Slashdot Log In
How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:34 AM
from the this-dept-line-for-rent dept.
from the this-dept-line-for-rent dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Wired has a look at how the good and bad of Apple, their Yin and Yang, have come together to form a company that actually works. The piece looks at Steve Jobs' unusual and abrasive management style, otherwise known as 'Management Techniques From the Dark Side'. It's essentially a list of counterintuitive, suspicious-seeming and downright evil management techniques that work - for them."
Related Stories
Submission: How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What a silly article (Score:5, Insightful)
The author tries to come up with ways that Apple is evil, but really winds up taking jabs primarily at Steve Jobs. As a newfound mac user, I don't give a crap about Jobs, I care about using a computer that matches my needs and does what I want. For me that's Mac. And for most of the other 6-7% of the Mac marketshare it's a pretty similar situation.
Re:What a silly article (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite bit from skimming it: "even WIRED got it wrong" (referring to telling Apple to get out of the hardware business).
This from the magazine whose cover story was "The Long Boom" the month that the internet bubble burst.
Wired hardly ever gets anything right (not entirely its fault, since it makes lots of predictions), but still.
Parent
Re:What a silly article (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes and no: Apple is more a hardware packager than maker, since it now just takes utterly standard components and puts them together. At one point it used unusual chips, had its own peripheral standard, etc., so Apple has taken many of the suggestions from others and conformed itself more to standard PCs.
In addition, it's not clear whether Apple would be even more successful if it licensed its operating system to other companies willing to make less expensive boxes.
Parent
Re:What a silly article - Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Interesting)
I also noticed that the people bitching about Jobs were "former" employees. Well holy shit...someone who left or was fired is going to bitch about their former boss for some media facetime? This is a 5 page article?!
And maybe I didn't read enough, but "micromanaging" has nothing to do with demanding exacting detail from the output. Anyone who calls that micromanaging has NEVER been micromanaged and its an insult to anyone who has suffered through a real micromanaging boss.
Parent
Re:What a silly article - Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite possibly the reason only former employees ever comment is because the current ones are terrified of their boss.
Parent
Re:What a silly article - Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
completely ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
The author seems blissfully unaware of Apple's free software use. GCC, Darwin, Khtml and what not punch a few large holes in their central thesis.
Parent
Re:completely ignorant (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:completely ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
KHTML, Cups, etc all fall into that category. While Apple routinely publishes it's open source code back as it is required under the GPL, the software that is BSD based doesn't get published as often. Where is the Darwin version for the iPhone? If it really is running a custom version of OSX then it exists, but you will never see it.
Parent
Re:completely ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
People said the exact same thing about the Intel version of Darwin, yet they did release the Intel versions of Darwin!
Parent
Re:completely ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem blissfully unaware that the BSD gave them this right in the first place, and you should be so lucky to see them repost any of their work at all. The fact is, it works out better for Apple to submit patches because that's one less thing they have to keep track of inside of their own infrastructure. In a sense, they're becoming a software company that's modeled around how most major Linux distributions work today; take from the community, put a tiny spin on it, push it as their own. Anything to lessen their workload and let them put their effort on fixing their own self-made software.
This is why Apple submits to the LGPL and the GPL where applicable. It works very well for them because it's one less thing for them to have to worry about. Webkit would be KHTML: Qt-specific half-legible C++, unusable squaller to the greater community which now includes Google, Nokia, and several smaller software companies working on reintegrating it with GTK+ and Qt.
Microsoft also has taken a ton of code from the BSD community, including their original TCP/IP stack. Do you think you'll ever see Microsoft release any of that code? And furthermore, why do you care so much? They've got their own reasons for keeping their code closed (bug fixing, internal documentation, huge gaping unimplemented sections, etc.), they don't particularly care about anything else at this time.
They could do this very same thing with Linux if they wanted to, it would just have taken them much, much longer to get to market. Apple's playing book says "Get to market now, fix the bugs later." Whether or not you subscribe to the "with enough eyes, all bugs become shallow" law of software development, having thousands of developers come in and start asking hundreds of thousands of questions affects their ability to just Write The Damned Code.
Parent
Re:completely ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is supposed to count against Apple... how, exactly?
