Former Apple engineer says company more rigid, less competitive under Tim Cook than Steve ...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Under Tim Cook -- who assumed the CEO reins from Steve Jobs in 2011 -- Apple has become a more hierarchical company, where people largely stick to the tasks they were hired for, according former Apple engineer Bob Burrough.




"At Apple in 2007, organizationally it was the wild west," Burrough said to CNBC. The interview came in the wake of a series of Twitter comments by him referring to the Jobs-era company as "thin, competitive, dynamic."

In his view, Cook has tried to eliminate executive conflict within Apple and grow middle management -- but in doing so has crippled the Mac maker's old spirit.

Burrough explained to CNBC that while Apple hired him under a specific manager, his first two years were spent on projects outside that manager's main role, because projects took precedence over corporate structure. He compared the current company to his time at defunct phone maker Palm, where teams were "highly organizational" and responsibilities stayed narrow.

"There was a clear sense [at Palm] that each person had a clear responsibility, and rarely deviated from it," he said. "When you went to someone for help solving a problem 'not my job' was a common response."




Burrough's criticisms of Apple have been challenged by others, and indeed Tony Fadell -- once the senior VP of Apple's iPod division -- recently suggested that there was "never a competition" at Apple, at least when it came to developing the original iPhone.

Wrong!!! There was never a competition. We, together, were searching for the best solution. Steve asked us to test all the possibilities... https://t.co/DNkT2WZnqV

— Tony Fadell (@tfadell)


Cook was formerly Apple's chief operating officer, and has actually doubled annual revenues under his tenure from $108.2 billion to $215.7 billion. At the same time, critics and supporters alike have suggested that Apple has become too dependent on the iPhone, and unable to break out with new device categories like the Apple Watch or its rumored self-driving car.

Apple is currently said to be concentrating solely on a self-driving platform, having shelved work on a first-party car design until at least late 2017. A shipping vehicle, made by Apple or otherwise, is likely several years away.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 83
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,239member
    I have no idea if this is true, but change is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a bigger company today, after all. 

    Jobs would not have wanted Apple's structure and processes to remain frozen at the time of his death. The company has to evolve. 

    The tricky part is to make sure that the benefits of changes outweigh the cost. Since all humans make mistakes, some changes will be mistakes. What's imperative is to recognize when a change is a mistake and to fix it. 

    We have evidence that Cook can recognize mistakes and change course. His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example. 

    It remains to be seen if Cook can identify and correct the mistakes (whatever they are -- it's hard to tell from the outside) that have led to the stagnation of the Mac. 
    StrangeDaysrandominternetpersonpalomine
  • Reply 2 of 83
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,689member
    This BI article doesn't go into the whole ordeal. The ex-engineer's Twitter thread is here if anyone's interested in going through it


    edited January 2017 jay-tavon b7
  • Reply 3 of 83
    thedbathedba Posts: 761member
    Cook was formerly Apple's chief operating officer, and has actually doubled annual revenues under his tenure from $108.2 billion to $215.7 billion. At the same time, critics and supporters alike have suggested that Apple has become too dependent on the iPhone, and unable to break out with new device categories like the Apple Watch or its rumored self-driving car.

    Very shortsighted view of Apple. Ignoring Apple watch, AirPods, Apple Pay.  Also ignoring the advancements made by the Johnny Sruji's microprocessor division.
    So far no other company has produced anything that'll knock the iPhone off its throne anytime soon. 




    jay-tStrangeDayscalimagman1979
  • Reply 4 of 83
    One person's opinion is not a trend. He seems more like whiner than a gifted engineer. 
    StrangeDaysstarwars
  • Reply 5 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    I believe what he is saying is mostly true, when Steve is focus on a product he pulled people in as needed. However, you can not run a 100,000 employee company like the wide west, you can not have people just bouncing around from project to project without some semblance of order. However, I bet that there are still people at the company who do move from project to project and are not narrow focused, But those people are few among the many.
    randominternetpersonelijahgcogitodextercali
  • Reply 6 of 83
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,052member
    Interesting the AI article doesn't use the word "disgruntled."

    StrangeDaysstarwars
  • Reply 7 of 83
    The difference I see between Jobs and Cook is that Jobs ran an innovative company that just so happened to make lots of money. Cook runs a business better but isn't very innovative. 
    elijahgcharlesatlaslarryapulseimagesanantksundaramstarwars
  • Reply 8 of 83
    Id say it's mostly true. Even the break room has to be within style standards. Profits are up because the stores have very little inventory and haven't for months and then there is the "tee shirt and credo" holiday gift that is useless and insulting.
    elijahg
  • Reply 9 of 83
    blastdoor said:

    We have evidence that Cook can recognize mistakes and change course. His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example. 

