Why Apple still want me to pay $10 to BUY a movie? I do not want to build a movie library. Most of the movies I only like to watch once. Apple executives are not very adaptive to high tech at all. They just live under the glory of Steve Jobs.
Why Apple still want me to pay $10 to BUY a movie? I do not want to build a movie library. Most of the movies I only like to watch once. Apple executives are not very adaptive to high tech at all. They just live under the glory of Steve Jobs.
This last year, I've grown to be a Tim is not right for this job person too , but what? Not sure where you live, but in Canada we are able to "rent" a movie if we only want to watch it once. If you don't have this feature in your country, I think its more to do with the studio's not allowing it rather than Apple not implementing it.
I will end this debate right now. The NeXT Employees that saved Apple have our own private collaborative network for people looking for talent in SV and discussing all matter of topics. One topic that has been consistently discussed is the disgust with QA Engineering and design decisions in Engineering that many of my colleagues can and should demand respect on for they developed the actual products they now find substandard in many areas.
One of their biggest disgusts resides with Mail.app, but isn't limited to Apple Music, iTunes and UX on OS X and iOS, to the many coding design patterns that introduce more bugs than they ever should.
I've suggested they go back and fix it or STFU about it because pissing on a private listing does no one any good.
Much respect with XCode though not much respect yet for Swift. These are folks who have written every aspect of NeXTSTEP/Openstep and OS X.
Why Apple still want me to pay $10 to BUY a movie? I do not want to build a movie library. Most of the movies I only like to watch once. Apple executives are not very adaptive to high tech at all. They just live under the glory of Steve Jobs.
This last year, I've grown to be a Tim is not right for this job person too , but what? Not sure where you live, but in Canada we are able to "rent" a movie if we only want to watch it once. If you don't have this feature in your country, I think its more to do with the studio's not allowing it rather than Apple not implementing it.
If this is due to the contract Apple signed with the studios then Apple executives are really inept. Why Netflix can but Apple can't?
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.
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.
None of Apple's competitors relies on a Steve Jobs reality distortion field to sell their products. Why isn't this apocalypse of keynote boredom dooming all of them?
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.
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.
None of Apple's competitors relies on a Steve Jobs reality distortion field to sell their products. Why isn't this apocalypse of keynote boredom dooming all of them?
Because Apple has an unicorn shortage and only a songs and dance keynote by a consummate showman can pied piper those darn unicorns to come home. Other companies simply use squirrels which are easy to please; anything shiny will do.
How many people have ever worked for Apple? Maybe 130,000 as a guess? So why would anyone at all care about a 1/130000ths helping of opinion about Apple's culture? Was this engineer appointed the official keeper of the Apple cultural perspective or is he just one of the 130,000 or so independent opinions on a highly subjective topic that even current Apple employees have very different and very personal opinions about?
There's a difference between operations and culture. As companies get larger, i.e., more employees, more partners, more supply and distribution channels, have more extensive product lines, legacy support, and broader customer bases they must become more operationally focused. Entrepreneurs and startups who don't learn how to scale up and/or out usually don't survive. But scaling and executing operationally doesn't mean that the cultural factors that got you to a successful place have to go away, and that's where Apple under Tim Cook has maintained its focus as well as Apple under Steve Jobs ever did.
Corporate culture is a really difficult thing to evaluate because it isn't really driven by policies and directives flowing down the chain of command. It's much more subtle, subjective, and influenced by everyone who's part of keeping the enterprise moving on a continuing aggregate basis in a recognizable direction, up or down, especially when the leaders aren't directly involved in day to day stuff and when the managers are not actively cracking the whip on their direct reports. Apple's performance and sustained innovation under Tim Cook has been very strong because the Apple culture is still focused on constantly delivering customer value, whether it's with introducing new products, shoring up existing products, scaling services and ecosystem up and out, not selling out on sustainability, not compromising on a culture of inclusion for its employees and partners, and constantly rewarding its shareholders with financial success. In an enterprise as large and far reaching as Apple there are always going to be some sore points and misses.
If Apple didn't have such a strong culture, commitment to the bigger positive picture, and belief system they'd be like other companies and react inappropriately to small setbacks and lose their way. But they don't, and having a leader like Tim Cook who understands the bigger picture and believes in the Apple culture backed by solid operational execution continues to pay dividends and positions them extremely well for future challenges. If you want to see examples of small minded, whacky, undisciplined, thoughtless, and irrational handling of challenges that reflects a total lack of a moral compass and a cultural void - there are many fine examples on Twitter.