If the authors of the BSD-licensed software used in Apple products were that concerned about getting every single bit of code contributed back by everyone who touches their software, then -- guess what? -- they would have licensed that code under the GPL instead. They are not only meeting, but actually surpassing, their pseudo-contractual obligations for use of the code.
I'd say the fact that Apple continues to contribute anything back to these projects speaks well of them. Not that the company doesn't have its own faults, of course, but let's give credit where credit is due...
Parent
Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to call that "Evil" I suppose you can. I think, however, that design by committee only produces piles of steaming crap. There is definitely something to be said for a guy who has vision, and the force of personality to see it through.
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
But again, this sequence does nothing for proving that this success is due to Jobs' aggressive, dictatorial style. It is equally plausible that Jobs made some small positive change such has hiring some bright engineers upon his arrival. Or maybe made a decision that all products should be sleek and devoid of buttons and sharp edges and come in pretty colors. Either of those decisions could account for their success, both could be effective despite micromanagement or abusive management. One could argue that you should imagine how much better the products from these people would have been had Jobs had a different attitude. That, as the original respondent said, apple is succeeding despite Jobs.
I have worked for aggressive, dictatorial people before. I am fully convinced that, while they might be able to establish a stable of employees with parental-appeasement issues that work hard and produce to gain the appreciation of an authority figure, there is nothing that will be produced that couldn't be with a fair, comfortable management environment.
Should Jobs get the praise for whatever decision he made that did make apple a success? Of course. Should his management style be adopted by others? No. Not until it's proven that it was the reason for success. I don't believe that proof has been provided and there are far too many other companies such as Google that demonstrate that success is not tied to an abusive management style and thus provide a counter-example sufficient to suggest looking towards other reasons for apple's success.
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love Apple design. But that delicious, creamy center is wrapped up in all the corporate avarice, control-mongering (DRM, lawsuits etc), and nastiness that the contemporary corporation is capable of. I think that they are actually worse than Microsoft in this regard.
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, pretty is a part of it, but "because shit just works" is a far greater part of the equation for most people, in my experience.
And to whom do people turn, when they're considering getting a new computer and they want to know which particular brand of shit just works the best? The same kind people who switched to Macs in droves a few years back, solely because of OS X. Such solicited recommendations have been the driving force behind Mac sales among most of my friends.
Parent
Re:What a silly article (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the author missed a lot. Was pretty far off base in a lot of areas. I have mainly worked large corporations and *none* had anything resembling worker empowerment..
Take this phrase from the article:
"Apple's successes in the years since Jobs' return -- iMac, iPod, iPhone -- suggest an alternate vision to the worker-is-always-right school of management. In Cupertino, innovation doesn't come from coddling employees and collecting whatever froth rises to the surface; it is the product of an intense, hard-fought process, where people's feelings are irrelevant."
Umm.. I have yet to work anywhere where even technical merits win hard-fought processes.
And I have never seen the worker-is-always-right attitude *anywhere*. If you have technically literate management, you *might* get a chance to pitch your side. Mostly not though. Then you run it by 10, or more, people whom all have the ability to veto, but not approve, your proposal.
I would hazard a guess that large corporations tend towards "worker as cogs" as an overall style. Look at the number of people the last few years that have received notices that their jobs were going to India in 4 weeks. Not exactly worker as individual talent there, ya know. Some try to buck the trend, but they are the exception, not the rule. Smaller companies use different styles. Another line form the article said "More than anywhere else I've worked before or since, there's a lot of concern about being fired". Shoot, the author needs to get out more. A lot of larger corporations will lay off entire departments or outsource them. At least at Apple, the implication seems to be that doing a good job means you keep your job. Many people these days are working under far greater concern of being fired and there is no productivity or metrics for them to meet to change that outcome.
Jobs is good at what he does. He spots future development and goes for it. That isn't a management skill. That talent at the level of a CEO would work under most management styles. And, his vision works because he does not have anyone to veto his proposals. You stick Jobs 2-3 management layers down in any large corporation and you would have all the problems of dealing with someone with his management style, but most of his ideas would be shot down by people who either did not like him, or his ideas.
