5 ms·

Indeed, the vibe, in the words of a former employee, is of an Apple that is becoming "far more traditional," meaning more MBAs, more process, and more structure

Indeed, the vibe, in the words of a former employee, is of an Apple that is becoming "far more traditional," meaning more MBAs, more process, and more structure. This doesn't sound like a positive development to me. This kind of structure almost always seems to lead to less accountability and more business-speak bullshit.

roqetman 14y ago
"Apple under Tim Cook will embrace efficiency to an even greater degree" - I've never seen a company that starts adding project managers to a process that is deemed "inefficient" but profitable that has led to a long-term improvement. In the short-term things look better with all the new "documentation" of process, but it devolves into managers meeting for the meetings themselves, and the HiPPO syndrome (Highest Paid Person's Opinion).
- hessenwolf 14y ago
  Documentation... shudder. I used to, sadly, enjoying documenting my work, but now I am in a multinational and have to document for regulators and risk management, as opposed to future users or replacement developers. Not to sound to biased, but project management-style documentation is all completely horrific, obfuscating bloat.
  - nnnnni 14y ago
    I've been forced into a Six Sigma committee at work. It's horrible. We've spent the last half year basically establishing what we knew before the whole thing started. Documentation like that seems to be 100% bloat that is designed to make people feel like they're doing something to earn the upper management title.
saturdaysaint 14y ago
A lot of those descriptions reminded me an an awful lot of doomsday descriptions I've read of Google and Facebook over the years, though. Granted the circumstances were different - they're much newer companies and they needed experienced executives to grow - but it shows that sometimes these things make sense. The growing M&A team Lashinsky describes is a good case in point. Cook handled that when they had a fraction of the $110 Billion they have today. They started adding specialists when Google swooped in and acquired AdMob, and have done well since (Siri, Anobit, Chomp). Considering how much more competitive the talent market has become, this strikes me as perfectly logical.
notatoad 14y ago
2000 MBAs in a non-retail workforce of 28000 is still not a lot. When a startup with 15 employees starts getting middle managers, that's a bad thing, but a large enterprise like apple probably does actually have some need for business development folk.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  And that's the key. If these are bizdev people, it could mean a much more vibrant Apple ecosystem[1]. If they are project managers, Apple is screwed. 1. As an example, gaming on OS X has traditionally sucked (it has gotten better in spite of Apple). The primary reason: Jobs didn't care about gaming. Put some bizdev people who are analyzing it for what the users want and what will grow OS X adoption, and there could be a very different outcome, including more M&A activity.
romeodelight 14y ago
unemployed entrepreneurs with little or no business experience second guessing the CEO of the worlds most innovative company. priceless.
- clamps123 14y ago
  You mean the CEO that had nearly nothing to do with turning it into an innovative company?
  - romeodelight 14y ago
    Funny that you have to create a throw away account just to say that :P
    - clamps123 14y ago
      This is my first account, I just had to create one to respond to what was probably one of the most moronic things I've ever read in my short existence on this earth.
  - bonch 14y ago
    Cook helped create Apple's superior manufacturing process. There are plenty of mistakes on the part of Steve Jobs as well as successful things Apple did that he was opposed to but was overruled.
  - microtherion 14y ago
    Apple has innovated not just in hardware and software, but also in supply channel management, and the latter was definitely Tim Cook's doing. If you compare the Jobs 2.0 Apple to the 1990s Apple, improved operational execution (supply channel management, demand forecasting, etc) made a huge impact on the bottom line.
    - ajross 14y ago
      This is actually a really good point. One of the things that distinguishes the Apple of today vs. the one in 1985 (which also had a dominant industry position and fantastic products) is that they're also competing on price. The iPhone 4 is available with contract at $99, the same price charged for very similar (often somewhat inferior) hardware from mass market asian manufacturers like LG or HTC. (The 3GS is actually available free with contract, though IMHO it competes poorly with the competing Android phones.) That's pretty impressive for an R&D focused company.
crusso 14y ago
An influx of MBAs after the original Jobs ousting was the hallmark, if not the actual cause of, the death spiral that Apple was in until Jobs returned. I worked there for a stint during those stagnant MBA-life-sucking days. Another one from the article: > investors now have the CEO's ear for the first time in years To that, I say, "Oh crap". Jobs took Apple to greatness because he obsessed over making incredible products. Build incredible products and the money and investors will follow. Change your focus to investors, operations, or accounting and watch as the products suffer. CNN's breathless and laudatory tone in describing all these responsive changes from Apple just serves as a reminder that reporters should just keep their views to themselves. You can tell that this CNN reporter/editor has a tingle up his leg over Cook's touchy-feely professionalism... as though that's going to improve Apple in any way that matters to those of us who use their products. Cook may not be a disaster on the level of John Sculley, but his focus on the corporation of Apple rather than on the coolness of its products would worry me if I was long on AAPL.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  Investors have always had Tim Cook's ear--that was part of his leadership role at Apple for many years. Now that he is CEO I don't see why that would change. Tim Cook is a very talented business and operational manager. I don't think he should try to become a "product guy" CEO just because Steve Jobs was a product guy CEO. He should stick to spending his personal time on doing what he does best--operations. Yeah, product development at Apple is going to suffer because Steve Jobs is gone. There's nothing anyone can do about that, including Tim Cook. The thing that Cook has to do is protect what remains of the great creative processes that are still going. If we hear that investors have Ives' ear, that's when it's time to panic.
  - evoxed 14y ago
    Almost exactly what I came here to say. As long as Tim and Jon have a good relationship (or at worst, big decisions that aren't plainly suicidal defer to the design team) they'll be in good shape.
  - cageface 14y ago

roqetman 14y ago

"Apple under Tim Cook will embrace efficiency to an even greater degree" - I've never seen a company that starts adding project managers to a process that is deemed "inefficient" but profitable that has led to a long-term improvement. In the short-term things look better with all the new "documentation" of process, but it devolves into managers meeting for the meetings themselves, and the HiPPO syndrome (Highest Paid Person's Opinion).

