I really believe he did not expect the Apollo dev to have recorded the whole conversation, so badmouthing him would have served to create the narrative that the dev is the bad guy in this. That would have given all those people ammunition who are clearly against the blackout, against the anger of the destruction of third-party apps and against those who participate or started it. And this is what Spez hoped for: create doubt in the dev and therefore the whole blackout. So that in the end it’s a “we are not perfect, but the dev also did bad things”-situation, which sadly would work for many people.
Well, they want to do something and he wants them to not do it so he is the enemy and must be destroyed. I’ve seen this in many companies over the years.
What frustrates me is that nobody from that side is telling the truth: Third party developers were once useful but are now a liability and they have to go because a future buyer or investor will not understand the value of a vibrant development community and see something that cannot be controlled. The timeline for the IPO is ticking down and there is no time to come up with a way to formally integrate these clients, either by buyout or agreeing some sort of advertisement or subscription SDK. It’s unpleasant but I’d have more respect for the truth than lying and slandering the character of a good guy in the process.
Thank goodness he had recordings or this could have been career limiting for him, not that this occurred to the people with dollar signs in their eyes.
I just don’t understand why they (or just spez?) are/is intent on badmouthing the Apollo dev.
I really believe he did not expect the Apollo dev to have recorded the whole conversation, so badmouthing him would have served to create the narrative that the dev is the bad guy in this. That would have given all those people ammunition who are clearly against the blackout, against the anger of the destruction of third-party apps and against those who participate or started it. And this is what Spez hoped for: create doubt in the dev and therefore the whole blackout. So that in the end it’s a “we are not perfect, but the dev also did bad things”-situation, which sadly would work for many people.
Yep. This probably happens every time there is an issue between two parties but how often does the victim of the auto show up with receipts? Lol
Well, they want to do something and he wants them to not do it so he is the enemy and must be destroyed. I’ve seen this in many companies over the years.
What frustrates me is that nobody from that side is telling the truth: Third party developers were once useful but are now a liability and they have to go because a future buyer or investor will not understand the value of a vibrant development community and see something that cannot be controlled. The timeline for the IPO is ticking down and there is no time to come up with a way to formally integrate these clients, either by buyout or agreeing some sort of advertisement or subscription SDK. It’s unpleasant but I’d have more respect for the truth than lying and slandering the character of a good guy in the process.
Thank goodness he had recordings or this could have been career limiting for him, not that this occurred to the people with dollar signs in their eyes.