[untitled]
38 comments
Something potentially even worse for GrooveShark is it seems Apple changed how audio is handled in Safari in iOS8.
Web apps in iOS8 that play audio no longer play audio in the background. Once you close Safari audio stops playing.
Also and previous to iOS8 audio playing in Safari would keep the iDevice in a semi-wake stage. This is no longer the case and audio stops playing as the devices sleeps.
We're (speakerblast) hoping this is a bug Apple will fix. I'm sure GrooveShark is too, as I would bet their HTML5 app is a popular destination for their iOS user base.
Web apps in iOS8 that play audio no longer play audio in the background. Once you close Safari audio stops playing.
Also and previous to iOS8 audio playing in Safari would keep the iDevice in a semi-wake stage. This is no longer the case and audio stops playing as the devices sleeps.
We're (speakerblast) hoping this is a bug Apple will fix. I'm sure GrooveShark is too, as I would bet their HTML5 app is a popular destination for their iOS user base.
OT/ My guess is Apple are implementing this to lock down music apps further on their platform. I doubt this bug would be implemented by mistake..
Uggh that really kills innovation and our web app that turns an audience & their devices into a huge stereo system all via a URL.
Why force an audience to download your app when you can just say, "Hey everybody go to speakerblast.com/party and we'll all become a rocking stereo system with our devices."
Our fingers are still crossed this is a bug!
Why force an audience to download your app when you can just say, "Hey everybody go to speakerblast.com/party and we'll all become a rocking stereo system with our devices."
Our fingers are still crossed this is a bug!
It very well could be. For example, they might have discovered a resource leak in Safari (based purely on observation, Safari seems to have more than a couple) and unintentionally blocked these features' method of operation in the process of fixing it.
I've never worked on such a major project or been part of such a large company so I doubt I know what I'm talking about, but wouldn't testing include this part of operation?
Only if this feature is considered critical to Apple's interests.
Major companies don't test that every detail of the product works exactly as it did last version. (Well, except Microsoft pre-Ballmer.) They test that those features that have been deemed strategically important - the ones that will cause substantial portions of the userbase to leave if they're broken, or major PR disasters - continue working. Apple probably doesn't care if Grooveshark and other HTML5 music players stop working entirely. They may not break it intentionally, but if it happens to break accidentally, fixing it is low on the priority list.
Major companies don't test that every detail of the product works exactly as it did last version. (Well, except Microsoft pre-Ballmer.) They test that those features that have been deemed strategically important - the ones that will cause substantial portions of the userbase to leave if they're broken, or major PR disasters - continue working. Apple probably doesn't care if Grooveshark and other HTML5 music players stop working entirely. They may not break it intentionally, but if it happens to break accidentally, fixing it is low on the priority list.
[deleted]
I imagine this is a bug; the feature was only introduced in iOS6 (I think, possibly 5)
That's pretty horrific. Is Chrome on iOS the same?
By Greek culture they mean frat culture, right?
No surprise the company is doomed. They're illegal.
No surprise the company is doomed. They're illegal.
I see a lot of negative reactions to this here and it is understandable. There are swear words and a lot of accusations and it is anonymous. It could be fake. But it is going to be hard to ignore and not respond to. If anything it will force the hand of those he accuses. It forces them to act (lie some more, go on the defense). Launch a hunt. That is probably the intent of the "do something" claim.
Geek culture, if such a thing exists (let's say it does, if anything because it looks and sounds like Greek culture as), and if there is a trait of it one would stereotype (besides the anti-social or other such labels), it would be intolerance of lies. I think this is an outburst against that.
Most accusations revolve around lies:
1) Sam (our fucking CEO) lied about our valuation back around October.
2) Our positive Glassdoor reviews are nearly all fake. -- This interesting because the accusation would imply that not only do some lie, but those in power force others to lie.
3) God help you if you're not drinking with these douchebags, because you're probably next on the chopping block. -- Let's this is true and it also hits below the belt of the stereotypical nerd who possibly remembers being marginalized and excluded all through school by sports jocks, cheerleaders and so.
