Is this in reference to something specific? Or just a general "atta boy"?
Fool me once...
I loved my Windows 8 phone for the OS and hardware. But I will no longer believe Microsoft promises when it comes to investing in their phone at a whole enterprise level.
I switched back to iPhone recently. I don't see me trying out a windows phone again until Microsoft has proven that they will really invest in it. Not just promises or plans, but actual market proof and success.
Microsoft will never have a successful phone until they get the big companies to treat their store as a first tier store.
One of the primary companies that Microsoft needs to win over is Microsoft.
The vast majority of their apps are better on other platforms than they are for Windows Mobile. Or they just don't exist in the Microsoft Store at all.
I was listening to a podcast last week that was discussing a new TFS app from Microsoft that released ONLY on android.
How can Microsoft expect developers to take their mobile offering seriously when they themselves do not?
Funny thing. I read this and thought "How Evil of Lenovo" (to put a certificate on the machine like that).
Then I found out today that my company's system admins have done the SAME THING to our company.
If I go to http://www.google.com and look at the certificate for that site, its issuer is my company! (When I log into PluralSight, StackOverflow or Amazon it happens there too.)
I guess (by my previous definition) that makes my company's system admins evil?
Pile, meet Lightswitch.
Lightswitch, meet the abandonware pile (Silverlight, Linq-To-SQL, Compact Framework etc)
Oct 27, 2014 at 9:43 AM
For some situations there might be a valid reason for some of the restrictions but what's likely is that such "valid reason" was quickly extended to everyone except those with bargaining power.
One situation could be that there's few companies with tech in which skills are specialist on-the-job learned sort but are also transferable to competing company. (though similar fear could be assumed for transfer of IP or clients). If the new hire learned these skills on the company dime and then soon jumped to the competitor because just not liking the place or got better offers (just when they were about to actually be valuable to the company where they learned the specialist stuff), I could understand if the employer would have serious issues there.
Now how would the right balance here be implemented in unambiguous manner? To avoid things getting too complicated, perhaps the "test" should be related to what you presented in your CV and what the employer presented in their official job add. If the job you end up is something not in your CV already and is found listed in other peoples CV's, then you probably learned it on the job. In that case the employer should have "dibs" on you actually staying there for some reasonable time beyond just learning the skill. What that would be, no comment.
EDIT: On the other hand, if the employee begins to feel "trapped", that surely can't be good for the company in the long term either. I'm kind of thinking that the "dibs"/non-compete length should be somehow related to how much the company actually invested in you - eg. if it took you x amount of time to get up to speed and perhaps some other person was not doing what they usually do for y amount of time, then these might factor into how long you should be expected at minimum to stay there. I'm just not sure if having this sort of restrictions is overall a positive because if the atmosphere gets poisoned/resentful or whatever due to someone feeling trapped, that could be really bad in long term for the company.
This sounds a lot like a Contract. My company has what they call "At will employment". They say it means they can fire me, and I can quit, at any time.
But if they wanted to ensure that I don't get valuable on the job training and then leave, a contract seems like the way to ensure that. (I am a programmer, not a lawyer, so there may be a better term for "employment contract".)
A contract has the benefit of not being as hidden/shady. If I don't want to get locked in, I can just not take the job.
Hidden non-poaching agreements are evil. And when done by several large companies, bring down the wage of the whole industry.
Having something like a 2 year work contract when you get hired is going to make the job less desirable to candidates. But that is the trade-off if you can't keep your employees at market level of pay and work environment.
I think it is funny that you have to have Safari to watch the announcement.
It strikes me as a bit conceited. It feels like they are saying, "We are so awesome that you will go download our browser just to see our awesomeness."
When actually they just passed up an opportunity for them to get in some free advertising on me (a person who is looking to buy a new phone soon).
UPDATE: Looks like you have to have an Apple device/OS too. Lame.