6 ms·
I think it's fair to say that Jony was ultimately the DRI ("directly responsible individual" in Apple-speak) for all industrial design, so he "owns" it, which i
by trevyn 5y ago
I think it's fair to say that Jony was ultimately the DRI ("directly responsible individual" in Apple-speak) for all industrial design, so he "owns" it, which is a bit above "signing off" or "accepting", whether or not he was personally pushing for something.
This is a bit of a quirk of how Apple structures responsibility, and makes it a bit more fair to say that "Jony made a disliked change" in a way that doesn't quite apply at Google or Microsoft, where responsibility tends to be a bit more diffuse.
- BoorishBears 5y agoDRI has expanded throughout the tech industry, I can't remember the last time I was on a team that didn't use the concept. But I provided a simple analogy above. Say John manages Joe and is the DRI for data storage. If Joe goes and deletes the production database, John has some blame even though he didn't personally delete the database. Do you not see the difference between saying "John deleted production?" and "John's subordinate deleted production?" Both are assigning some blame to John, but only one is factually true. This entire conversations almost feels like the typical HN inability to realize the world is not black and white. It's like people need Johnny Ives to personally have opened up a CAD drawing and shrunk the MBP because it's utterly impossible that a larger team decided on the vision for an entire flagship possible. - Lol the replies. What a weird way to dodge a simple question lol. "John's subordinate deleted production" implies that John is partially responsible, but accurately reflects he did not personally delete it. You're not even mentioning Joe, you're accurately reflecting John was in charge, but you're also not lying and saying John did it.
- rusk 5y agoJohn’s subordinate asks John if he should delete production. John says go ahead.
- trevyn 5y ago"John was responsible for production having been deleted" because of the systems and processes he did or did not put in place. At a high enough level of abstraction, this is all that matters. Jony was responsible for the Touch Bar. Anyway, some evidence: "For years, Apple Chief Design Officer Jony Ive has expressed a desire for the iPhone to appear like a single sheet of glass", suggesting that this could have been part of a larger overall design direction. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-unlikely-to-make-big-changes-for-next-iphone-1466526489 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-unlikely-to-make-big-chan...) I'd be willing to bet that they mocked up MacBooks with full touchscreen keyboards. Further, I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't mind typing an email (core C-level activity) on an iPad on-screen keyboard, but I'd find it infuriating to try to code on.
- spacedcowboy 5y agoI work at Apple, I'm a senior engineer - been there for almost 2 decades. I'm DRI on a few things here and there. Not a single decision is made on things that I am DRI on without me being a part of that decision. I may not get my way if I'm over-ruled for corporate reasons, but I know about it, and being the DRI, I get a slightly-larger-than-average say in what happens. Generally it takes a director or VP to over-rule what I want, and then the radar is very clearly marked as such. Apple takes the concept of the DRI very seriously. You don't give responsibility without also giving power. My opinion: There is zero chance (not "a small chance", zero chance) that Jony Ive didn't sign off on, and explicitly endorse the Touch Bar. Something that obvious, in that commanding a position in the user interface would never have escaped his personal input and attention.
- bscphil 5y agoThank you for saying this, your personal experience here is just about the best insight we could ask for. Subjectively, there's an odd lack of current Apple engineers weighing in on threads here at HN relative to other FAANG companies. I've often wondered if the company's rules were stricter.