's what I think is going on: Apple is branching out, spending more than ever on their R&D (fact from the earnings reports). They're testing AR and cars and probably a bunch of other stuff. Because Apple has functional, rather than product teams, they are trimming the products down so the execs in charge can focus on developing the main lines plus the new stuff. The huge iOS cash cows, the most popular Macs, the watch and TV, and the new stuff we're not getting to see yet. Who has time for routers and unpopular computers? Focus is needed.
This all doesn't have a lot to do with Lattner, but the story has two parts: Him leaving Apple (because Tesla is also great and the position is great) and Apple is losing its way (because it's not continuing to develop non-important products).
Here's what I think is going on: Apple is branching out, spending more than ever on their R&D (fact from the earnings reports). They're testing AR and cars and probably a bunch of other stuff. Because Apple has functional, rather than product teams, they are trimming the products down so the execs in charge can focus on developing the main lines plus the new stuff. The huge iOS cash cows, the most popular Macs, the watch and TV, and the new stuff we're not getting to see yet. Who has time for routers and unpopular computers? Focus is needed.
This all doesn't have a lot to do with Lattner, but the story has two parts: Him leaving Apple (because Tesla is also great and the position is great) and Apple is losing its way (because it's not continuing to develop non-important products).