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.
"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"
Yes, I am aware why he left Apple. His direct quotes:
"I've been writing code for more than 30 years, and 16 of those years have been in the developer tools space. I love it, but I am ready to move on to something else. Autopilot is clearly incredibly important to the world because of its ability to save people's lives (and increase convenience). It is also a very, very hard technology problem and my experience building large scale software and team building is useful. Of course, I’ve also been a huge Tesla fan for some time."
"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. In the end though, the opportunity to dive into a completely new area and work with the amazing Tesla Autopilot team was irresistible."
As I mentioned, Apple is supposedly working on an "Tesla Autopilot" competitor. You would think that Apple would want to keep a talented employee that had a difficult decision to leave because he loved Apple but yet wanted to try something new after 30 years. One employer (Elon Musk) showed he cared about his wants and one didn't.
Chris Lattner is leaving for Tesla in a VP position, so he's in charge of the entire Autopilot Software team. What if that position is already filled within Apple, which is a huge possibility? Would he have taken on "lesser" role to stay at Apple?
Of course its impossible for us to know for sure. If he loves Apple as much as he says he does and he's as good as Elon thinks he is, I'm sure Apple could have or should have come up with something that Lattner would have been happy with. Just saying, something does not seem right here.
Unlike other ex-Apple engineers, he seems to be going out of his way to defend Apple and calm fears that Apple is crumbling.
Which makes it all the more strange. I commend him for not bad mouthing his ex-company because that's how you are suppose to act when you leave. But either, he is lying about his feelings for Apple and is just trying to be civil and nice or he really does love Apple and had a hard time leaving. In either case something is not right at Apple. Instead of going with the Apple is crumbling scenario, I believe what he says and lean towards, there are so many layers of mundane management that his voice of wanting to move on to something new, fell of deaf ears. On the opposite spectrum, when a visionary CEO such as Elon directly entrusts you to be VP of a department in a single swoop, it makes you feel important and wanted. Bottom line, Apple lost a talented employee that says he wanted to stay for many more years. One CEO let it happen, one made it happen. Thats the difference between a passionate visionary CEO and one name Tim Cook.
Oh jesus listen to yourself. He's lying, Apple is doomed, there's something rotten in denmark, etc.. No, it couldn't possibly be exactly what he's said it was -- a needed change after over a decade at one job, moving to something new and different and at a great salary and responsibility bump.
When your logical argument boils down to "it just smells fishy!" despite the guys in the room saying otherwise very clearly, it means you've gone off into tinfoil hat territory. Conspiracy theory. At that point it's pure projection and not at all observation.
I said this? You clearly need reading comprehension lessons.
I think he got your number just right. Your agenda is showing, and it isn't based on logic or insight.
His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example
I'd seriously like to hear from someone as to what this ridiculously-compensated overrated fashionista has done for the Apple Store.
The Apple stores are vastly improved from what they used to be, like day and night. And I don't think you know what the word fashionista means. She for sure isn't one.
How many people have ever worked for Apple? Maybe 130,000 as a guess? So why would anyone at all care about a 1/130000ths helping of opinion about Apple's culture? Was this engineer appointed the official keeper of the Apple cultural perspective or is he just one of the 130,000 or so independent opinions on a highly subjective topic that even current Apple employees have very different and very personal opinions about?
There's a difference between operations and culture. As companies get larger, i.e., more employees, more partners, more supply and distribution channels, have more extensive product lines, legacy support, and broader customer bases they must become more operationally focused. Entrepreneurs and startups who don't learn how to scale up and/or out usually don't survive. But scaling and executing operationally doesn't mean that the cultural factors that got you to a successful place have to go away, and that's where Apple under Tim Cook has maintained its focus as well as Apple under Steve Jobs ever did.
Corporate culture is a really difficult thing to evaluate because it isn't really driven by policies and directives flowing down the chain of command. It's much more subtle, subjective, and influenced by everyone who's part of keeping the enterprise moving on a continuing aggregate basis in a recognizable direction, up or down, especially when the leaders aren't directly involved in day to day stuff and when the managers are not actively cracking the whip on their direct reports. Apple's performance and sustained innovation under Tim Cook has been very strong because the Apple culture is still focused on constantly delivering customer value, whether it's with introducing new products, shoring up existing products, scaling services and ecosystem up and out, not selling out on sustainability, not compromising on a culture of inclusion for its employees and partners, and constantly rewarding its shareholders with financial success. In an enterprise as large and far reaching as Apple there are always going to be some sore points and misses.