Basically.. "Jobs is Jobs. You aren't." should be the lessons here. He's a CEO. You aren't.
Parent
Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think (Score:5, Interesting)
Another company that used to work that way was Palm. Their flagship pilot was built to be something that the CEO would to carry around with him. There is a well-known story about him getting a block of wood cut which would fit in his jacket pocket and giving it to the designers as a maximum size for the device.
Parent
Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think (Score:5, Insightful)
*nod* Most good software I've ever seen was designed to solve the specific needs of a very few people, often needs the software author h(im/er)self had. I think the focus group method is practically guaranteed to lead to mediocre or poor designs. There is nothing specific it's really trying to do, and it's hard to get enthusiastic over something and do a really good job on it when no individual seems all that excited over it.
Parent
Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a step back and try to understand what you just said.
Why is this true? I would suggest that the software is good because both the developer and the customer are the same person. There is no need to argue or communicate because you are the same person in both roles.
I would say poor requirements engineering will lead to poor designs; you cannot design something for which you don't completely understand. To make things worst, most customers do not understand engineering and sometimes they may not even know exactly what it is they want. But they will insist that they need something to solve their problem.
It is practically impossible to get the requirements right the first time. I have found that the only way to remain on track is to continuously verify the resulting implementation against the customers. But this is an expensive process and everyone has been trying to find ways to make this process cheaper or use alternative methods. Apple it seems has an expert customer who happens to also be the CEO. Therefore verifying the design and implementation is actually fairly cheap (or required) for them.
Parent
Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What a silly article (Score:5, Funny)
Partnering with Microsoft is the kiss of death. Period. Microsoft will do legal & illegal things to fuck you, and then worry about the consequences later.
Apple doesn't do this; so even though Apple is a brutish sort of company, they're easier to do business with. Lawful Evil > Chaotic Evil
Parent
Its not hard - most managers are tools (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its not hard - most managers are tools (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! I resent that. And I can prove it's not true. I've got a 70-page presentation that I'd like to share. I'll read through every single slide and, to keep you interested, it's got all kinds of text that flies in from the left and fades out and
Parent
He needs to get towed a few times. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs needs to make a few trips to the impound lot to bail out his car. He would probably create his own reserved parking place, but at least that would put an end to the myth of the egalitarian parking lot policy.
Re:He needs to get towed a few times. (Score:5, Insightful)
To Steve Jobs, the hundred dollar fine he'd pay here for parking in a handicapped spot is akin to my putting a quarter in a parking meter. Chump change not worth worrying about.
Fines should be based on net worth, or at least income. Since they're not, the richer you are the less the law applies to you.
Parent
Re:He needs to get towed a few times. (Score:5, Funny)
Could be worse. When I first read that statement, I misread it as "I _own_ a mortgage company". Which is WAY worse nowadays.
Parent
Re:He needs to get towed a few times. (Score:5, Informative)
He can indeed park in the front entrance, on the sidewalk, or on the front lawn. But, he can't park in a handicapped space unless he is handicapped. That's the law.
The law also requires a certain number of handicapped spaces. The formula varies by state -- maybe someone knows the details of CA law, as it would apply to Apple. So, Jobs couldn't just convert a handicapped space to his personal parking space, unless they are currently exceeding the requirements of the law.
Parent
Re:He needs to get towed a few times. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
They Be The Opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
With that said, Apple helps keep Microsoft out of even more legal hot water, for example, by directly backing Apple. It's a CYA tactic on the legal front.
Bottom line: Don't just drink the Kool-Aid on the Apple story without taking 1-2 steps back to look at the marketplace, cultures, and end users.
Re:They Be The Opposite (Score:5, Funny)
Apple has pulled their share of disasters as well, but when you look at Apple's competition, their products are often mind-numbingly BAD. VISTA? Earlier online music purchasing systems? Dell and Gateway computers?
Apple isn't all that great, it's just that the competition sucks. I mean when the Asus eee-pc is the most encouraging thing you've seen come to the tech table in awhile...
Parent
Evil Works (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point in allowing many different people to tackle a problem is to eliminate single-point-of-failure. If one company's product blows, we can choose another's. This is very important, both to the consumer, and to the market as a whole.
