5 ms·

Different product, different business, different time. When AppleWorks and FileMaker were spun off, they were likely significant chunks of revenue in their own

by hhas01 7y ago

Different product, different business, different time. When AppleWorks and FileMaker were spun off, they were likely significant chunks of revenue in their own right. By the time Aperture was taken out back, it wouldn’t even have been a rounding error in Apple’s accounts. Far quicker, easier, and cheaper to kill it. Remember, everything Apple does, it does to advance the interests of Apple. The company. Not the products, not the departments, not the employees, and definitely not the customers. The same is true of any large org. The knockout success of iPhone grew the business by magnitudes almost overnight. iPhone Apple, frankly, is too big to be wasting its time now on niche products with limited potential for growth, even if those products are very successful within their own niche. If a product doesn’t fit with the current business strategy and portfolio, it’s out. It’s one of the basics to running a successful business: don’t be distracted. And definitely don’t be sentimental. Poor Aperture just got left in the iPhone’s dust.

jfb 7y ago
This is very true, but it's also important to realize that the hyper focussed Apple culture comes as an adaptive response to their near-death experience, before Jobs came back. A company that makes a billion dollars in revenue a day can afford to diversify; a company that is on death's door cannot. I think the situation currently is an overcorrection to a vaguely remembered pre-Jobs past.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> It’s one of the basics to running a successful business: don’t be distracted. What does that mean in the context of a huge corporation? From my perspective, $1K in profit is still $1K, even if you're making $100K elsewhere. Tim Cook certainly has limited time and needs to prioritize, but he also doesn’t need to touch every part of the company. Independently-profitable projects can be spun out into their own teams as needed.
- URSpider94 7y ago
  The issue is opportunity cost. If those folks could help increase sales or profitability on one of your mainline products by even a fraction of a percent, you’ll be better off by redeploying them.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Then hire new people, or outsource. The B product may take a hit, but better than killing it.
    - ksec 7y ago
      Focus; is not about saying yes to the thing you currently do, but a thousand no to many other things. Having said that I think Apple hasn't prioritise their Software Engineering resources well.
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        I’m just not convinced of the value of focus in this context. When Steve Jobs came to Apple, he made the Mac line “focused” by cutting it down to four models. That had clear benefits: less hardware for the OS to support, better economies of scale in manufacturing, and less wasted retail shelf space. How does killing Aperture benefit Apple’s other products in that way?
        peteforde 7y ago
        As we've already covered, I'm an Aperture fan and I, too, wish it hadn't been #canceled. However, when I put on my executive hat and consider the arguments made in this thread, from a corporate perspective it was 100% the right thing to do. (We don't have to like it, or work at or buy from corporations.) $100k in profit is not $100k in profit to a company that makes $1B a day: it is a massive operational risk. Not only is the revenue a rounding error, but every product on the docket represents a meaningful sacrifice of agility and exposure to unknowable risk. One of my smartest mentors once told me (and then reminded me a dozen times) that a company can only have three priorities at any given time. If an initiative does not make the top three cut, it is tabled for the future. Your executive team - and indeed, the entire org - should have those priorities front and center as they make decisions and spend their time. "Does what I'm about to do advance one of the top three priorities?" is a clarifying question. Every person in an org can have three personal priorities, no more. Every person should be able to confidently tell you what those priorities are. Those priorities should all meaningfully tie back to the company priorities. My mentor was, some 20 years ago, the in-house corporate counsel for a large telco. Amongst his responsibilities was M&A and foreign expansion. You'd think these would be priorities, but you'd think wrong. His initiatives were consistently tabled, politely but assertively. It was the best thing for the company. On the flipside, companies and leaders than cannot embrace laser focus on top priorities tend to be slowly dying, even if they don't realize it yet. In the end, $1B a day is $1B a day to lose, if they don't focus on their top priorities. Frankly, I think it's some combination of branding and charity that they haven't just stopped making computers.
wsc981 7y ago
I haven't read the whole article, but if the business in itself was successful, sounds like a waste to just kill it off. If Apple didn't want to focus on the business, might have been worthwhile to see if a spin-off was possible.

by hhas01 7y ago

jfb 7y ago

This is very true, but it's also important to realize that the hyper focussed Apple culture comes as an adaptive response to their near-death experience, before Jobs came back. A company that makes a billion dollars in revenue a day can afford to diversify; a company that is on death's door cannot. I think the situation currently is an overcorrection to a vaguely remembered pre-Jobs past.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

> It’s one of the basics to running a successful business: don’t be distracted. What does that mean in the context of a huge corporation? From my perspective, $1K in profit is still $1K, even if you're making $100K elsewhere. Tim Cook certainly has limited time and needs to prioritize, but he also doesn’t need to touch every part of the company. Independently-profitable projects can be spun out into their own teams as needed.

URSpider94 7y ago
The issue is opportunity cost. If those folks could help increase sales or profitability on one of your mainline products by even a fraction of a percent, you’ll be better off by redeploying them.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Then hire new people, or outsource. The B product may take a hit, but better than killing it.
  - ksec 7y ago
    Focus; is not about saying yes to the thing you currently do, but a thousand no to many other things. Having said that I think Apple hasn't prioritise their Software Engineering resources well.
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      I’m just not convinced of the value of focus in this context. When Steve Jobs came to Apple, he made the Mac line “focused” by cutting it down to four models. That had clear benefits: less hardware for the OS to support, better economies of scale in manufacturing, and less wasted retail shelf space. How does killing Aperture benefit Apple’s other products in that way?
      - peteforde 7y ago
        As we've already covered, I'm an Aperture fan and I, too, wish it hadn't been #canceled. However, when I put on my executive hat and consider the arguments made in this thread, from a corporate perspective it was 100% the right thing to do. (We don't have to like it, or work at or buy from corporations.) $100k in profit is not $100k in profit to a company that makes $1B a day: it is a massive operational risk. Not only is the revenue a rounding error, but every product on the docket represents a meaningful sacrifice of agility and exposure to unknowable risk. One of my smartest mentors once told me (and then reminded me a dozen times) that a company can only have three priorities at any given time. If an initiative does not make the top three cut, it is tabled for the future. Your executive team - and indeed, the entire org - should have those priorities front and center as they make decisions and spend their time. "Does what I'm about to do advance one of the top three priorities?" is a clarifying question. Every person in an org can have three personal priorities, no more. Every person should be able to confidently tell you what those priorities are. Those priorities should all meaningfully tie back to the company priorities. My mentor was, some 20 years ago, the in-house corporate counsel for a large telco. Amongst his responsibilities was M&A and foreign expansion. You'd think these would be priorities, but you'd think wrong. His initiatives were consistently tabled, politely but assertively. It was the best thing for the company. On the flipside, companies and leaders than cannot embrace laser focus on top priorities tend to be slowly dying, even if they don't realize it yet. In the end, $1B a day is $1B a day to lose, if they don't focus on their top priorities. Frankly, I think it's some combination of branding and charity that they haven't just stopped making computers.

wsc981 7y ago

I haven't read the whole article, but if the business in itself was successful, sounds like a waste to just kill it off. If Apple didn't want to focus on the business, might have been worthwhile to see if a spin-off was possible.