TIẾNG ANH CÔ SƯƠNG

Bruce,

Adobe is recruiting from Apple. They have hired one person already and are calling lots more. I have a standing policy with our recruiters that we don’t recruit from Adobe. It seems you have a different policy. One of us must change our policy. Please let me know who.

Steve

On May 26, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Bruce Chizen wrote:

I thought we agreed not to recruit any senior level employees (at Adobe this is Sr. Director/VP and represents about 2% of the population). I am pretty sure your recruiters have approached more junior ones. I would propose we keep it this way. Open to discuss. It would be good to agree.

From: Steve Jobs

Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:27 PM

To: Bruce Chizen

Cc: Steve Jobs

Subject: Re: Recruiting

OK, I’ll tell our recruiters that they are free to approach any Adobe employee who is not a Sr. Director or VP. Am I understanding your position correctly? Steve

Subject: RE: Recruiting

Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 20:53:36 -0700

From: Bruce Chizen

To: Steve Jobs

I’d rather agree NOT to actively solicit any employee from either company. If employee proactively approaches then it’s acceptable. If you are in agreement I will let my folks know.

From: Sergey Brin

Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:06 AM

To: Executive Management Group; Joan Braddi

Subject: Irate call from Steve Jobs

So I got a call from Steve Jobs today who was very agitated. It was about us recruiting from the Safari team. He was sure we were building a browser and were trying to get the Safari team. He made various veiled threats too though i am not inclined to hold them against him too much as he seemed beside himself (as Eric would say).

Anyhow, I told him we were not building a browser and that to my knowledge we were not systematically going after the Safari team in particular. And that we should talk about various opportunities. I also said i would follow up and check on our recruiting strategies wrt Apple and Safari. He seemed soothed.

So I just wanted to check what our status was in various respects and what we want to do about partners/friendly companies and recruiting. On the browser, I know and told him that we have Mozilla people working here… largely on Firefox. I did not mention we may release an enhanced version but I am not sure we are going to yet.

On recruiting I have heard recently of one candidate out of Apple that had browser expertise so I guess he would be on Safari. I mentioned this to Steve and he told me he was cool with us hiring anyone who came to us but was angry about systematic solicitation. I don’t know if there is some systematic safari recruiting effort that we have.

So please update me on what you know here and on what you think we should have as policy. On another note, it seems silly to have both Firefox and Safari. Perhaps there is some unification strategy that we can get these two to pursue. Combined, they certainly have enough market share to drive webmasters.

–Sergey

From: Mark Zuckerberg

Date: Friday, September 18, 2009 9:40am

Our philosophy on perks is that we want to provide services that are utilitarian and help people with things they need in order to help them focus on our long-term goals. Everyone needs to eat. Everyone needs to do laundry. Everyone needs health services. Everyone needs to get to work. If we can make these parts of our lives easier, then it helps us focus on what we’re trying to accomplish at work and it makes us all more productive. We should draw the line at productivity and convenience though. We are not in the practice of providing random perks, colorful bouncy balls or access to luxury cars. Sometimes we make mistakes since we’re all moving quickly, but if you see us doing any of these things you should question openly why we’re wasting our money.

Subject: Please Resign

From: Mark Zuckerberg

To: Facebook staff

Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:44am

Confidential- Do Not Share

Hey everyone, Lots of you saw the TechCrunch story over the weekend claiming that we’re building a mobile phone. We’re not building a phone and I spoke at length at the Q&A on Friday about what we’re actually doing-building ways to make all phones and apps more social.

It is frustrating and destructive that anyone here thought is was okay to say this to anyone outside the company. This was an act of betrayal. The fact that the story was inaccurate doesn’t make it any better. I’ve had to personally spend a lot of time over the last few days-as have a lot of other people-cleaning up the damage from this mess. Even now, we’re in a more precarious position with companies in the mobile space who should be our partners because they now think we’re competitors. They think we’re building a phone to compete with them rather than building integrations to make their phones better.

So I’m asking whoever leaked this to resign immediately. If you believe that it’s ever appropriate to leak internal information, you should leave. If you don’t resign, we will almost certainly find out who you are anyway. We are a company that promotes openness and transparency, both in the world at large and here internally at Facebook. That’s culturally important to us and I’m committed to keeping it. But the cost of an open culture is that we all have to protect the confidential information we share internally. If we don’t, we screw over everyone working their asses off to change the world. And leaks like this make everyone a little less willing to share information more broadly and undermine the culture we’re fighting to build, especially as we grow. I want people to continue to be able to ask difficult questions at our Q&As and have a strong dialog because they’re confident those discussions will be kept within Facebook. Let’s commit to maintaining complete confidentiality about the company-no exceptions. If you can’t handle that, then just leave. We have too much social good to build to have to deal with this. Mark

From: Jeff Huber
Date: Nov 6, 2005

Subject: youtube?

Just curious — have we talked to the YouTube guys about coming here? They’re cranking interesting features a lot faster than we are, but don’t likely have a backend that will scale or plan to make money. We, otoh, have those.
It looks like it’s mostly ex-PayPal guys, and they’re local (Palo Alto):

https://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&sik=1131260109213&keywords=youtube&sortCriteria=3

If we don’t do something w/ them, we do need to do something to seriously rev up our feature rate.

From: Peter Chane

To: Jeff Huber

We haven’t talked to them; last we heard they took $5m from Sequoia and were thinking about a acq with Yahoo. We have all of their features in our q4 plan and almost all of them are already mocked up and ready to go. we’re constrained on Ul/Java development resources. Luckily Nikhil is pitching in to help on some things but we have 1.5 engineers working on UI things and that is slowing us down. i think if we had one more good java/ui engineer we’d be kicking butt vs Youtube.

From: Jeff Huber

To: Peter Chane

Is there any interest in acquiring them? We obviously know Mike Moritz and Roelof Botha reasonably well. Guesstimated price tag would be $10-15M. They’re obviously pretty passionate about the space, and it would be nice for y! not to have them… We’d also get whatever assets & deals they’ve assembled so far.

From: Peter Chane

To: Jeff Huber

i was thinking about pitching it to our M&A group. however i dont really know their talent pool well and their systems wouldn’t be valuable to us. they aren’t doing anything on their site where i say “wow they have some big video brains there.” and their content quality is worse than ours. they seem focused on the home video/community space while we want to be more like itunes/TV and include monetization and higher value content. if we pick them up it would be defensive vs yahoo but there are 20 more sites like this that yahoo could go out and buy. http://www.revver.com is the latest.

From: Jeff Huber

To: Peter Chane

Cc: Susan Wojcicki, Salman Ullah, Sean Dempsey, Jeff Donovan

Except that YouTube is here (Palo Alto), and Revver is farther away (NY). I think we should talk to them, if nothing else to make it more expensive for Yahoo. They’ll also eventually need a monetization/ads model, so should use ours instead of anything from Yahoo (if they don’t go acquisition soon, and we maintain reasonable relations with them).

From: Jeff Huber

Date: Nov 8, 2005 2:58 PM

Subject: Fwd: youtube?

To: Larry Page

A recent thread (below) on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/ ), and potential acquisition. Here’s more info on them:

http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/11/07/youtube_and_the_many_pa ypal fathers.html

-Jeff

From: Larry Page

Date: Nov 8, 2005 3:02 PM

Subject: Fwd: youtube?

To: David Drummond, Megan Smith, Peter Chane, Sergey Brin, Jonathan Rosenberg, Eric Schmidt

I think we should look into acquiring them…note they were recently funded by Mike at Sequoia.

-L