6 ms·

Apple may have finally gotten too big for its unusual corporate structure

15 points by mji 10y ago

jrnichols 10y ago
"If GE can build jet engines, tidal energy farms, freight rail data systems, mining equipment, and medical devices, how is it that the world’s most valuable company can’t find the time to make a full line of personal computers and PC peripherals alongside its market-leading smartphones and tablets? " The answer is simple. It's because they don't want to, and they don't have to. Yet another Vox media article that illustrates how poorly they understand Apple. One of the first things that Steve Jobs did was scale back the number of product that Apple was shipping. There were probably 200 different SKUs for the Performa series alone. It was insane! Instead of asking "Why is Apple discontinuing the Airport series?" maybe we should ask "Why would they keep making them?" The market for SOHO wifi stuff is crowded. Same with the market for monitors. When Apple makes something like that, people cry "what about the third party market? Apple is trying to monopolize things!" yet when Apple says "We're not going to make these things, y'all keep making them" then it's "omg what's wrong with Apple?"
- hga 10y ago
  "[...] how is it that the world’s most valuable company can’t find the time to make a full line of personal computers and PC peripherals alongside its market-leading smartphones and tablets?" The answer is simple. It's because they don't want to, and they don't have to. Errr, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these personal computers the only platform one can, and from a minute with Google, contractually the only platform one is allowed to develop software for their iOS systems? Elsewhere in another current discussion, it was mentioned, in the context of declining iOS quality, that software is a third class citizen at Apple (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13050844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13050844). Which I'll add it typical of hardware companies. The upshot is that even though regularly updating desktop Macs should not be that difficult, objectively speaking, it tends not to happen in part because it’s not anyone’s job to make it happen. The functional organization values collaboration on top corporate priorities above all else, and that means basically everything comes ahead of desktop Macs.... But it does raise the question of whether persisting with functional organization is really compatible with the company’s growth aspirations. Or I say existence, since their fancy hardware requires really serious software, and a healthy 3rd party ecosystem, and we've seen over the decades a number of companies go out of business because they essentially lost their ability to write software that works. That Apple's functional structure, at least according to this article, means there's no people high enough in the corporate structure to make sure of this, well....
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
alaskamiller 10y ago
Apple prior to iPhone was very indeed very different. To demonstrate value in their hardware they kept cobbling together the OS, bought/integrated professional software, and offered a small halo of hardware like printers and monitors to extend utility. Then Steve came back and readjusted the playbook. They settled on the OS, created consumer software, bought iTunes, polished up the pro software, then played with the iPod to double down on the halo, then a push into retail. The headcount was around 15k FTE/5k contractors, I believe that's about how much Steve was capable of managing at the time without tilting. Steve was Castro of his little island. Ask him to manage an empire would be different, he's not IBM. The pre-iPhone strategies and mentalities worked until it didn't. Post-iPhone headcount doubled or tripled all across the board. With pipelines ranging from partners in China and Indonesia to remotes in Sacramento to Texas to Ireland and mini outposts all around the world. This is the type of game that Tim Cook setup and likes to play in. A complicated contracted-out, partnered-up Rudeberg machine that makes it so Apple is forever an ephemeral freshness deliverer. In that sense, it does deserve the question. In a world where the largest cab companies doesn't own any cars, the largest hospitality company doesn't own any hotels, the largest seller doesn't own any inventory... And the largest company doesn't own any factories, instead relying on the tens of thousands of engineers and designers hogging up Cupertino to come up with the specs, designs, and followthrough, why can't they deliver? The culture has changed. The employees priority have changed. From being focused overworked underpaid underdogs trying to resist the dominators, they are now overworked overvalued underpaid distracted dominators. Worried about how better to upgrade their luxury sport cars for racing instead of fixing bugs. The management is also top heavy and aging. The first and second gen approaching my grandma's age that are gonna be lifers, only looking to retire when they get their 30 year letter. They leave little room for the subsequent generations to climb up the ladder. This lock up is gonna play out interestingly in the next five years. Apple is changing.
jsjohnst 10y ago
I'm really getting tired of shoddy "journalists" parroting sound bites which simply aren't true. > but it maxes out at a relatively low level of RAM 16gb isn't "relatively low". Sure, we all want more, but for a mainstream "pro" grade laptop, its inline with the industry standard max. It's also the most memory they can put in the laptop, due to Intel limitations, without significant battery life issues (which they already kinda have using the LPDDDR3 anyway). DDR4 is the only way to get more than 16gb RAM on a Skylake processor and it uses more power. As the TDP was already fairly tight on this machine, that just wasn't possible and still remain within design constraints. Yes, we all (myself included) feel their need to make everything paper thin is an annoyance, but there are other factors at play too (like FAA limits on lithium battery size and the ability to charge over USB-C in a reasonable amount of time). > doesn’t offer many ports I'm tired of this trite point. It has as more expand ability in ports than most other laptops on the market. Yes, you need dongles for now, but just like the death of ADB/PS2/serial:parallel ports, floppy disks, and cdroms, you have to live a short painful period while the rest of the industry catches up. Trust me, within a year at most, you won't be longing for the old ports. And finally for once Apple uses something completely industry standard and non-proprietary and you still all damn them for it! > and isn’t equipped with truly top-of-the-line internal chips The Skylake processor is literally the newest processor chip Apple could use in a quad core machine. Kaby Lake won't have a mobile quad core till 2017. Furthermore, with the problems Intel had with the Skylake when it was first released, I'm glad Apple didn't delay the update for the potential of a processor that may have issues and/or be delayed. There's similar issues on updates to the Xeon processors so I am not the least bit surprised they held off on the Mac Pro. With it being already being long in the update cycle, what's another couple months delay so you can then have the latest and greatest rather than the PR backlash for releasing and then less than a quarter later having a significantly better processor released? Also, show me a laptop line with the same market share that uses a better graphics card, better SSD performance wise, a better screen. Yes, there are numerous examples better in one aspect or another, but none with the market share and/or without other significant trade offs. The real story is that Intel is REALLY dropping the ball on delivering what vocal customers demand. The blame for virtually everything people whine about on the new MBP is solely their fault. I'm fairly certain Apple is expending every resources they can to break away from Intel, but sadly that can't come soon enough!

