4 ms·

Why is apple considered a company with 'limited' engineering capacity while they're are one of the most profitable, largest companies in the entire world? And

by elai 17y ago

Why is apple considered a company with 'limited' engineering capacity while they're are one of the most profitable, largest companies in the entire world? And they don't even do the 'hard expensive stuff' that's capital intensive like semiconductor fabrication? Microsoft and Apple have a market cap ratio of just 1.5, yet microsoft engineers a significant greater amount of products and projects, and owns a very large percentage of the PC market.

boucher 17y ago
Because Apple has about 10,000 non-retail employees, while Microsoft has about 90,000.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- berntb 17y ago
  Wow, I hadn't really thought about this... vertigo. 10K people designs and builds both hardware and software which the 90K people software company needs to copy -- for decades?! There are some explaining factors, of course. The 90K company has a monopoly strategy, so they need to build their O/S so complex that it will be hard/impossible for competitors to make a bug-compatible implementation. But I still get dizzy. Edit: This went down fast. :-) Down vote if you think it is low quality/unsuitable -- but please add some argument why this isn't a really surprising case? Are there examples in other industries? Edit 2: Yes, Microsoft does make some applications that Apple doesn't. There should be at most 5000-7000 people at Apple doing software? Do Yahoo's search (and other Bing competitors) have 20K people... each? Hardly. (And isn't it extra shocking that Microsoft copies, despite having Microsoft Research?)
  - sp332 17y ago
    Apple doesn't make office suites. The Me service isn't as big as Live. Apple doesn't have a search engine. Apple isn't trying to build computing clusters large enough to break into the Top100. Apple doesn't have an equivalent to Microsoft Research. Apple doesn't have a gaming platform. I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.
    - rimantas 17y ago
      Apple does have iWork (yep, far cry from MS Office, but nonetheless… and good enough for me). There is also iLife, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, Aperture. Mobile Me may be not as big as Live, but ITMS takes some effort to run I suppose.
      - sp332 17y ago
        Man, I totally blanked on iWork.
    - berntb 17y ago
      If I were a troll (or just trying to be funny), I would have had noted that Microsoft didn't have people to develop IE for years... (And yes yes, I know that was to slow the moving of functionality to the net.) As it is, I can't really see why there is a need for tens of thousands of software people? But then, I don't know much about leveraging a monopoly into other areas.
billjings 17y ago
I think that you are underestimating the ongoing cost of complexity in a product line. Apple only works to support a limited amount of hardware. This simplifies: - OS development - Hardware development - Hardware design - Software support, hardware support - Marketing - Sales Adding an extra product to the product line complicates all of the above, on top of whatever it costs you in engineering to build it. It's certainly possible that Apple's just wrong, that they are better off making a killer cheapo Mini Macbook than sinking their resources into a tablet, or whatever it is they are concerned with. Every company has limited resources, though, and no company is served well by throwing those resources around indiscriminately.
ahoyhere 17y ago
Because the number of people who can work up to their standards are necessarily limited, and it obviously takes a long time to engineer the things they do make happen. Ergo, Apple has limited engineering capacity -- for additional projects. I also wouldn't call their engineering "not the 'hard expensive stuff'" -- think about what it took to create the unibody shell. They had to create the manufacturing process for it. They pretty much never make the cheap, easy choice. The plastic for the original iMacs had never been used before in that type of application/volume, etc., etc.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  It would be interesting to know how much of that innovation comes from Apple and how much comes from their manufacturing partners who actually make all their products.
  - pchristensen 17y ago
    If it wasn't for Apple's giant check-writing machine, their manufacturing partners wouldn't be coming up with those solutions.
    - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
      True, but hiring a 3rd party firm to innovate something is distinctly different from doing it in-house.
      - ahoyhere 17y ago
        Is it really? Do you think those firms would be doing it without Apple's insistence, assistance, & guidance (not considering their money)? Did it look like anyone else was working on manufacturing processes like Apple is? If you compare Apple's computers & devices to those of every one of their competitors, you'll see that it's not just a matter of Apple's check-writing abilities. HP, Dell, Sony, Creative, Google, Microsoft, Palm, etc., are all just as capable of writing huge checks as Apple. But their hardware doesn't compare in style, design, quality & fit and finish. They have seams, chunks, feel cheap, have poor tactile experiences with the moving/sliding/closing pieces, etc., etc., etc.[1] I don't think Apple's manufacturer partners are doing it all on their own. It's gotta be more than check-writing. Or, all those other companies are still so stupid they don't realize what game they're playing. [1] (They may win in terms of specs, but that's not what I'm talking about.)

