5 ms·

But Apple in contrast has turned out to be surprisingly nimble and my impression is that their employees are quite happy.

lukev 16y ago
I imagine Apple as an absolute monarchy, with Jobs handing down dictates from on high. If I imagine decisions at MS, I imagine a committee process. I think the results the companies are having bear out those impressions.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  Its interesting to me that one of the most successful absolute monarchies, Great Britain, in the end became ruled by committee. And eventually lost its empire, with the next great power ruled a committee constrained by a constitution. And that constitution eroding away has led to the committee pretty much pissing it away. So, yeah, committees are not good. A system governed by sensible rules that rewards smart action, punishes bad actors and forgives errors is better.
  - archangel_one 16y ago
    True, but there is no evidence that such a system can remain for any significant length of time (or in most cases even come about in the first place) in practice. If you look at any country of significant size they mostly appear to be ruled by a committee or an absolute dictator. The committees could be said to generally be doing a bad job but nowhere near as bad as the worst cases of the dictators, but nobody has this ideal system governed by sensible rules - possibly because when you get enough human beings together in the first place they can't agree on what any sensible rules would be.
    - cabalamat 16y ago
      An absolute ruler who is competent can get a lot done. An absolute ruler who is incompetent or bad for his people, OTOH, is hard to remove.
      - stretchwithme 16y ago
        I think those absolute rulers whose territories are small and whose populations can easily leave probably make more sound decisions. Singapore seems well run, for example. The people can remove a ruler by removing themselves.
  - tomkarlo 16y ago
    "A system governed by sensible rules that rewards smart action, punishes bad actors and forgives errors is better." Good luck writing that RFP. Especially the "smart action" part. The best government, in the end, is one that's transparent and, ultimately, replaceable. Whoever is in power is always going to seek to retain power; you want that to be dependent on them making decisions that benefit everyone else. Even if you had a "perfect" government, but it lacked transparency, you'd have a problem as that lack of transparency would make it difficult for everyone outside the government to make long-term decisions about investment, etc.
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    > Its interesting to me that one of the most successful absolute monarchies, Great Britain Was Britain ever an absolute monarchy? Possibly under its first king, James I, but none of the succeeding monarchs ever had absolute power.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      I guess that's true. It's real strength was probably the rule of law and property rights, which Parliament didn't erode while the House of Lords had power.
- zavulon 16y ago
  Yes, but what's going to happen once Jobs retires/steps away? I imagine he's been very busy at choosing/grooming possible successors for a few years already, but usually empires ruled by a powerful individiuals crumble after the change at the top.
maxxxxx 16y ago
They probably made the necessary changes in the 90s.
Aaronontheweb 16y ago
I credit Apple's nimbleness with the way their product design teams limit the scope of what they're working on at any given time - they fight project creep, focus on creating a great user experience, and get the 10% of the product that users use 90% of the time right. Microsoft, on the other hand, tries to be all things and spreads itself out like crazy. It's easier to be nimble when you're more focused.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  Microsoft's software runs on a billion computers. The alternative is to choose whose money they're going to reject in the next version.
  - neworbit 16y ago
    Won't be too long until Android runs on a billion computers
brg 16y ago
I was told projects in Apple are generally endeavors by small teams. Five people write this app, four people write that subprocess. While feature staffing is similar at MS, the overhead of management, program management, and test often smothers any attempt to move fast at MS.
- mirkules 16y ago
  I don't think Microsoft's lack of innovation has anything to do with moving fast. The article nailed it by saying Ballmer and Co are in denial about their competitors. I remember an article here on HN about how he mocked the single iPad user in the audience (I paraphrase): "look at that poor guy, slouched over his knees, trying to type awkwardly on that tablet. This isn't the wave of the future." I understand that being an over-the-top company man is part of his public persona, but I truly believe that at some point after Bill Gates stepped down, Ballmer stopped acting and started believing the very public denial and actually living in it. And coincidentally, this is when everything started going wrong for MS. Management drank the "kool-aid", they became an organization of yes-men, following a delusional leader. The problem isn't that middle management is smothering innovation, it is the result of upper management not providing clear, well-thought-out direction.