4) but we do have money for instigating lawsuits that they kindly don't mention to us ever: -- alleged lies again, lack of transparency and communication.
5) I'm working here until I can find a decent job somewhere else where I won't have to sell my soul anymore. -- sounds like it needs to happen very soon.
If this is true or not, whatever you think about, this is still a good list of what "not to do". Especially in a smaller company If anything, stop lying. Stop talking about people behind their backs. If there are cliques or clubs, don't flaunt them and don't encourage them. It is just as easy to have nerd clubs (official or unofficial) ask many women how they probably feel in a largely men dominated company. If something major is going down, make sure to communicate about it, because if it gets found via the grapevine, you'll lose trust. Trust is hard to gain back.
Geek culture, if such a thing exists (let's say it does, if anything because it looks and sounds like Greek culture as), and if there is a trait of it one would stereotype (besides the anti-social or other such labels), it would be intolerance of lies. I think this is an outburst against that.
Most accusations revolve around lies:
1) Sam (our fucking CEO) lied about our valuation back around October.
2) Our positive Glassdoor reviews are nearly all fake. -- This interesting because the accusation would imply that not only do some lie, but those in power force others to lie.
3) God help you if you're not drinking with these douchebags, because you're probably next on the chopping block. -- Let's this is true and it also hits below the belt of the stereotypical nerd who possibly remembers being marginalized and excluded all through school by sports jocks, cheerleaders and so.
4) but we do have money for instigating lawsuits that they kindly don't mention to us ever: -- alleged lies again, lack of transparency and communication.
5) I'm working here until I can find a decent job somewhere else where I won't have to sell my soul anymore. -- sounds like it needs to happen very soon.
If this is true or not, whatever you think about, this is still a good list of what "not to do". Especially in a smaller company If anything, stop lying. Stop talking about people behind their backs. If there are cliques or clubs, don't flaunt them and don't encourage them. It is just as easy to have nerd clubs (official or unofficial) ask many women how they probably feel in a largely men dominated company. If something major is going down, make sure to communicate about it, because if it gets found via the grapevine, you'll lose trust. Trust is hard to gain back.
This reminds me of the rant posted here a few days ago by someone fired from Pivotal. It really reeks of airing your dirty laundry, and makes nobody look bad except yourself.
You know what? If you don't like working there, then quit! If you're an engineer, the job market is heavily weighted in your favor right now. You can find a job.
If things are bad, you have legal recourse that you can employ against the company. Talk to a lawyer. But if you're just upset at "Greek culture" and "that fucking bitch Julia," then sorry -- you don't have any options. Either quit, or shut your mouth and keep working.
If you're still convinced you need to air your dirty laundry, at least attach your name to it so you have some credibility. You basically did, anyway (non-HR non-Greek 40k engineer who doesn't like Julia.) Frankly, these types of anonymous rants are immature, classless and cowardly.
You know what? If you don't like working there, then quit! If you're an engineer, the job market is heavily weighted in your favor right now. You can find a job.
If things are bad, you have legal recourse that you can employ against the company. Talk to a lawyer. But if you're just upset at "Greek culture" and "that fucking bitch Julia," then sorry -- you don't have any options. Either quit, or shut your mouth and keep working.
If you're still convinced you need to air your dirty laundry, at least attach your name to it so you have some credibility. You basically did, anyway (non-HR non-Greek 40k engineer who doesn't like Julia.) Frankly, these types of anonymous rants are immature, classless and cowardly.
The attitude you share always strikes me as a business cover your ass move, implemented as cultism (don't talk to outsiders) and marketed as professionalism.
You make it out like the only acceptable options are "keep job, don't talk" "quit, don't talk", or "sue". Which doesn't really reflect real life, people are not robots. It's just a set of options that minimize risk for the employer by keeping the potential labor pool under-informed unless you have a legally actionable gripe that you can afford both financially and emotionally to pursue legally.
And asking for them to reveal their identity is just a way to attach a reputation to them. That way the job market can punish them for breaking an unwritten rule against attaching a reputation to a company.
