5 ms·
I know it's a joke, but I think it's still a good illustration: https://i.imgur.com/XLuaF0h.png https://i.imgur.com/XLuaF0h.png From everything I've heard, App
by mdorazio 3y ago
I know it's a joke, but I think it's still a good illustration: https://i.imgur.com/XLuaF0h.png https://i.imgur.com/XLuaF0h.png
From everything I've heard, Apple's org structure is a lot more focused and UX-driven from the top down than basically any other large tech company. That means you get a lot less compromising and in-fighting.
The other side is how Apple makes money compared to other companies. Meta makes money mostly by selling you (the user) to advertisers (the real customers). Same with Google (70%ish ad revenue). Microsoft is a hot mess of competing B2B fiefdoms (the vast majority of their revenue comes from businesses, not consumers). Amazon only makes a few products directly for consumers, and mostly makes money from being a marketplace + AWS. That leaves Apple fairly uniquely positioned as a premium consumer hardware company that also sells consumer software services to enhance the experience and... drive more hardware sales.
- hackernewds 3y agoIf you just draw the org structure for Apple differently in the link, it's same as Amazon..
- pjot 3y agoLook again. Amazon is a tree, Apple is hub and spoke.
- bern4444 3y agoI don't think so. Apple builds an insanely strong core from which any and all other teams can (maybe must) build on top of and use to power their team's platform. You have a core messages team for example - off of which Mac, iPhone, and Apple Watch teams integrate. Do that for each core service or product (photos, safari, notes, music, etc). The Amazon structure is such that everything flows from the person above you, work is not shared between teams. One is compositional (Apple). The other is inheritance (Amazon).
- pmontra 3y agoIf you look at it closely, any first level node with a child node at Apple can be bypassed by the central boss. The boss is connected to every other node.