by elai 17y ago

boucher 17y ago

Because Apple has about 10,000 non-retail employees, while Microsoft has about 90,000.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
berntb 17y ago
Wow, I hadn't really thought about this... vertigo. 10K people designs and builds both hardware and software which the 90K people software company needs to copy -- for decades?! There are some explaining factors, of course. The 90K company has a monopoly strategy, so they need to build their O/S so complex that it will be hard/impossible for competitors to make a bug-compatible implementation. But I still get dizzy. Edit: This went down fast. :-) Down vote if you think it is low quality/unsuitable -- but please add some argument why this isn't a really surprising case? Are there examples in other industries? Edit 2: Yes, Microsoft does make some applications that Apple doesn't. There should be at most 5000-7000 people at Apple doing software? Do Yahoo's search (and other Bing competitors) have 20K people... each? Hardly. (And isn't it extra shocking that Microsoft copies, despite having Microsoft Research?)
- sp332 17y ago
  Apple doesn't make office suites. The Me service isn't as big as Live. Apple doesn't have a search engine. Apple isn't trying to build computing clusters large enough to break into the Top100. Apple doesn't have an equivalent to Microsoft Research. Apple doesn't have a gaming platform. I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.
  - rimantas 17y ago
    Apple does have iWork (yep, far cry from MS Office, but nonetheless… and good enough for me). There is also iLife, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, Aperture. Mobile Me may be not as big as Live, but ITMS takes some effort to run I suppose.
    - sp332 17y ago
      Man, I totally blanked on iWork.
  - berntb 17y ago
    If I were a troll (or just trying to be funny), I would have had noted that Microsoft didn't have people to develop IE for years... (And yes yes, I know that was to slow the moving of functionality to the net.) As it is, I can't really see why there is a need for tens of thousands of software people? But then, I don't know much about leveraging a monopoly into other areas.

billjings 17y ago

I think that you are underestimating the ongoing cost of complexity in a product line. Apple only works to support a limited amount of hardware. This simplifies: - OS development - Hardware development - Hardware design - Software support, hardware support - Marketing - Sales Adding an extra product to the product line complicates all of the above, on top of whatever it costs you in engineering to build it. It's certainly possible that Apple's just wrong, that they are better off making a killer cheapo Mini Macbook than sinking their resources into a tablet, or whatever it is they are concerned with. Every company has limited resources, though, and no company is served well by throwing those resources around indiscriminately.

ahoyhere 17y ago

Because the number of people who can work up to their standards are necessarily limited, and it obviously takes a long time to engineer the things they do make happen. Ergo, Apple has limited engineering capacity -- for additional projects. I also wouldn't call their engineering "not the 'hard expensive stuff'" -- think about what it took to create the unibody shell. They had to create the manufacturing process for it. They pretty much never make the cheap, easy choice. The plastic for the original iMacs had never been used before in that type of application/volume, etc., etc.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
It would be interesting to know how much of that innovation comes from Apple and how much comes from their manufacturing partners who actually make all their products.
- pchristensen 17y ago
  If it wasn't for Apple's giant check-writing machine, their manufacturing partners wouldn't be coming up with those solutions.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    True, but hiring a 3rd party firm to innovate something is distinctly different from doing it in-house.
    - ahoyhere 17y ago
      Is it really? Do you think those firms would be doing it without Apple's insistence, assistance, & guidance (not considering their money)? Did it look like anyone else was working on manufacturing processes like Apple is? If you compare Apple's computers & devices to those of every one of their competitors, you'll see that it's not just a matter of Apple's check-writing abilities. HP, Dell, Sony, Creative, Google, Microsoft, Palm, etc., are all just as capable of writing huge checks as Apple. But their hardware doesn't compare in style, design, quality & fit and finish. They have seams, chunks, feel cheap, have poor tactile experiences with the moving/sliding/closing pieces, etc., etc., etc.[1] I don't think Apple's manufacturer partners are doing it all on their own. It's gotta be more than check-writing. Or, all those other companies are still so stupid they don't realize what game they're playing. [1] (They may win in terms of specs, but that's not what I'm talking about.)