    Not a great example though  because that retail guy should never have been hired in the first place. Pretty much the entire population of the UK could have spotted that disaster a mile off.
    elijahgpaxmanpalomineanantksundaram
  • Reply 10 of 83
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    The company is also 10 times bigger than in 2005... Good grief.

    And that's only "Bob"'s opinion too btw. It may, or may not be "true" (another definition that gets abuse quite a bit by so called journalists these days).

    Do an actual research talking to several dozens of people that have been there for the last 15 years and we will talk.

    edited January 2017 StrangeDaysrandominternetpersonrogifan_newpalominecaliapple jockey
  • Reply 11 of 83
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,821member
    jr7921 said:
    The difference I see between Jobs and Cook is that Jobs ran an innovative company that just so happened to make lots of money. Cook runs a business better but isn't very innovative. 
    Nonsense. Claiming apple isn't innovative is a troll trope. they make the best smartphone, tablet, notebooks, smart watch, headphones, etc, all loaded with hardware innovation, particularly boring stuff can't see like processors and display tech. They devices and inventions don't produce themselves nor fall off trees. 
    randominternetpersonsuddenly newtonapple jockey
  • Reply 12 of 83
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,821member

    Id say it's mostly true. Even the break room has to be within style standards. Profits are up because the stores have very little inventory and haven't for months and then there is the "tee shirt and credo" holiday gift that is useless and insulting.
    That makes no sense -- profits are up because there's nothing to sell? Yeah that isn't how it works.
    randominternetpersoncali
  • Reply 13 of 83
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    I'm really not keen on Cook. Originally I rated him, but more and more he seems to be a very average corporate CEO with little vision; his main aim seems to be using Apple as a Social Justice Warrior platform. Like most of his kind, he seemingly likes everyone to be as structured and mundane as he is, dulling the "young" and "hip" image Apple used to enjoy. Yes Apple is 40 years old, but 90% of its ageing seems to have happened in the last 5 years. Cook's keynotes have no enthusiasm; a complete role reversal with Jobs who I used to prefer watching than other VPs. Now I skip Cook and jump forward to the VP's sections. Employees see a leader as just that, someone to idolise, they share in the CEO's enthusiasm, but a CEO with no enthusiasm doesn't instil the drive and ambition a company like Apple is admired for.

    He continually fobs people off with "we have an exciting product pipeline", a phrase that is getting very old very fast considering the products don't come to fruition. Claims that he grew the company from $100bn to $200bn are essentially false. Fine, he was the CEO at the time but as people stated at the time of Job's death; there were plenty of products in the pipeline. It was the vision of Jobs and the enthusiasm he brought that did so, Cook just kept things ticking over. IMO, Cook is quite happy bumbling along, he's unconcerned whether Apple grows or stays stagnant. Jobs on the other hand was always pushing for the absolute best everyone could do, he always wanted to be ahead of the curve.
    blastdoor said:
    I have no idea if this is true, but change is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a bigger company today, after all. 

    Jobs would not have wanted Apple's structure and processes to remain frozen at the time of his death. The company has to evolve. 

    The tricky part is to make sure that the benefits of changes outweigh the cost. Since all humans make mistakes, some changes will be mistakes. What's imperative is to recognize when a change is a mistake and to fix it. 

    We have evidence that Cook can recognize mistakes and change course. His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example. 

    It remains to be seen if Cook can identify and correct the mistakes (whatever they are -- it's hard to tell from the outside) that have led to the stagnation of the Mac. 
    Jobs seemed to prefer an organic working atmosphere, in fact there were problems earlier in Apple's history with engineers jumping to more interesting projects and leaving almost no one on some projects. He wanted his employees to work hard, but allowed some freedom. The Jobsian structure of Apple (and freedom for engineers to submit as many different ideas and concepts as they chose to their managers) is really where Apple's innovation came from. Telling engineers to come up with a different way to do X or Y is a very forced and inorganic way of coming up with innovation, and results in change for the sake of change.

     It seems to me that Cook is the source of the mistakes. He employed Browett remember - not telling Ive to tone it down with the thinness of Macs, and seemingly assigning most of the Mac teams to iOS and iPhone engineering.

