Apple Announces Rare Wave of Job Cuts

Apple has laid off about 100 employees in its services group (source may be paywalled; alternative source), primarily affecting roles associated with the Apple Books app and Apple Bookstore. The San Francisco Chronicle reports: The impacted employees at the Cupertino-based tech giant were informed of the cuts on Tuesday, Bloomberg reported (paywalled). The layoffs spanned various teams under Senior Vice President Eddy Cue. The job cuts include roles primarily associated with the Apple Books app and Apple Bookstore, with the company shifting its focus to other divisions. Additionally, other services teams, such as the one managing Apple News, also experienced layoffs.

While Apple has largely avoided mass layoffs even as other major tech companies have downsized, it did lay off 614 employees in Santa Clara earlier this year. Those cuts marked Apple's first significant job reductions since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and coincided with the cancellation of its decade-long electric car project.

Re:

[omnichad]

Either you just got laid off by Apple, or you severely overestimate the popularity, quality, and competitiveness of the Apple Bookstore.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Now why would Apple want to make it harder for people to read? Can't tolerate a few people way over on the far end of the building promoting literacy on the iPhone, huh? Not enough mindless bullshit game apps?

After all you only have $3.5 trillion with $162 billion in cash. Gotta save those nickels and dimes you know.

Nice touch finding a way to destroy 100 people's lives at the same time for no reason.

Because after Amazon's attack on Apple Books, it's just never made any sense to keep it going? Heck, I'm sur

Re:

[forgotten_my_nick]

> Now why would Apple want to make it harder for people to read?

It's 100 people in 161,000. That's not a wave.

> Nice touch finding a way to destroy 100 people's lives at the same time for no reason.

How do you know that? Did they become unemployable? What were their roles? Did they get severance? Maybe they took the payout rather than moving to another department.

It's not good to rage until you have all the details.

Re:

[RUs1729]

I am guessing that it is easier to use the salaries of those people to cover the bonuses for the top echelons than tapping their cash reserves.

Not much

[Geoffrey.landis]

A hundred layoffs at a company employing 161,000 people doesn't seem like very much.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/

Re:

[Registered Coward v2]

A hundred layoffs at a company employing 161,000 people doesn't seem like very much.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/

Exactly, and depending on their skill set they could easily be absorbed I open slots within Apple.

Re:

[timeOday]

I was wondering about that too. "Layoffs" implies they're not just transferring everybody elsewhere within the company, but I suppose we'll never know how many do end up finding another job instead of separating.

Re: Not much

[rayzat]

I don't know about Apple but you might be surprised how many companies have a don't hire laid off individuals.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

A hundred layoffs at a company employing 161,000 people doesn't seem like very much.

Yeah.. the real-world impact of it ain't why this site's covering it. ;)

Re:

[Tablizer]

And can't they just reassign them in such a big org? That way you don't make headlines, and it improves morale. Seems a pedantic move. Natural attrition would reduce total headcount by same amount in a few weeks anyhow.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

And can't they just reassign them in such a big org? That way you don't make headlines, and it improves morale. Seems a pedantic move. Natural attrition would reduce total headcount by same amount in a few weeks anyhow

Maybe those are the people who didn't take the re-assignment offer. It's likely a lot of people were simply moved around - others might have decided that it would be a right time to move and do something else, so instead of being reassigned they take the offer and leave.

Lots of reasons why peo

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

What exactly do you mean by "reassign"? It's not like Apple can just put them (against their will) in a completely different job than the one they got hired for. They can apply for a different job within Apple, if they want.

Re: Not much

[spinitch]

100 is relatively very little at Apple. Less than attrition. There were likely other write offs involved so gets a notice. Expect the ones with transferable abilities did. Some might have opted for voluntary severance and others bummed out needing a new income. Apple still a good brand on the resume.

Wait, what?

[Shag]

Wait, Apple Bookstore is still a thing?

After United States v. Apple [wikipedia.org] all the way back in 2012, I thought it had died. Did Apple just never mention it again, or something?

Or did we wind up in a different timeline somehow?

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

Ahh yes, back when the US defended a monopoly against evil Apple. Good times.

Let me guess

[Sebby]

Appl Still coping everyone else....

You're using an Apple laptop with butterfly keyboard, right?

The announcment started off ...

[fahrbot-bot]

"Dear future former Apple employees, We're holding onto your jobs wrong ..."

:-)

Must be AI

[Tony Isaac]

I mean, aren't all job cuts caused by AI adoption?

One has to wonder

[Snotnose]

If Apple has been transferring people to this unit for the last 6-12 months? Seems strange a company of Apple's size and reputation would can 100 otherwise employable folks, and it's easier to lay off an entire group for Reasons than it is to let someone go for Reasons.

Re:

[guruevi]

Or perhaps it is easier to lay folks that aren't performing well off. Every year, assemble problematic employees into a new unit, close it down, a lot easier than dealing with the lawsuits that your manager was mean to you.

Wow

[Plumpaquatsch]

Other tech companies have to fire a hundred times as much employees for their stock price to go up 1.29%! OTOH they do that more often.

It is called RECESSION

[khchung]

Yes, the R word that the media keeps avoiding because of the coming election.

Let's just call a spade a spade. In a recession, companies layoff their staff even though they just made huge profits because they expect lean times ahead.

You can argue the why and how of the recession, but acceptance is the first step to properly deal with it.

Re:It is called RECESSION

[tlhIngan]

Yes, the R word that the media keeps avoiding because of the coming election.

Let's just call a spade a spade. In a recession, companies layoff their staff even though they just made huge profits because they expect lean times ahead.

You can argue the why and how of the recession, but acceptance is the first step to properly deal with it.

Because there IS no recession. Companies are desperately wanting one but it's not happening. All the indicators of a recession are absent - the economy is still overheated. Inflation's only starting to come down and even it's being problematic to do anything about.

Everyone's been talking about recession for 18 months now, and it's yet to rear its ugly head. Of course, the layoffs are likely what's cooling the economy but it's not from a recession.