But when one company is the best at what they do, people stop thinking about choice. If apple makes the best mp3player/music store, why go anywhere else? If their operating system is so good, who cares if it only runs on their hardware... as long as their hardware is great, too?
Unfortunately, even evil geniuses sometimes fail. For instance, the iPhone SDK... I honestly don't see that going anywhere, unless the current license agreement is modified to something less draconian.
Re:Evil Works (Score:5, Insightful)
that it can work for anyone else. It also may not work for any other
company. It happens to work for Jobs and Apple (apparently).
On a similar note, there are plenty of people that are "google wannabes".
They will pick up on something they've heard about Google's management
style. They will try to implement it and be full of themselves. It ends
up being a big fiasco of course because such people are just kidding
themselves. They don't have the talent to be managers at Google or
Apple.
Parent
Re:Evil Works (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, Wired is trying to make Steve Jobs' business management methods into something that can work for everybody, which is complete and utter idiocy. If they'd have any experience with business management, they'd know that. What we have here is a person who is good enough with product development, deal making and personal leadership that he can overcome his absolutely craptastic management skills. Jobs is not a manager, he is a dictator. Just because he is a good one doesn't mean that you become good by emulating him. You need the rest of his skills as well.
I also agree that what works for Google is unlikely to work across the board for others. You create management strategies around the people you have. If you can't do that, you need to hire people who fit your management style. But you cannot impose management strategies on people who don't respond to those strategies. That's just a disaster in the making.
Parent
Better Link (IMHO) (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple?currentPage=all [wired.com]
So much better than flipping, flipping, flipping through pages and waiting for reloads. It's the print version, so you can use it that way too -- long article so print and read offline.
* = Assumes you plan on actually reading the article.
Differences with Google are oversold (Score:5, Insightful)
To be a large, public, consumer company you have to keep some things secret for a variety of reasons. You don't want to telegraph strategy to your competitors. You want to release things with a splash to earn unpaid media coverage. You don't want to be held legally liable for stock price movements based on R&D projects that might never get released. etc.
Apple is very closed and secretive about some things, but quite open about others. Like Google their core OS kernel is open source. Like Google they employ commonly available technologies--http, MP3, H264, AAC, Unix, USB, ATA, 802.11, etc.--but put them together in unique ways to create new products.
Leadership, not totalitarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of Apple, nor of Mr. Jobs, but he has some serious leadership skills. The fact that he's also a dick is not a factor in his success. Apparently his leadership can outshine his dickishness.
Fortunately Mr. Jobs decided to start a computer company instead of a religious cult in Guyana. Who knows what Jim Jones' "Kool-Ade OS" might have been like had he chosen a different path.
Been there (Score:5, Interesting)
charlie and the chocolate factory (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is in the console business (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't compare Apple with Dell. Compare it with Sony or Nintendo. Those companies are equally closed and secretive. Akio Morita (1921-1999) was Sony's founder and the equivalent of Steve Jobs. Sony hasn't been doing too well since Morita died.
funny thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs' management style (Score:5, Insightful)
For some this approach is extremely effective. For others is intolerable.
What kind of research did they do? (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon's DRM-free downloads started last September.
Apple's DRM-free downloads started last April.
Did the author of this piece do ANY research?
Re:Handicapped (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Handicapped (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Handicapped (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Success isn't deterministic (Score:5, Insightful)
the iPod is not their saviour product. The problem is very few people get exposed to the Apple line. I recently let a big customer borrow my apple TV for a week. He's a huge Microsoft fan and has Media center PC's in every room.
When I went to his house yesterday to install a new 58" set in his bedroom and asked if I can pick up my apple Tv he said. "How many of those do you have in stock?" He is buying 12 of them for his home replacing the media center PC's as the appleTv product kicks the ever living crap out of windows Media center.
The fact you can "rent" a HD movie for $4.99 was his biggest love of the device. His wife loves that she can "buy" lost right away as well.
If Apple had more exposure to people so they can actually TRY their stuff, they would kill Microsoft and everyone else overnight.
Problem is, Apple doesnt have a "try it for a week for free" program, and your experience at the apple store is sanitized at best.
Parent