5 ms·

I find this interesting in the context of Google and Apple, and a post I read recently discussing how many former Google employees go on to found their own star

I find this interesting in the context of Google and Apple, and a post I read recently discussing how many former Google employees go on to found their own start ups, but relatively few former Apple employees do so. Ironically, Apple is laser focused on a few highly successful products and has a highly disciplined brand, while Google launches new products every few weeks and kills most of them off when they don't gain any traction. The latter fits the bill of Tan's description of corporatism here, but Google's company alums have started more start ups post Google. I wonder if Google alum founders leave because of the corporatism environment, and are a better fit for the environment of founding a start up, while Apple employees who would be good founders stay at Apple because the environment is more conducive to what founders desire?

brudgers 11y ago
For extended periods of its history, Apple has had a culture where leadership recieved credit for each success and never offered a mea culpa in times of trouble. These may facilitate CYA habits and filtered to select people who prioritize not losing their jobs. To put it another way, engineering culture tends to tolerate higher rates of public failure than design culture. Google tends to present itself with an engineers face, Apple as tastemaker. Apple's choreographed public includes locking down communication of corporate internals. Google sends a lot of speakers to conferences to talk about their work. Apple selects for people for whom giving that up is not a deal breaker. Even the NSA has a culture more favorable to sharing research and ideas at conferences.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  I noticed the highly coreographed nature of Apple recently when checking some videos of people getting a demo of the Apple Watch. Different Apple reps, different people recording, but the demos where blow for blow the same. Put a watch in non-interactive demo mode on the recoders wrist, then demo watch faces on the reps functional watch, finish off by drawing a heart on the watch face and point out the vibration notifications. And this was the after-presentation demos at the WWDC no less. You find less drilled presentations on show floors where everyone are trade reps for big companies.
bpyne 11y ago
I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the observation you made about Google producing more founders. Both companies are "corporate" in that they have lots of jobs dedicated to keeping the company running, but have no direct impact on the revenue streams. A good example would be a license manager who negotiates licenses with third parties and makes sure his/her company stays in compliance. I'm sure there is at least one of those positions in both Apple and Google. Without knowing a breakdown of the people who left Google to become founders, it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusion. The 20% time policy may have given engineers ideas for their own products. Or, Google may operate like an startup incubator for its own products, so employees feel very comfortable with the mentality and pace of a startup. Or, you may be right that Google is more "corporate" than we think. Who knows?

brudgers 11y ago

For extended periods of its history, Apple has had a culture where leadership recieved credit for each success and never offered a mea culpa in times of trouble. These may facilitate CYA habits and filtered to select people who prioritize not losing their jobs. To put it another way, engineering culture tends to tolerate higher rates of public failure than design culture. Google tends to present itself with an engineers face, Apple as tastemaker. Apple's choreographed public includes locking down communication of corporate internals. Google sends a lot of speakers to conferences to talk about their work. Apple selects for people for whom giving that up is not a deal breaker. Even the NSA has a culture more favorable to sharing research and ideas at conferences.

digi_owl 11y ago
I noticed the highly coreographed nature of Apple recently when checking some videos of people getting a demo of the Apple Watch. Different Apple reps, different people recording, but the demos where blow for blow the same. Put a watch in non-interactive demo mode on the recoders wrist, then demo watch faces on the reps functional watch, finish off by drawing a heart on the watch face and point out the vibration notifications. And this was the after-presentation demos at the WWDC no less. You find less drilled presentations on show floors where everyone are trade reps for big companies.

bpyne 11y ago

I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the observation you made about Google producing more founders. Both companies are "corporate" in that they have lots of jobs dedicated to keeping the company running, but have no direct impact on the revenue streams. A good example would be a license manager who negotiates licenses with third parties and makes sure his/her company stays in compliance. I'm sure there is at least one of those positions in both Apple and Google. Without knowing a breakdown of the people who left Google to become founders, it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusion. The 20% time policy may have given engineers ideas for their own products. Or, Google may operate like an startup incubator for its own products, so employees feel very comfortable with the mentality and pace of a startup. Or, you may be right that Google is more "corporate" than we think. Who knows?