hessenwolf 14y ago
Documentation... shudder. I used to, sadly, enjoying documenting my work, but now I am in a multinational and have to document for regulators and risk management, as opposed to future users or replacement developers. Not to sound to biased, but project management-style documentation is all completely horrific, obfuscating bloat.
- nnnnni 14y ago
  I've been forced into a Six Sigma committee at work. It's horrible. We've spent the last half year basically establishing what we knew before the whole thing started. Documentation like that seems to be 100% bloat that is designed to make people feel like they're doing something to earn the upper management title.

saturdaysaint 14y ago

A lot of those descriptions reminded me an an awful lot of doomsday descriptions I've read of Google and Facebook over the years, though. Granted the circumstances were different - they're much newer companies and they needed experienced executives to grow - but it shows that sometimes these things make sense. The growing M&A team Lashinsky describes is a good case in point. Cook handled that when they had a fraction of the $110 Billion they have today. They started adding specialists when Google swooped in and acquired AdMob, and have done well since (Siri, Anobit, Chomp). Considering how much more competitive the talent market has become, this strikes me as perfectly logical.

notatoad 14y ago

2000 MBAs in a non-retail workforce of 28000 is still not a lot. When a startup with 15 employees starts getting middle managers, that's a bad thing, but a large enterprise like apple probably does actually have some need for business development folk.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
And that's the key. If these are bizdev people, it could mean a much more vibrant Apple ecosystem[1]. If they are project managers, Apple is screwed. 1. As an example, gaming on OS X has traditionally sucked (it has gotten better in spite of Apple). The primary reason: Jobs didn't care about gaming. Put some bizdev people who are analyzing it for what the users want and what will grow OS X adoption, and there could be a very different outcome, including more M&A activity.

romeodelight 14y ago

unemployed entrepreneurs with little or no business experience second guessing the CEO of the worlds most innovative company. priceless.

clamps123 14y ago
You mean the CEO that had nearly nothing to do with turning it into an innovative company?
- romeodelight 14y ago
  Funny that you have to create a throw away account just to say that :P
  - clamps123 14y ago
    This is my first account, I just had to create one to respond to what was probably one of the most moronic things I've ever read in my short existence on this earth.
- bonch 14y ago
  Cook helped create Apple's superior manufacturing process. There are plenty of mistakes on the part of Steve Jobs as well as successful things Apple did that he was opposed to but was overruled.
- microtherion 14y ago
  Apple has innovated not just in hardware and software, but also in supply channel management, and the latter was definitely Tim Cook's doing. If you compare the Jobs 2.0 Apple to the 1990s Apple, improved operational execution (supply channel management, demand forecasting, etc) made a huge impact on the bottom line.
  - ajross 14y ago
    This is actually a really good point. One of the things that distinguishes the Apple of today vs. the one in 1985 (which also had a dominant industry position and fantastic products) is that they're also competing on price. The iPhone 4 is available with contract at $99, the same price charged for very similar (often somewhat inferior) hardware from mass market asian manufacturers like LG or HTC. (The 3GS is actually available free with contract, though IMHO it competes poorly with the competing Android phones.) That's pretty impressive for an R&D focused company.

crusso 14y ago

An influx of MBAs after the original Jobs ousting was the hallmark, if not the actual cause of, the death spiral that Apple was in until Jobs returned. I worked there for a stint during those stagnant MBA-life-sucking days. Another one from the article: > investors now have the CEO's ear for the first time in years To that, I say, "Oh crap". Jobs took Apple to greatness because he obsessed over making incredible products. Build incredible products and the money and investors will follow. Change your focus to investors, operations, or accounting and watch as the products suffer. CNN's breathless and laudatory tone in describing all these responsive changes from Apple just serves as a reminder that reporters should just keep their views to themselves. You can tell that this CNN reporter/editor has a tingle up his leg over Cook's touchy-feely professionalism... as though that's going to improve Apple in any way that matters to those of us who use their products. Cook may not be a disaster on the level of John Sculley, but his focus on the corporation of Apple rather than on the coolness of its products would worry me if I was long on AAPL.

snowwrestler 14y ago
Investors have always had Tim Cook's ear--that was part of his leadership role at Apple for many years. Now that he is CEO I don't see why that would change. Tim Cook is a very talented business and operational manager. I don't think he should try to become a "product guy" CEO just because Steve Jobs was a product guy CEO. He should stick to spending his personal time on doing what he does best--operations. Yeah, product development at Apple is going to suffer because Steve Jobs is gone. There's nothing anyone can do about that, including Tim Cook. The thing that Cook has to do is protect what remains of the great creative processes that are still going. If we hear that investors have Ives' ear, that's when it's time to panic.
- evoxed 14y ago
  Almost exactly what I came here to say. As long as Tim and Jon have a good relationship (or at worst, big decisions that aren't plainly suicidal defer to the design team) they'll be in good shape.
- cageface 14y ago