    In regard to CPU improvement under Cook, again that's not really Cook's vision, it's purely the extremely talented engineers that've managed it. It is no mean feat to do what they've done, but that innovation certainly cannot be tied to Cook. In a similar strain the Apple Watch, it's a very good device but it doesn't quite amaze like the iPhone and iPad did. There are some amazing innovations in the Watch, but again it's engineering, not Cook.
    edited January 2017 altivec88charlesatlasbloggerblogpaxmanwonkothesane
  • Reply 14 of 83
    Its interesting that the Apple Car was brought up in this article as just being a few years off.  Wasn't it a few days ago that the lead Swift creator, Chris Lattner also left Apple and is now "thrilled" to be at Tesla working on something new and important such as car AI.    Hmmmm, couldn't Apple use someone like that in their auto division working on their car AI.  Sounds like this former engineer hit the nail on the head by saying each employee is forced to be narrow focused.  Clearly, Chris must have heard rumors about Apple's car AI, why couldn't he be transferred over to the auto devision if thats what he was interested in?  As this engineer said, Apple use to be "thin, competitive, dynamic".  Does anyone believe those words to ring true today.   It just seems all blahhh over at Apple.
    elijahg
  • Reply 15 of 83
    I think this has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

    One person's experience of a company as large as Apple does not describe the whole company nor does it describe the prevailing management style. It simply describes their experience. For all we know, this guy was constrained to particular tasks rather than bouncing around a lot and it peeved him personally.

    Narrow focus isn't a bad thing. Perhaps this guy just got bored with doing his allotted job? Maybe he needs more stimulation? But you can't have a free-for-all in the world's biggest and most valuable company without standards falling through the floor and nobody taking responsibility for anything. It just isn't a long term viable way to run a company.

    I think we're seeing more sour grapes here about one man's experience than we are a true picture of Apple.
    StrangeDayspalomine
  • Reply 16 of 83
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,689member
    altivec88 said:
    Its interesting that the Apple Car was brought up in this article as just being a few years off.  Wasn't it a few days ago that the lead Swift creator, Chris Lattner also left Apple and is now "thrilled" to be at Tesla working on something new and important such as car AI.    Hmmmm, couldn't Apple use someone like that in their auto division working on their car AI.  Sounds like this former engineer hit the nail on the head by saying each employee is forced to be narrow focused.  Clearly, Chris must have heard rumors about Apple's car AI, why couldn't he be transferred over to the auto devision if thats what he was interested in?  As this engineer said, Apple use to be "thin, competitive, dynamic".  Does anyone believe those words to ring true today.   It just seems all blahhh over at Apple.
    Lattner already addressed his reasons for leaving

    1.  https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030063.html

    "Apple is a truly amazing place to be able to assemble the skills, imagination, and discipline to pull something like this off"

    2.  Here:   
    https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030078.html

    3.  Here:  http://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/17/chris-lattner-says-tesla-irresistible/

    "This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years"

    4:  And lastly


    StrangeDays
  • Reply 17 of 83
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,968member
    How much do you want to bet that this is the operative sentence in the CNBC story:

    "...Apple is much closer to his job at Palm, said Burrough, who most recently founded a 3D printing company called..."

    What better way to attract attention to your new company than make a media splash by taking pot shots at Tim Cook while creating the inference that your business values are nimble and innovative, just like Steve Jobs?
    canukstormcalijax44
  • Reply 18 of 83
    elijahg said:
    I'm really not keen on Cook. Originally I rated him, but more and more he seems to be a very average corporate CEO with little vision; his main aim seems to be using Apple as a Social Justice Warrior platform. Like most of his kind, he seemingly likes everyone to be as structured and mundane as he is, dulling the "young" and "hip" image Apple used to enjoy. Yes Apple is 40 years old, but 90% of its ageing seems to have happened in the last 5 years. Cook's keynotes have no enthusiasm; a complete role reversal with Jobs who I used to prefer watching than other VPs. Now I skip Cook and jump forward to the VP's sections. Employees see a leader as just that, someone to idolise, they share in the CEO's enthusiasm, but a CEO with no enthusiasm doesn't instil the drive and ambition a company like Apple is admired for.

    He continually fobs people off with "we have an exciting product pipeline", a phrase that is getting very old very fast considering the products don't come to fruition. Claims that he grew the company from $100bn to $200bn are essentially false. Fine, he was the CEO at the time but as people stated at the time of Job's death; there were plenty of products in the pipeline. It was the vision of Jobs and the enthusiasm he brought that did so, Cook just kept things ticking over. IMO, Cook is quite happy bumbling along, he's unconcerned whether Apple grows or stays stagnant. Jobs on the other hand was always pushing for the absolute best everyone could do, he always wanted to be ahead of the curve.
    blastdoor said:
    I have no idea if this is true, but change is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a bigger company today, after all. 

    Jobs would not have wanted Apple's structure and processes to remain frozen at the time of his death. The company has to evolve. 

