5 ms·

I wonder how many people the author has really interacted with? Even if it was 100 individuals (which is probably unlikely) that's still <2% (I think Apple has

I wonder how many people the author has really interacted with? Even if it was 100 individuals (which is probably unlikely) that's still <2% (I think Apple has > 5000 employees?) of the total organization. Basically a rounding error. It's very hard to make conclusions for the whole company from such a small sample. That borders discrimination/racism thinking. Not in any way trying to say that he had a pleasant experience or that his management was solid. Probably wasn't. Just hard to make conclusions for a big group from such a small sample.

philippnagel 12y ago
According to http://www.apple.com/diversity/ http://www.apple.com/diversity/ Apple employs about 98.000 employees.
whyaduck 12y ago
I think you're off by over an order of magnitude. Apple employs over 90,000 people worldwide. In the Cupertino area there are probably 30,000-40,000 Apple employees.
- raspasov 12y ago
  Thanks for the stats correction, that makes my point even stronger.
vacri 12y ago
It's very hard to make conclusions for the whole company from such a small sample. Statistically speaking, an n of 100 is a reasonably decent sample of 5000 data points. It seems to me that you're looking for excuses, as if this concept of 'dry-run' meetings only happens to be within the author's "hundred-person bubble".
- pixeloution 12y ago
  My experiences at Apple are vastly different than the author's; As a developer I've never had such a low-stress position. My hours will sometimes drift over the 40-43 mark but not often.
- clarky07 12y ago
  as noted elsewhere, apple actually employs over 90,000 people. it's less significant in that scope. Also, while I have no doubt his experience sucked, he was also in customer service as opposed to being a developer/engineer. I suspect those areas differ somewhat. (Not suggesting it's ok at all, just that it may not be completely representative of the entire company)
  - vacri 12y ago
    My point is that the parent considered a sample of 100 to be too small for a population of 5000. Statistically speaking, it's a decent sample size.
    - ianamartin 12y ago
      To mikeash and vacri, A sample size of 100 is equally meaningless for 500 or 5 billion if the sample is skewed--which it definitely is in this case.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Actually, the size of the population as a whole is nearly irrelevant when considering the significance of a particular sample size. 100 people has just about the same significance for a population of 1000 as it does for a population of 1 billion. That said, since the people he met certainly weren't randomly selected, it'll be a heavily biased sample.
richthegeek 12y ago
The author is writing about his experience of 2 years of working there, and it's corroborated by others in this forum... and your problem is that he didn't verify that ALL of Apples management are arseholes? He isn't talking about ALL of them. He's talking about the ones he worked with, in the department he worked for. Get your head out of your arse...
- raspasov 12y ago
  Thank you for your enlightened recommendation, I'll take it into consideration.
erikb 12y ago
I disagree. If your manager plays mind games instead of working it is not just his fault, but the fault of his manager for hiring him, for not seeing that unproductiveness, for not educating his staff. And that is a recursive assessment. So if you see that in your department and maybe another department there's quite a good chance it drags on through large parts of the whole company. The only thing I don't know is if you can guess from this experience that the whole industry is like that.
Crito 12y ago
It is pretty easy to determine things (with a high degree of confidence) about a large group of people having only encountered a small group of people. Of course how you sample is vital. With random sampling, it is pretty straightforward Stats 101 stuff. This wasn't random sampling which throws a wrench in it, but neither are these individual people actually independent. They were all selected by the organization they belong to.

philippnagel 12y ago

According to http://www.apple.com/diversity/ http://www.apple.com/diversity/ Apple employs about 98.000 employees.

whyaduck 12y ago

I think you're off by over an order of magnitude. Apple employs over 90,000 people worldwide. In the Cupertino area there are probably 30,000-40,000 Apple employees.

raspasov 12y ago
Thanks for the stats correction, that makes my point even stronger.

vacri 12y ago

It's very hard to make conclusions for the whole company from such a small sample. Statistically speaking, an n of 100 is a reasonably decent sample of 5000 data points. It seems to me that you're looking for excuses, as if this concept of 'dry-run' meetings only happens to be within the author's "hundred-person bubble".

pixeloution 12y ago
My experiences at Apple are vastly different than the author's; As a developer I've never had such a low-stress position. My hours will sometimes drift over the 40-43 mark but not often.
clarky07 12y ago
as noted elsewhere, apple actually employs over 90,000 people. it's less significant in that scope. Also, while I have no doubt his experience sucked, he was also in customer service as opposed to being a developer/engineer. I suspect those areas differ somewhat. (Not suggesting it's ok at all, just that it may not be completely representative of the entire company)
- vacri 12y ago
  My point is that the parent considered a sample of 100 to be too small for a population of 5000. Statistically speaking, it's a decent sample size.
  - ianamartin 12y ago
    To mikeash and vacri, A sample size of 100 is equally meaningless for 500 or 5 billion if the sample is skewed--which it definitely is in this case.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Actually, the size of the population as a whole is nearly irrelevant when considering the significance of a particular sample size. 100 people has just about the same significance for a population of 1000 as it does for a population of 1 billion. That said, since the people he met certainly weren't randomly selected, it'll be a heavily biased sample.

richthegeek 12y ago

The author is writing about his experience of 2 years of working there, and it's corroborated by others in this forum... and your problem is that he didn't verify that ALL of Apples management are arseholes? He isn't talking about ALL of them. He's talking about the ones he worked with, in the department he worked for. Get your head out of your arse...

raspasov 12y ago
Thank you for your enlightened recommendation, I'll take it into consideration.

erikb 12y ago

I disagree. If your manager plays mind games instead of working it is not just his fault, but the fault of his manager for hiring him, for not seeing that unproductiveness, for not educating his staff. And that is a recursive assessment. So if you see that in your department and maybe another department there's quite a good chance it drags on through large parts of the whole company. The only thing I don't know is if you can guess from this experience that the whole industry is like that.

Crito 12y ago

It is pretty easy to determine things (with a high degree of confidence) about a large group of people having only encountered a small group of people. Of course how you sample is vital. With random sampling, it is pretty straightforward Stats 101 stuff. This wasn't random sampling which throws a wrench in it, but neither are these individual people actually independent. They were all selected by the organization they belong to.