You make it out like the only acceptable options are "keep job, don't talk" "quit, don't talk", or "sue". Which doesn't really reflect real life, people are not robots. It's just a set of options that minimize risk for the employer by keeping the potential labor pool under-informed unless you have a legally actionable gripe that you can afford both financially and emotionally to pursue legally.
And asking for them to reveal their identity is just a way to attach a reputation to them. That way the job market can punish them for breaking an unwritten rule against attaching a reputation to a company.
I completely disagree with this sentiment. People should know, and outing company policy like this CAN AFFECT CHANGE. Right NSA?
"Just quit!" is crap when you've invested yourself in something, when it hurts to see something you've been a part of destroyed by unthinking executive children.
No.. I think you are outright and absolutely wrong.
"Just quit!" is crap when you've invested yourself in something, when it hurts to see something you've been a part of destroyed by unthinking executive children.
No.. I think you are outright and absolutely wrong.
Yes, potential employees should know about bad culture. But this type of viscerally aggressive, anonymous complaint is completely unverifiable and by its very nature lacks any credibility. Yet the mob of public opinion will latch onto it as truth and Grooveshark (and by extension, its remaining employees) will suffer because of it.
This is exactly the type of situation that libel laws are meant to deter. Grooveshark suffers disproportionately from claims like this, because they will bear the brunt of negative public opinion. They are largely defenseless in this situation, because even if the complaint is entirely fabricated, there is little they could say to convince public opinion of that. Libel laws give them a recourse for defending themselves in these situations. Should they find the content of the post untrue or provably disparaging, they can rightfully sue (or more likely, terminate) the employee for posting this.
On the other hand, if these complaints are valid and legally provable, then there is no reason for the poster to remain anonymous. He's already effectively outed himself to Grooveshark, and therefore put himself in the line of fire. But since he's anonymous, he has no protection in the court of public opinion. Ironically, by posting this anonymously, he's actually lost any protection he could derive by attaching his name to it.
My prediction is he will be fired, and have no way of explaining it to future employers other than "I posted an anonymous rant about my employer and they discovered who I was." That's not exactly a good hiring signal.
So by remaining anonymous, he suffers because he loses legal protection, and Grooveshark suffers in the court of public opinion, on the basis of completely unverifiable anonymous accusations. If these accusations are founded (which, by the language in the post, it seems that they are not), then the poster should publicly sue the company for wrongdoing. However, it seems like there wasn't actually any wrongdoing, and this entire post is nothing more than an anonymous rant about a disgruntled employee's opinion. I grant his accusations no credibility, on account of his anonymity and especially his language (again, "that fucking bitch Julia".)
I have no sympathy for this guy. His mudslinging is only making both him and his employer look bad, and instead of being grounded in verifiable fact, it's grounded on baseless accusations and obscene, arguably libelous, language.
Yes, potential employees should be forewarned of bad culture. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about making that warning. This is the wrong way.
This is exactly the type of situation that libel laws are meant to deter. Grooveshark suffers disproportionately from claims like this, because they will bear the brunt of negative public opinion. They are largely defenseless in this situation, because even if the complaint is entirely fabricated, there is little they could say to convince public opinion of that. Libel laws give them a recourse for defending themselves in these situations. Should they find the content of the post untrue or provably disparaging, they can rightfully sue (or more likely, terminate) the employee for posting this.
On the other hand, if these complaints are valid and legally provable, then there is no reason for the poster to remain anonymous. He's already effectively outed himself to Grooveshark, and therefore put himself in the line of fire. But since he's anonymous, he has no protection in the court of public opinion. Ironically, by posting this anonymously, he's actually lost any protection he could derive by attaching his name to it.
My prediction is he will be fired, and have no way of explaining it to future employers other than "I posted an anonymous rant about my employer and they discovered who I was." That's not exactly a good hiring signal.
So by remaining anonymous, he suffers because he loses legal protection, and Grooveshark suffers in the court of public opinion, on the basis of completely unverifiable anonymous accusations. If these accusations are founded (which, by the language in the post, it seems that they are not), then the poster should publicly sue the company for wrongdoing. However, it seems like there wasn't actually any wrongdoing, and this entire post is nothing more than an anonymous rant about a disgruntled employee's opinion. I grant his accusations no credibility, on account of his anonymity and especially his language (again, "that fucking bitch Julia".)
