[crack-the-code]

Does that mean that he was effectively fired? I can't help but think there must be some additional context as to why he was terminated and not transitioned to another role (assuming my understanding of the situation is correct). Is Apple really doing that bad?

[microtherion]

It seems very unlikely to me that this was anything personal or age related. However, Sal was highly identified with his role. He's an absolutely awesome guy who lives and breathes user automation every waking minute. Personally, I'd find it hard to imagine him in a different role, and maybe Apple mgt was suffering from a similar failure in imagination — or maybe Sal himself just wasn't interested in a different role.

[jomohn]

maybe he automated his own position

[rhizome]

My understanding is that Apple rarely "fires" people. It was explained to me that they merely suggest it's time to move on. Repeatedly.

[kasey_junk]

Why would you think that? It's relatively uncommon for companies to transition employees when they decide to remove whole business functions.

[serf]

Apple famously renames positions in order to 'softly' get rid of an employee. That's why I would personally think along similar lines.

[microtherion]

"famously"? Could you name a few cases? I've heard of this practice in other companies, but never at Apple.

[maxxxxx]

It seems stupid that they just throw away talented people. And then they pay millions for talented people through buying startups.

[rhizome]

Penny-wise and pound-foolish perhaps, but Apple absolutely doesn't have a cash flow problem that would get in the way of any flavor of these decisions.

[addicted]

Well, buying failing startups because of their engineers also helps pad exec investments in those startups.

Keeping an employee does not.

[Naritai]

Rarely if ever are the laid-off people talented in the same area that those who are acquihired are.

[mgkimsal]

people have different talents and skills that are valued differently over time.