7 ms·

Apple may have produced a few pieces of popular hardware before they produce the iPhone. I expect a more telling difference is whether the management of the su

Apple may have produced a few pieces of popular hardware before they produce the iPhone. I expect a more telling difference is whether the management of the successful company is overtaken by people who are better at political infighting than competing with other companies

repelsteeltje 2y ago
But wouldn't you agree that by the time of iPhone, Apple had had a fair share of political infighting and forgetting to compete with other companies too?
- bluGill 2y ago
  At the time of the iPhone Steve Jobs made the iphone an important project and so political infighting was not done. There is always political infighting, but sometimes it can work for you.
- rzwitserloot 2y ago
  Not really. Feels like orders of magnitude less than other companies of similar size. And still feels like that today. However, the fact that this sense of 'we are ALL and thus need not bother with anything but company-internal politics and how we influence the world at large' is missing at Apple is now hurting them: They appear to be pretty brazenly picking fights with governments thinking they are the david, and they.. really, _really_ aren't. One wonders why. * Lingering influence of Jobs? Even now? * Their somewhat well known weird corporate structure? * A cultural conviction that they are the underdog, instilled decades ago when Apple was doing badly, a conviction that is cherished with such religious fervour it survives even today when Apple has been top 3 market cap world wide, has reigned the profitability-in-cell-phones charts for over a decade, and in general has a profitability that makes your head spin, it's incomparably large (literally: Compare it to other big corps and it is mind boggling). I just don't know what it is. I find it remarkable that Apple does _not_ seem like it has had its fair share of political infighting and forgetting to compete. It has had its share of that, sure. But not its fair share. Not even a tenth.
rzwitserloot 2y ago
It keeps me busy, this kind of thinking. In a good way - something to mull over. These massive companies that epically fail to adjust, is it primarily a management style (cliché representation: Private equity takeovers – focus on 'management is a job unto itself, I do not need to know much or care much about what this company actually produces', and perhaps as a consequence, cost cutting over care about the product, and considering the general opinion about your company and products as a 'brand thing that I do not need to care about; I have a marketing department for that who can fix this by tossing some ad euros at something')... or is it more fundamental, that even with pretty good management, companies inevitably turn into a giant rusty smattering of cogs that generally keeps running but is nearly impossible to reconfigure? That we should e.g. study what Apple is doing with its odd corporate management structure: That it is _exceptional_ for a larger company to be able to pivot quickly regardless of market, circumstance, or management team? Or is software development just uniquely difficult and therefore it is highly likely that a company that starts with a better-than-average grip on that and worse-than-average everything else still wins over a company that needs to 'buy in' to software? Not enough data to really know, and the answer probably a convoluted mess of 'a little bit of everything'.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I think some of it is just age related. Massive, older companies accumulate older employees, who tend to be less performant and more expensive. When technologies shift their accumulated experience, which may have been keeping them viable, loses value. I know tech workers don't like to hear about this, but it's something you all need to keep in mind as you plan your careers.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  I recommend Parkinson's essay on injelitence

repelsteeltje 2y ago

But wouldn't you agree that by the time of iPhone, Apple had had a fair share of political infighting and forgetting to compete with other companies too?

bluGill 2y ago
At the time of the iPhone Steve Jobs made the iphone an important project and so political infighting was not done. There is always political infighting, but sometimes it can work for you.
rzwitserloot 2y ago
Not really. Feels like orders of magnitude less than other companies of similar size. And still feels like that today. However, the fact that this sense of 'we are ALL and thus need not bother with anything but company-internal politics and how we influence the world at large' is missing at Apple is now hurting them: They appear to be pretty brazenly picking fights with governments thinking they are the david, and they.. really, _really_ aren't. One wonders why. * Lingering influence of Jobs? Even now? * Their somewhat well known weird corporate structure? * A cultural conviction that they are the underdog, instilled decades ago when Apple was doing badly, a conviction that is cherished with such religious fervour it survives even today when Apple has been top 3 market cap world wide, has reigned the profitability-in-cell-phones charts for over a decade, and in general has a profitability that makes your head spin, it's incomparably large (literally: Compare it to other big corps and it is mind boggling). I just don't know what it is. I find it remarkable that Apple does _not_ seem like it has had its fair share of political infighting and forgetting to compete. It has had its share of that, sure. But not its fair share. Not even a tenth.

rzwitserloot 2y ago

It keeps me busy, this kind of thinking. In a good way - something to mull over. These massive companies that epically fail to adjust, is it primarily a management style (cliché representation: Private equity takeovers – focus on 'management is a job unto itself, I do not need to know much or care much about what this company actually produces', and perhaps as a consequence, cost cutting over care about the product, and considering the general opinion about your company and products as a 'brand thing that I do not need to care about; I have a marketing department for that who can fix this by tossing some ad euros at something')... or is it more fundamental, that even with pretty good management, companies inevitably turn into a giant rusty smattering of cogs that generally keeps running but is nearly impossible to reconfigure? That we should e.g. study what Apple is doing with its odd corporate management structure: That it is _exceptional_ for a larger company to be able to pivot quickly regardless of market, circumstance, or management team? Or is software development just uniquely difficult and therefore it is highly likely that a company that starts with a better-than-average grip on that and worse-than-average everything else still wins over a company that needs to 'buy in' to software? Not enough data to really know, and the answer probably a convoluted mess of 'a little bit of everything'.

pfdietz 2y ago
I think some of it is just age related. Massive, older companies accumulate older employees, who tend to be less performant and more expensive. When technologies shift their accumulated experience, which may have been keeping them viable, loses value. I know tech workers don't like to hear about this, but it's something you all need to keep in mind as you plan your careers.
readthenotes1 2y ago
I recommend Parkinson's essay on injelitence