I have no sympathy for this guy. His mudslinging is only making both him and his employer look bad, and instead of being grounded in verifiable fact, it's grounded on baseless accusations and obscene, arguably libelous, language.
Yes, potential employees should be forewarned of bad culture. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about making that warning. This is the wrong way.
> You know what? If you don't like working there, then quit! If you're an engineer, the job market is heavily weighted in your favor right now. You can find a job.
This "if you don't like working there, then quit! You can always find another job." argument is used here often, but I don't think it holds too much water for the average case. Most well-paying companies want to hire only what they call the top 10% of engineers. Go to any advice site for interviews, and they all say, "only hire the best" or some variation. There is a reason this person was working for 40k at a well-known startup. At that salary (assuming it is on par with his peers at Grooveshark), would you still call the job market as being heavily weighted in his favour?
> But if you're just upset at "Greek culture" and "that fucking bitch Julia," then sorry -- you don't have any options. Either quit, or shut your mouth and keep working.
Well no, he/she has a third option -- Get it to a popular site where people who agree with it will upvote it to the top, and spark discussion about how a lot of people may feel likewise.
> Frankly, these types of anonymous rants are immature, classless and cowardly.
Why does being anonymous make it immature or cowardly? This is essentially the same argument that Eric Schmidt makes, "Well, if you didn't want your search history exposed, then maybe you shouldn't have searched for it in the first place"; and is designed to make people "shut your mouth and keep working" -- as you put it.
This "if you don't like working there, then quit! You can always find another job." argument is used here often, but I don't think it holds too much water for the average case. Most well-paying companies want to hire only what they call the top 10% of engineers. Go to any advice site for interviews, and they all say, "only hire the best" or some variation. There is a reason this person was working for 40k at a well-known startup. At that salary (assuming it is on par with his peers at Grooveshark), would you still call the job market as being heavily weighted in his favour?
> But if you're just upset at "Greek culture" and "that fucking bitch Julia," then sorry -- you don't have any options. Either quit, or shut your mouth and keep working.
Well no, he/she has a third option -- Get it to a popular site where people who agree with it will upvote it to the top, and spark discussion about how a lot of people may feel likewise.
> Frankly, these types of anonymous rants are immature, classless and cowardly.
Why does being anonymous make it immature or cowardly? This is essentially the same argument that Eric Schmidt makes, "Well, if you didn't want your search history exposed, then maybe you shouldn't have searched for it in the first place"; and is designed to make people "shut your mouth and keep working" -- as you put it.
> There is a reason this person was working for 40k at a well-known startup.
I wouldn't assume salary has anything to do with skill in a case like this.
1) He mentioned paycuts.
2) Startups frequently snow their employees with promises of phat lewt from stock in lieu of real money.
I wouldn't assume salary has anything to do with skill in a case like this.
1) He mentioned paycuts.
2) Startups frequently snow their employees with promises of phat lewt from stock in lieu of real money.
I do like the idea of employee's naming and shaming company bad practices, if they are founded. If it's baseless slander, such as this, then I think delete/ignore and move on.
The author of this post should back up his/bher claims if s/he wants this to have any fair impact, otherwise s/he just looks like an angry child having a tantrum.
The author of this post should back up his/bher claims if s/he wants this to have any fair impact, otherwise s/he just looks like an angry child having a tantrum.
So you're saying a company that profits from disrespecting artists around the world is troubled?
Disgruntled Grooveshark employee, music industry attempt to smear the company (eg. "Sam was caught red-handed uploading pirated music to his website" and "You know you're working on illegal shit when Dan Rua's in the house.") or made up fantasy of someone with a creative mind.
Whenever there's no proof but words on the internet I lean towards option three every time.
Whenever there's no proof but words on the internet I lean towards option three every time.
>> So bad I figured I should do something.
