4 ms·
One counter argument to this take is: If cube farms or offices with doors are so much better, where are the companies without open-offices and outsized perform
by TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
One counter argument to this take is:
If cube farms or offices with doors are so much better, where are the companies without open-offices and outsized performance financials.
I suspect most employees just aren't that productive for it to matter much.
There is probably some small percentage who are more productive, and even fewer who are much more productive, but their needs are overwhelming by larger business decisions, and fads in management and design.
- radicaldreamer 4y agoApple
- pjmlp 4y agoThe company rescued from insolvency with Microsoft money and reversed buy from NeXT, and only managed to get out of red thanks to the iPod and what came later, regardless of the office structure.
- KyeRussell 4y agoHow is anyone meant to respond to that? Can’t you apply this thinking to any company?
- pjmlp 4y agoOffice structure doesn't affect what products people are willing to pay for.
- MaanuAir 4y agoThat one made me think. Conway’s law may result in products’ appeal, thus what people are willing to pay for.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cameldrv 4y agoMaybe the products produced by developers that can concentrate better are more valuable and people are willing to pay more for them. Seems like Apple provides 2.4 trillion reasons.
- pjmlp 4y agoI am sure the office isn't part of the interview casting processes, trying to be hired at Apple is hardly any different from most game studios, regarding what one is willing to put up with to have the name on the CV.
- Mike_12345 4y agoIt didn't make them worse. Highest market cap on the planet.
- pjmlp 4y agoIt didn't rescued them from insolvency, so who cares.
- Mike_12345 4y agoThat was 26 years ago and it is irrelevant.
- midoridensha 4y agoI wonder how the world would be different if Microsoft had just let them die. Would it be better or worse? Would we all have slate-style smartphones now, or would they have taken much longer to arise?
- sofixa 4y agoThe iPhone wasn't the first touchscreen smartphone, it was just the flashiest (previous ones were oriented at business users), so IMO we certainly would be in the same place, just slightly later and possibly with more choice (maybe Nokia would have survived with Symbian/MeeGo, maybe Microsoft would have managed to pull off Windows Phone, etc.).
- midoridensha 4y agoUnless there were some phones I never saw, the iPhone was the first slate-style phone that you used with your fingers. Before that, everything had buttons (like the Blackberry, which kept keyboards until they finally died), or had crappy resistive touchscreens that you needed a stylus to use. The iPhone was the first one I remember that had a glass screen with capacitive touchscreen, needed no stylus, and didn't try to copy the Windows UI on a tiny screen.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- saagarjha 4y agoHello? Apple Park?
- rightbyte 4y ago> If cube farms or offices with doors are so much better [...] Then again peacooks have like huge swag backs for no good reason other than looks. I feel the concept of open offices are abit like agile. It is a virtue signaling "cult". It doesn't matter it is counterproductive. You just need it to get the female peacooks.
- midoridensha 4y agoNitpick: there's no such thing as a "female peacock". Those are called "peahens".
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago>If cube farms or offices with doors are so much better, where are the companies without open-offices and outsized performance financials Literally any of the top companies in the DOW Jones - very few offices are open plan - tech is an outlier here