lukev 16y ago

I imagine Apple as an absolute monarchy, with Jobs handing down dictates from on high. If I imagine decisions at MS, I imagine a committee process. I think the results the companies are having bear out those impressions.

stretchwithme 16y ago
Its interesting to me that one of the most successful absolute monarchies, Great Britain, in the end became ruled by committee. And eventually lost its empire, with the next great power ruled a committee constrained by a constitution. And that constitution eroding away has led to the committee pretty much pissing it away. So, yeah, committees are not good. A system governed by sensible rules that rewards smart action, punishes bad actors and forgives errors is better.
- archangel_one 16y ago
  True, but there is no evidence that such a system can remain for any significant length of time (or in most cases even come about in the first place) in practice. If you look at any country of significant size they mostly appear to be ruled by a committee or an absolute dictator. The committees could be said to generally be doing a bad job but nowhere near as bad as the worst cases of the dictators, but nobody has this ideal system governed by sensible rules - possibly because when you get enough human beings together in the first place they can't agree on what any sensible rules would be.
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    An absolute ruler who is competent can get a lot done. An absolute ruler who is incompetent or bad for his people, OTOH, is hard to remove.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      I think those absolute rulers whose territories are small and whose populations can easily leave probably make more sound decisions. Singapore seems well run, for example. The people can remove a ruler by removing themselves.
- tomkarlo 16y ago
  "A system governed by sensible rules that rewards smart action, punishes bad actors and forgives errors is better." Good luck writing that RFP. Especially the "smart action" part. The best government, in the end, is one that's transparent and, ultimately, replaceable. Whoever is in power is always going to seek to retain power; you want that to be dependent on them making decisions that benefit everyone else. Even if you had a "perfect" government, but it lacked transparency, you'd have a problem as that lack of transparency would make it difficult for everyone outside the government to make long-term decisions about investment, etc.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > Its interesting to me that one of the most successful absolute monarchies, Great Britain Was Britain ever an absolute monarchy? Possibly under its first king, James I, but none of the succeeding monarchs ever had absolute power.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    I guess that's true. It's real strength was probably the rule of law and property rights, which Parliament didn't erode while the House of Lords had power.
zavulon 16y ago
Yes, but what's going to happen once Jobs retires/steps away? I imagine he's been very busy at choosing/grooming possible successors for a few years already, but usually empires ruled by a powerful individiuals crumble after the change at the top.

maxxxxx 16y ago

They probably made the necessary changes in the 90s.

Aaronontheweb 16y ago

I credit Apple's nimbleness with the way their product design teams limit the scope of what they're working on at any given time - they fight project creep, focus on creating a great user experience, and get the 10% of the product that users use 90% of the time right. Microsoft, on the other hand, tries to be all things and spreads itself out like crazy. It's easier to be nimble when you're more focused.

mkr-hn 16y ago
Microsoft's software runs on a billion computers. The alternative is to choose whose money they're going to reject in the next version.
- neworbit 16y ago
  Won't be too long until Android runs on a billion computers

brg 16y ago

I was told projects in Apple are generally endeavors by small teams. Five people write this app, four people write that subprocess. While feature staffing is similar at MS, the overhead of management, program management, and test often smothers any attempt to move fast at MS.

mirkules 16y ago
I don't think Microsoft's lack of innovation has anything to do with moving fast. The article nailed it by saying Ballmer and Co are in denial about their competitors. I remember an article here on HN about how he mocked the single iPad user in the audience (I paraphrase): "look at that poor guy, slouched over his knees, trying to type awkwardly on that tablet. This isn't the wave of the future." I understand that being an over-the-top company man is part of his public persona, but I truly believe that at some point after Bill Gates stepped down, Ballmer stopped acting and started believing the very public denial and actually living in it. And coincidentally, this is when everything started going wrong for MS. Management drank the "kool-aid", they became an organization of yes-men, following a delusional leader. The problem isn't that middle management is smothering innovation, it is the result of upper management not providing clear, well-thought-out direction.