Lessons from Inside Apple: Why Focus is Horrifyingly Scary(swaaanson.tumblr.com) |
Lessons from Inside Apple: Why Focus is Horrifyingly Scary(swaaanson.tumblr.com) |
That sounds like a terrible environment.
Also, that article is about a patent lawsuit being brought against a third-party software development firm. The plaintiffs probably requested that Apple take down the allegedly infringing app, and they did. Any curator, no matter how strict or liberal their policies, has the freedom to remove potentially patent-infringing content from their marketplace.
(Which, for the record, isn't to say I agree that the patent is legitimate. I really hope the small developer wins.)
I believe such an environment can be very important. if you have very good people
Also, it's one thing to stand for your idea agressively, other, to just swear at people.
Steve Jobs was famously difficult. Certainly not the kind of boss I would want. But the turnover in his inner circle was really low. Craig Federighi who on Monday demonstrated the next OS X is a Guy from the old NeXT days. I think Jobs selected people as underlings who were able to stand up to him (sometimes).
When Apple says that battery-life is important in mobile devices, they mean it. If Samsung says it, maybe a year later they will turn around and bring out an eight-core phone that you can play a game on for forty-five minutes before having to plug it in again.
Apple isn't just opinionated: it's opinionated on hugely difficult technical issues that don't even exist in the wild yet. (As when they release a new category.) You only get that through violent discourse with egos on the line.
edit: a similar thing happens at Google, but not when it comes to ergonomics or user interfaces and usability with the same hardware devices Apple makes, but instead when it comes to solving certain problems on a massive scale. The result is that Google can't really release a laptop that's as usable as a Macbook in the same domain, and for everyone, and Apple can't really solve the ops issues that it would take to bring out a Google Search competitor. There is huge amount of discourse (of a radically different nature) at both companies.
No, they don't. They mean battery life is important in mobile devices as long as it doesn't get in the way of making them thin (among other things). After all, the modern smartphone with the best battery life is the Droid RAZR MAXX (soon to be dethroned by its international sibling the Motorola RAZR MAXX, which doesn't have the battery-life handicap of an LTE radio).
In the books I've read on the topic like _The Nine_, it's sounds like a terrific environment. You are incredibly respected by everyone you meet, you have a light workload which is self-chosen and also extremely important and you can see the consequences of your work without doubt, you work with other highly competent people, you can indulge in things like teaching your pet subject in your offtime and be paid very well for it, you get to select the most talented young lawyers as your staffers, and so on and so forth.
How ironic -- when I was at Apple in the 90s, our meetings were scattered creampuff things and this is how I imagined Microsoft would be. Now that I'm at Microsoft it's the other way around . . . :-)
Not fixing that typo, because my Android keyboard is insurmountably glitch.
Nine months later and I've just finished my probation period at a small, scrappy startup with a very specific market niche. Focus is really hard and it has to be driven by leadership from the top.
These are the moments where you see if your management consists of (war) leaders or administrators. I say leader for lack of a better word for it. What I have seen is that there are some people that are really good in tough, critical situations and others in the routine day-to-day situations. It's more than just rare that you have both abilities in one person.
Maybe that's why some tribal culture have different leaders for war and peace time.
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i...
"If you’re not scared, you’re not focused" sounds like "Babytalk" - the language that sociopaths and losers use to speak to the clueless - who actually take these statements at face value.
It's a great, intriguing read - certainly one that was genuinely new and unexpected to me.
I think it's a faulty claim. Doesn't work like this in many fields: science, martial arts, medicine (particularly neurosurgery), etc.
Say that you'd like to work on two projects - A and B. Atleast one of them needs to succeed or you'll go bankrupt(or something). Now, most people will probably think that if they divide their attention between both projects, they have a higher chance of bringing in some money. The thinking here is "Even if A doesn't take off, B might still bring in some money". So, B is the cushion against failure of A (or vice-versa). But this plan lacks focus - You cannot fully focus on A or B. Removing either improves focus but it also removes the cushion.
That's what he means by getting "scared".
Podcast: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2931
On another point, Facebook is by far the most popular social network, and it can hardly be argued that Facebook's policies are good for the users.
Funny to classify co-wokers and bosses accordingly. or not so fun, that depends... :-)
Certainly one of the best reads on organizational psychology I know.
They go overboard with this 'go bankrupt' argument to scare themselves to fight. It is the same as if the surgeons would start thinking 'Oh God, this patient is gonna die if I make a mistake' all the time. I don't see how this can help the patients.