    The tricky part is to make sure that the benefits of changes outweigh the cost. Since all humans make mistakes, some changes will be mistakes. What's imperative is to recognize when a change is a mistake and to fix it. 

    We have evidence that Cook can recognize mistakes and change course. His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example. 

    It remains to be seen if Cook can identify and correct the mistakes (whatever they are -- it's hard to tell from the outside) that have led to the stagnation of the Mac. 
    Jobs seemed to prefer an organic working atmosphere, in fact there were problems earlier in Apple's history with engineers jumping to more interesting projects and leaving almost no one on some projects. He wanted his employees to work hard, but allowed some freedom. The Jobsian structure of Apple (and freedom for engineers to submit as many different ideas and concepts as they chose to their managers) is really where Apple's innovation came from. Telling engineers to come up with a different way to do X or Y is a very forced and inorganic way of coming up with innovation, and results in change for the sake of change. It seems to me that Cook is the source of the mistakes. He employed Browett remember - not telling Ive to tone it down with the thinness of Macs, and seemingly assigning most of the Mac teams to iOS and iPhone engineering.

    In regard to CPU improvement under Cook, again that's not really Cook's vision, it's purely the extremely talented engineers that've managed it. It is no mean feat to do what they've done, but that innovation certainly cannot be tied to Cook. In a similar strain the Apple Watch, it's a very good device but it doesn't quite amaze like the iPhone and iPad did. There are some amazing innovations in the Watch, but again it's engineering, not Cook.
    Great post...  I agree with you completely.

    I would like to add to your keynote analysis.   Steve had the crazy ability to make a rock look so impressive, that you just had to buy one (the reality distortion field).  I get that nobody is going to replace Steve but other than Craig Federighi, there is absolutely no passion up there.  I'm sure if Steve were around, I would own an Apple watch by now but I don't and have no interest in one.   Not because I think the Apple watch is a bad product, its because they haven't wowed me in to buying a product I really don't need like Steve would have done.  The presentations seem so scripted, monotone, and bland.  When I get to the 20th "amazing" and "magical" descriptor, I almost start vomiting and must force my self to continue watching.   That does not bode well to the product they want me to buy.  I know Tims character can't change but maybe he should pass the keynotes off to someone more charasmatic because when he speaks, the boring mundane level spikes to new levels.
    avon b7elijahg
  • Reply 19 of 83
    What he's referring to is how NeXT and PIXAR are run. The cross-pollination of help between colleagues was expected and/or demanded of people. You quickly realized there was no way in hell one could run lean w/o people pitching in on several projects. The management was well managed and no one hid decisions from them. Every week we had to collect all of our action items of what we had yet to do and the ones resolved; and include all parties involved. Sent them to the manager and at the meeting every one an hour or two prior were given the complete listing to then discuss at the meeting.

    Different members discussed how they could resolve other member issues and/or improve upon their solutions. You quickly knew everyone and discovered their talents.

    It's a win/win.

    Keeping to a singular focus approach will slow progress and produce more work in the long run.

    Cook seems to run Engineering like procurement of materials and contracts: Bad Idea.
    canukstormwonkothesanecaliewtheckmanelijahg
  • Reply 20 of 83
    altivec88 said:
    Its interesting that the Apple Car was brought up in this article as just being a few years off.  Wasn't it a few days ago that the lead Swift creator, Chris Lattner also left Apple and is now "thrilled" to be at Tesla working on something new and important such as car AI.    Hmmmm, couldn't Apple use someone like that in their auto division working on their car AI.  Sounds like this former engineer hit the nail on the head by saying each employee is forced to be narrow focused.  Clearly, Chris must have heard rumors about Apple's car AI, why couldn't he be transferred over to the auto devision if thats what he was interested in?  As this engineer said, Apple use to be "thin, competitive, dynamic".  Does anyone believe those words to ring true today.   It just seems all blahhh over at Apple.
    Lattner already addressed his reasons for leaving

    1.  https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030063.html

    "Apple is a truly amazing place to be able to assemble the skills, imagination, and discipline to pull something like this off"

    2.  Here:   
    https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030078.html

    3.  Here:  http://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/17/chris-lattner-says-tesla-irresistible/

    "This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years"

    4:  And lastly


    Chris is at a different level than Folk. Anyone who thinks everyone in engineering had equal collaboration and open access to colleagues is being disingenuous. He would have spent far too much time away from the minute details of teams below him to see how someone like Folk could come to that conclusion.

    The top level folks were always working directly with Steve so their time spent was continuously in a collaborative vibe. Delegation of tasks orders below them wouldn't have such collaboration. It's understandable to a point, but can suffer from singular task focus.
    elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.