Back when I worked at NeXT we created a lights-out factory in Fremont, CA and then closed it. Steve said that we were moving it offshore to be closer to where the parts were manufactured. At the same time, I was told by some employees who worked on creating the automated factory that the real reason for moving it was completely different. They told me that the goal was to sell it to a group of Executives who could then charge the company for manufacturing the machines and avoid US taxes by sending the money offshore as a business expense. It was sold to a group of Executives so that they could avoid any one Executive being technically in "control" of the offshore. I was also told that the group of Executives included theoretical "competitors", and they traded "favors" for shared ownership.
I can't confirm any of this - but it is consistent with other things done to avoid taxes. (Steve was once successfully prosecuted for avoiding taxes using an offshore. After that, he got better accountants to make sure his tax dodges could withstand legal scrutiny.)
That request is still in effect. I don't have any reason to doubt you, but the stories are so grandiose and inflammatory (and similar) that we need to apply at least a little burden of proof.
I'd prefer that our society classifies it as illegal rather than evil or immoral. We need to have laws which also take away the acquired wealth from those who benefit from such practices.
Illegal is a classification a state makes about things considered immoral or evil. Or sometimes neither and someone is out to make a quick buck by corrupting the law. I cannot classify something as illegal, but I can point out that it is downright evil. If enough people do this then eventually the law might catch up, that is if the law hasn't been bought out already by the evil bastards out to make a buck. Which it has, unfortunately.
I was just reading the book "The House of Morgan" and it describes how companies are purchased when they don't maximize short term profit. The bankers and executives make sure that they make millions in the transfer, and then the brand is cheapened to get more profit, usually at the expense of the customers and employees, and then the company is sold again to get more millions for the executives and bankers. They don't really care if the company goes under or they destroy society as a side effect - it is all about making more millions for the already rich principals.
I jokingly call this MBA disease as a nod to Dutch Elm disease; the parasite sucks all the nutrients it can out of the host, killing it and then moves on. It’s the reason I don’t expect to enjoy Whataburger for much longer now that it’s been purchased by a Chicago investment house.
For instance Whataburger uses fresh eggs and scrambles them on site. That’ll go by the wayside in favor of McDonald’s-style pre-made and pre-packaged eggs generating waste and lowering quality. But it’ll make the food easier to replicate nation wide creating shot term profits from growth until consumers have the predictable “I don’t see what all the hype is about” reaction, damaging or possibly destroying the brand.
I've worked with lots of Harvard graduates over the years. They all seemed to be cloned with some kind of "group-think" about Economics. Essentially, they were all convinced that markets solved big problems, and anything vaguely Keynesian or Socialist or Marxist was doomed to failure.
So I guess I view Harvard Economics as a tool of those with power, and probably something which has contributed to creating a worse world. (Hey, I believe markets have benefits too, but not to the point of dismissing moderating policies.)
If I remember correctly Steinbeck's doctor was a friend from his days at Stanford. So we aren't talking about traditional doctor/patient relationships.
Steinbeck is amazing. He would recite his books as he wrote them - he believed that words were meant to be spoken. He wrote for the spoken word rather than the written word. I also saw a few pages of his revisions on one of his books - he revised his "standard" sentences into "colorful" sentences. So his writing was definitely a result of hard work and creativity - and in my mind moves his writings into the realm of true art.
Well, I spent a number of years writing drivers for PC systems. Some years the I/O chips were faster than CPU, and some years the CPU was faster than I/O chips. DMA was usually slower, just because release cycles for CPUs tended to be faster than release cycles for I/O controllers. Eventually, most driver writers decided that it was usually better to use CPU, even if the I/O controller was faster. That way, when the CPU got upgraded, you would automatically get a speed boost. While programming an I/O controller was both more arcane and more more likely to require a complete reimplementation in a couple of years (as well as customer complaints and market share losses.)
I'm not saying that things are the same today - but it kind of sounds to me like they are. Back in the days, people were always claiming that we should switch to the newest and fastest I/O controller since CPUs were more general purpose and would therefore always be slower. It just didn't work out that way in practice.
And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.
I don't like all the toxic positivity that has been growing in the workplace. This has changed a lot since my early days in Silicon Valley. My impression is that different countries have different "power distance" - a measure of submission to authority.
As the workforce has changed, with more hiring from "high power distance" countries, there are more "yes men" enthusiastically agreeing to anything that any incompetent executive wants.
Of course, the executives like this, and promote those who are "easy to get along with" and who are happy to "implement their vision". But I think history will show that this is one of the things which has contributed to the culture decline in Silicon Valley - from producing useful products to producing maximum profit regardless of any contribution to society.
Right now, for example, I'm at yet another company with several incompetent managers who are supported by technical "yes men". They know that we are making idiotic technical decisions, but they would never openly disagree.
I can't confirm any of this - but it is consistent with other things done to avoid taxes. (Steve was once successfully prosecuted for avoiding taxes using an offshore. After that, he got better accountants to make sure his tax dodges could withstand legal scrutiny.)