> Andy Miller, who joined Apple as a vice president after Apple bought his mobile advertising company in 2009, asked Jobs if he could join the board of an independent company in a different business than Apple. “What?” Jobs responded. “You’re barely cutting it here,” Jobs said, which Miller understood to be relatively high praise, “and you want to go spend your time helping someone else’s company? I don’t even let Forstall out of the office,” Jobs added, referring to Scott Forstall, Apple’s mobile software chief, a high-ranking and considerably more influential executive than Miller. Needless to say, Miller declined the board membership offer.
Expecting a board member at a critical time in Apple's turnaround to dedicate 100% of the time to Apple is hardly controlling. In fact I would deem it common sense.
Second, the anecdote in question is about an Apple executive wanting to be a board member somewhere else. Plenty of executives (at companies other than Apple) are board members elsewhere, so Jobs' refusal is at least noteworthy. And since the refusal seems at least partly motivated by limiting an employee's outside interests, that does sound controlling (try replacing the subject of the conversation another professional activity that had a similarly modest time commitment).
It's also worth noting that the executive in question left Apple last summer.
Maybe a joke, but one only a very controlling person could make.
As for the iTunes store, ever heard of Rhapsody? It launched in 2001. iTunes store was launched in 2003.
The fact that Apple stamped its mark on the global phone market and is making huge profits is absolutely not an inherent reason to be thankful for them. They won most of the market and now enjoy a massive network effect advantage (larger market => more developers developing for iOS => improved and cheaper app offerings => larger market); why respect them for doing the equivalent of what Facebook did in the social networking arena (make the most popular UX in the market)?
To be sure, a few companies deserve actual respect - for me, those are the companies that treat their customers well, are highly socially responsible, encourage openness, and play fair with all. Even better if they go beyond immediate profit goals to genuinely drive innovation. Most companies just want to make a buck by winning the market - nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't inherently deserve respect.
Besides, it's a false dichotomy. The best products don't always win, the most popular products win. Popularity can be influenced by marketing and agitprop. And what's better for one market isn't what's better for another market. The problem right now is that the smartphone market only caters to one audience. You can't say that's "better".
(likewise apple has its standards in a phone, which is not the standard you cite, but not 45 minutes either.).
Apple is opinionated on every part of the user interface and design, on usability and ease-of-use. They then go on to put their money where their mouth is, and practice what they preach. (For the most part.)
It's very hard to find design decisions at Apple that seem to have 0 thought or discussion behind them. This is the norm at other companies.
Of course, it's entirely within Apple's prerogative to ignore that very niche market (I would if I were them) and it seems to be working well for them, but every odd ball computer configuration you see was created to meet the needs of at least one market. You are not the target market for the desktop replacement laptop. I am.
That doesn't mean the result of said thought was good, however:
http://i.minus.com/dQhzPuq2CZUc/264182-apple-mac-os-x-lion-1...
I really hate all these fake textures they are going though.
That's too bad. I use my laptops as portable desktops, seldom away from a plug. So I have to heft around a giant battery because Apple decides that only one usage model is right?
RIM devices have, generally, dramatically more endurance than Apple mobile devices. Apple seriously compromised battery life on the burgeoning smartphone market because they prioritized other things like a nice interface and a bigger screen. They weren't the leaders in battery life, and it's weird that you compare them particularly to Samsung when most Samsung devices have comparable or battery performance.
False assertion. With a Macbook Pro, you get one of the lightest laptops of its size, plus very competitive specs in pretty much all areas. (This goes for the new Retina one as well as the standard one.)
I'm not saying the iPhone didn't change the market. I am saying I don't believe it changed it for the better, where "better" means improved for the original smartphone owners. Look at the casualties from the iPhone: Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Palm, Nokia. 4 devices made for business, durable and professional.
Has there been any more substantial advancement in the smartphone market in the 6 years the iPhone has been on the market than in the 7 years between Windows Mobile and the release of the iPhone? Sure the iPhone changed the market... half a decade ago. And ever since, all its influence has brought us is more of the same.
Samsung series 9 notebook - 2.8lbs.
Macbook Pro - 4.4 - 5.6lbs.
Apple is a remarkable organization, but they are still using the same Intel processors and chipsets, SSDs and wifi chips as everyone else. Where they have a longer battery life it usually is because they filled every crevice with battery, as with the new Retina Macbook Pro. It could have been much lighter if they didn't so intently focus on a 7 hour battery life.
If you want to compare apples to apples, the 13" Air is a much more appropriate comparison to the original machine you were referring to. The Air has a faster processor (and an option to upgrade to an i7) and weighs almost exactly the same (2.96 pounds to 2.9--not 2.8 as you said).
So...you were saying?
You were wrongly saying?
So I think I'm done with you. HAND.