What is it that you're trying to do, by the way? Warn off potential employees? Warn off potential investors? I can't help but feel this is coming from primarily a place of resentment. I'm not saying it's all made up, but I'd take this with a grain of salt as it's likely biased and perhaps taken out of proper proportion.
What is it that you're trying to do, by the way? Warn off potential employees? Warn off potential investors? I can't help but feel this is coming from primarily a place of resentment. I'm not saying it's all made up, but I'd take this with a grain of salt as it's likely biased and perhaps taken out of proper proportion.
It is absolutely biased, no "likely" about it; but based on my own (non-Grooveshark) related life experience as a developer it rings true enough that Grooveshark is now on the list of places I will "never, ever, ever work for under any circumstances" (not that I was thinking about working there previously).
At least until such a time that they can dispute the rather striking amount of detail given in that post that would be easily disputable if it were untrue (and I'll grant up front that as of now they haven't had enough time to do so).
At least until such a time that they can dispute the rather striking amount of detail given in that post that would be easily disputable if it were untrue (and I'll grant up front that as of now they haven't had enough time to do so).
Yeah, lessee here, doesn't work in HR, makes 40K a year, probably an engineer, not Greek/Frat type of person. I think they'll be able to figure out exactly who this is, and get rid of him rapidly. OTOH, thats probably the best thing that could happen to him so he can start looking for another job.
Its hardly worth the risk to do something like this.
Its hardly worth the risk to do something like this.
To be a fly on the wall to watch the internal witch hunt to find this person. Call out the hounds!
Sadly none of this sounds surprising. Maybe I'm just jaded from years of working for others or maybe I'm noticing more and more of these stories lately. Shame.
Sadly none of this sounds surprising. Maybe I'm just jaded from years of working for others or maybe I'm noticing more and more of these stories lately. Shame.
I'm not really sure what this guy's problem is. Sounds like the company isn't doing well (because their business model calls for getting sued by every music label) and consequently they laid a bunch of people off and he's blaming the company. Ok, that's interesting, I suppose, but why the vitriol? And what did you expect? Grooveshark was being sued by everyone for the last few years. I'm surprised they are still around, truthfully.
Also calling out some middle managers by name just to insult them is unethical. It makes this guy look like a coward and a bully.
>This used to be a really fun environment instead of a corporate hellhole.
This is how things go: when business is going great, the environment is great. When business isn't doing so great, the environment isn't so great. That's just the way things are.
Also calling out some middle managers by name just to insult them is unethical. It makes this guy look like a coward and a bully.
>This used to be a really fun environment instead of a corporate hellhole.
This is how things go: when business is going great, the environment is great. When business isn't doing so great, the environment isn't so great. That's just the way things are.
Sounds like like a bad place to work, but this just seems like dirty laundry, and it's pretty personally nasty in parts... not really something that's HN-worthy.
40k seems very low for an engineer. This could be fake..
im sorry for this guy. Seems like he/she is not enjoying his/her life and can't find a way out.
This so reminds me of the days of fuckedcompany.com, although that was mostly leaked executive emails.
The writer is ignorant on how valuations on startups are done. Current revenue is rarely used.
I met the founder of Grooveshark when they first launched at Techcrunch 50, years ago. I was taken aback by how arrogant he was. He plainly admitted he was launching an obviously illegal service and his reaction was "meh."
Shame this is happening inside a company whose product I actually love. In any case, that rant about the salary--isn't the employee ultimately responsible for whether she or he is well-compensated?
Why is everyone assuming it's actually a Grooveshark employee?
Let this be a lesson to all would be leakers, if you're going to do something like this, do it without probably completely destroying yourself.
It's possible he's changed details in subtle ways so as to avoid "completely destroying himself".
I'm glad as a consumer, because I use Grooveshark semi-regularly and I would be pretty upset to lose my saved playlists and tracks. This makes me worry for their future. I'm certainly now going to migrate that data elsewhere.
I'm glad as someone in tech, because I imagine this employee is not the only disgruntled employee. Especially if they really are astroturfing Glassdoor. To me, that's a really serious red flag and I would definitely not apply to or recommend Grooveshark to anyone I know seeking employment.