15 points by mji 10y ago

"If GE can build jet engines, tidal energy farms, freight rail data systems, mining equipment, and medical devices, how is it that the world’s most valuable company can’t find the time to make a full line of personal computers and PC peripherals alongside its market-leading smartphones and tablets? " The answer is simple. It's because they don't want to, and they don't have to. Yet another Vox media article that illustrates how poorly they understand Apple. One of the first things that Steve Jobs did was scale back the number of product that Apple was shipping. There were probably 200 different SKUs for the Performa series alone. It was insane! Instead of asking "Why is Apple discontinuing the Airport series?" maybe we should ask "Why would they keep making them?" The market for SOHO wifi stuff is crowded. Same with the market for monitors. When Apple makes something like that, people cry "what about the third party market? Apple is trying to monopolize things!" yet when Apple says "We're not going to make these things, y'all keep making them" then it's "omg what's wrong with Apple?"

hga 10y ago
"[...] how is it that the world’s most valuable company can’t find the time to make a full line of personal computers and PC peripherals alongside its market-leading smartphones and tablets?" The answer is simple. It's because they don't want to, and they don't have to. Errr, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these personal computers the only platform one can, and from a minute with Google, contractually the only platform one is allowed to develop software for their iOS systems? Elsewhere in another current discussion, it was mentioned, in the context of declining iOS quality, that software is a third class citizen at Apple (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13050844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13050844). Which I'll add it typical of hardware companies. The upshot is that even though regularly updating desktop Macs should not be that difficult, objectively speaking, it tends not to happen in part because it’s not anyone’s job to make it happen. The functional organization values collaboration on top corporate priorities above all else, and that means basically everything comes ahead of desktop Macs.... But it does raise the question of whether persisting with functional organization is really compatible with the company’s growth aspirations. Or I say existence, since their fancy hardware requires really serious software, and a healthy 3rd party ecosystem, and we've seen over the decades a number of companies go out of business because they essentially lost their ability to write software that works. That Apple's functional structure, at least according to this article, means there's no people high enough in the corporate structure to make sure of this, well....

