3 ms·

It’s ironic how the one company that is WAY over the top wrt secrecy — not only to the public, but also and especially internally (they’ve even walled the hardw

It’s ironic how the one company that is WAY over the top wrt secrecy — not only to the public, but also and especially internally (they’ve even walled the hardware team from the software team while developing the iPhone!) — is at the same time the one company that really nails integration.

xethos 2y ago
People will scoff and say "Yeah, but all kinds of companies have internal firewalls, big deal". But no, these were literal walls that would appear over a weekend and suddenly part of the campus was off-limits to those not on the iPhone project.
- kolinko 2y ago
  Wow. Any place to read about that?
  - gumby 2y ago
    Any book about the development of the iphone or articles in the business press from a few months after product introduction (if any are still online…try Fortune).
  - xethos 2y ago
    I found it in Fred Vogelstein's "Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution" [0]. Decent read, not amazing IMO, but with fun tidbits about the iPhone / Android launches [0] https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=60B714243482AE3D7B9A83B52F7BED02 https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=60B714243482AE3D7B9A83B...
- kudokatz 2y ago
  I heard they did this for the Amazon Fire Phone, too
Jtsummers 2y ago
The key difference is that Apple (as an organization) appears to have an overarching roadmap (that spans multiple product lines). The secrecy is irrelevant as long as the leadership of each division is aligned (it hurts, but does not prevent success). Google, MS, and others are less organized at the top, so subdivisions of the overall org are left to plan for themselves and between each other, which leads to conflicts. Resolution may be achieved when things get pushed high enough, but only if it surfaces at the top for a leader (if such people exist in their org structure) to declare a resolution and focus for the groups involved.
- Spartan-S63 2y ago
  This reads like a critique of centralized versus decentralized control, but I think it’s more about lack of clear intention. Apple has a clear intent that allows the subsequent groups to work towards and contribute to it. Google and Microsoft don’t. They have a vague idea, but not something tangible enough for subordinate leaders to meaningfully contribute to.
  - xw390112 2y ago
    As the chess players know, ‘a bad plan is better than none at all’. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/planning.html https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/planning.html
- dwaite 2y ago
  Apple is odd in other ways. For example: Calculator on iPad. Once they had a few iPad releases without a calculator, they needed a sufficient _reason_ to release a calculator app for iPad. The product was gated by the narrative. There was also likely no team on calculator at all (are there bugs that justify a maintenance team?), so it needed a big idea like 'Math Text' to be green-lit or it would simply never come. This is despite missing calculator being an obvious deficiency, and solving it via a port to be a relatively tiny lift.

xethos 2y ago

People will scoff and say "Yeah, but all kinds of companies have internal firewalls, big deal". But no, these were literal walls that would appear over a weekend and suddenly part of the campus was off-limits to those not on the iPhone project.

kolinko 2y ago
Wow. Any place to read about that?
- gumby 2y ago
  Any book about the development of the iphone or articles in the business press from a few months after product introduction (if any are still online…try Fortune).
- xethos 2y ago
  I found it in Fred Vogelstein's "Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution" [0]. Decent read, not amazing IMO, but with fun tidbits about the iPhone / Android launches [0] https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=60B714243482AE3D7B9A83B52F7BED02 https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=60B714243482AE3D7B9A83B...
kudokatz 2y ago
I heard they did this for the Amazon Fire Phone, too

Jtsummers 2y ago

The key difference is that Apple (as an organization) appears to have an overarching roadmap (that spans multiple product lines). The secrecy is irrelevant as long as the leadership of each division is aligned (it hurts, but does not prevent success). Google, MS, and others are less organized at the top, so subdivisions of the overall org are left to plan for themselves and between each other, which leads to conflicts. Resolution may be achieved when things get pushed high enough, but only if it surfaces at the top for a leader (if such people exist in their org structure) to declare a resolution and focus for the groups involved.

Spartan-S63 2y ago
This reads like a critique of centralized versus decentralized control, but I think it’s more about lack of clear intention. Apple has a clear intent that allows the subsequent groups to work towards and contribute to it. Google and Microsoft don’t. They have a vague idea, but not something tangible enough for subordinate leaders to meaningfully contribute to.
- xw390112 2y ago
  As the chess players know, ‘a bad plan is better than none at all’. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/planning.html https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/planning.html
dwaite 2y ago
Apple is odd in other ways. For example: Calculator on iPad. Once they had a few iPad releases without a calculator, they needed a sufficient _reason_ to release a calculator app for iPad. The product was gated by the narrative. There was also likely no team on calculator at all (are there bugs that justify a maintenance team?), so it needed a big idea like 'Math Text' to be green-lit or it would simply never come. This is despite missing calculator being an obvious deficiency, and solving it via a port to be a relatively tiny lift.