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

alaskamiller 10y ago

Apple prior to iPhone was very indeed very different. To demonstrate value in their hardware they kept cobbling together the OS, bought/integrated professional software, and offered a small halo of hardware like printers and monitors to extend utility. Then Steve came back and readjusted the playbook. They settled on the OS, created consumer software, bought iTunes, polished up the pro software, then played with the iPod to double down on the halo, then a push into retail. The headcount was around 15k FTE/5k contractors, I believe that's about how much Steve was capable of managing at the time without tilting. Steve was Castro of his little island. Ask him to manage an empire would be different, he's not IBM. The pre-iPhone strategies and mentalities worked until it didn't. Post-iPhone headcount doubled or tripled all across the board. With pipelines ranging from partners in China and Indonesia to remotes in Sacramento to Texas to Ireland and mini outposts all around the world. This is the type of game that Tim Cook setup and likes to play in. A complicated contracted-out, partnered-up Rudeberg machine that makes it so Apple is forever an ephemeral freshness deliverer. In that sense, it does deserve the question. In a world where the largest cab companies doesn't own any cars, the largest hospitality company doesn't own any hotels, the largest seller doesn't own any inventory... And the largest company doesn't own any factories, instead relying on the tens of thousands of engineers and designers hogging up Cupertino to come up with the specs, designs, and followthrough, why can't they deliver? The culture has changed. The employees priority have changed. From being focused overworked underpaid underdogs trying to resist the dominators, they are now overworked overvalued underpaid distracted dominators. Worried about how better to upgrade their luxury sport cars for racing instead of fixing bugs. The management is also top heavy and aging. The first and second gen approaching my grandma's age that are gonna be lifers, only looking to retire when they get their 30 year letter. They leave little room for the subsequent generations to climb up the ladder. This lock up is gonna play out interestingly in the next five years. Apple is changing.

jsjohnst 10y ago

I'm really getting tired of shoddy "journalists" parroting sound bites which simply aren't true. > but it maxes out at a relatively low level of RAM 16gb isn't "relatively low". Sure, we all want more, but for a mainstream "pro" grade laptop, its inline with the industry standard max. It's also the most memory they can put in the laptop, due to Intel limitations, without significant battery life issues (which they already kinda have using the LPDDDR3 anyway). DDR4 is the only way to get more than 16gb RAM on a Skylake processor and it uses more power. As the TDP was already fairly tight on this machine, that just wasn't possible and still remain within design constraints. Yes, we all (myself included) feel their need to make everything paper thin is an annoyance, but there are other factors at play too (like FAA limits on lithium battery size and the ability to charge over USB-C in a reasonable amount of time). > doesn’t offer many ports I'm tired of this trite point. It has as more expand ability in ports than most other laptops on the market. Yes, you need dongles for now, but just like the death of ADB/PS2/serial:parallel ports, floppy disks, and cdroms, you have to live a short painful period while the rest of the industry catches up. Trust me, within a year at most, you won't be longing for the old ports. And finally for once Apple uses something completely industry standard and non-proprietary and you still all damn them for it! > and isn’t equipped with truly top-of-the-line internal chips The Skylake processor is literally the newest processor chip Apple could use in a quad core machine. Kaby Lake won't have a mobile quad core till 2017. Furthermore, with the problems Intel had with the Skylake when it was first released, I'm glad Apple didn't delay the update for the potential of a processor that may have issues and/or be delayed. There's similar issues on updates to the Xeon processors so I am not the least bit surprised they held off on the Mac Pro. With it being already being long in the update cycle, what's another couple months delay so you can then have the latest and greatest rather than the PR backlash for releasing and then less than a quarter later having a significantly better processor released? Also, show me a laptop line with the same market share that uses a better graphics card, better SSD performance wise, a better screen. Yes, there are numerous examples better in one aspect or another, but none with the market share and/or without other significant trade offs. The real story is that Intel is REALLY dropping the ball on delivering what vocal customers demand. The blame for virtually everything people whine about on the new MBP is solely their fault. I'm fairly certain Apple is expending every resources they can to break away from Intel, but sadly that can't come soon enough!