If Apple didn't have such a strong culture, commitment to the bigger positive picture, and belief system they'd be like other companies and react inappropriately to small setbacks and lose their way. But they don't, and having a leader like Tim Cook who understands the bigger picture and believes in the Apple culture backed by solid operational execution continues to pay dividends and positions them extremely well for future challenges. If you want to see examples of small minded, whacky, undisciplined, thoughtless, and irrational handling of challenges that reflects a total lack of a moral compass and a cultural void - there are many fine examples on Twitter.
People seem to constantly forget that Jobs himself thought that operations and product lines were a key element that Apple V 1.0 (before he came back) totally messed up; that's why hiring Cook was one of the first thing he did and he took care of culling the product lines and refocusing them.
You can't change the world if your losing money. The first goal of company is making enough money to thrive (or at least fight another day, if presently your not on top of your game). Jo
Jobs concentrated on the product line side of the equation, trimming the fat and focusing it so it stayed true to Apple's goal of improving the user's life (not giving him more shiny gadgets). This focus, by simplifying the supply chain, worked in synergy with operations.to set Apple on a more solid financial footing that enabled the Ipod and then Iphone to occur soon after.
So the former employee who wrote this tweetstorm claims Tim Cook fired Scott Forstall because Bob Mansfield and Jony Ive couldn't handle how much he cared. I'm sorry but this guy cannot be taken seriously. The fact that Tony Fadell - who no longer works at the company and has no reason to defend it - disputed what he said proves it.
I'm an Apple customer because of iOS and Mac OS. Not some stupid car distraction.
I agree. Especially for iOS its speed and consistency has always been the thing that appealed to me (despite thinking they went a little overboard with the FLATNESS in iOS7). I think iOS would work great even on Qualcomm chips. I've watched many Android reviews and while they often have appealing features many of the reviewers mention that android phones tend to slow down after a few months (if not already lagging at the get go from bloatware) No wonder they are looking for the next android phone. I like the designs of many Android phones over the iPhone 6, 6S, and 7 designs but it comes down to the operating system which make iOS still enjoyable to us. I rank different elements of the current iPhones as: 1. iOS (excellent) 2. Hardware (great) - CPU, Screens, and TouchID best. iPhone 7+ cameras great. iPhone 7 camera good. Audio Average 3. Design (Average) - iPhone 6 and 6S look ugly. 7 is finally not annoying. 4. Services (below Average) - Some good, others bad like iMaps and SIRI
I tend to be critical on Apple because there are some areas that I think Apple should do more: A. Regularity of Mac updates (at least one every two years) B. SIRI C. MAPS D. No Echo competitor/Home Hub
If there is a quarter where Apple results could be a disappointment it would be the Oct-Dec because of 1. No headphone jack (and the AirPods weren't out) 2. The Note7 exploding, and 3. Issues with the new MBP concerning batteries and power. But remember how Apple does has to be compared Google and Apple just performs better as a company. So the iPhone 7 should easily sell more than the iPhone 6S and hopefully the iPhone 6. Google has a long ways to go to prove they can sell their own product lines (Pixel, Home, WIFI, ChromeBooks). So despite my criticisms Apple will still deliver great financial results ( especially because the iPhone7+ will really drive the ASP up).
Why Apple still want me to pay $10 to BUY a movie? I do not want to build a movie library. Most of the movies I only like to watch once. Apple executives are not very adaptive to high tech at all. They just live under the glory of Steve Jobs.
Then rent it? And then instead of complaining about the price of the rental, put the blame where its due -- the studios.
I will end this debate right now. The NeXT Employees that saved Apple have our own private collaborative network for people looking for talent in SV and discussing all matter of topics. One topic that has been consistently discussed is the disgust with QA Engineering and design decisions in Engineering that many of my colleagues can and should demand respect on for they developed the actual products they now find substandard in many areas.
One of their biggest disgusts resides with Mail.app, but isn't limited to Apple Music, iTunes and UX on OS X and iOS, to the many coding design patterns that introduce more bugs than they ever should.
I've suggested they go back and fix it or STFU about it because pissing on a private listing does no one any good.
Much respect with XCode though not much respect yet for Swift. These are folks who have written every aspect of NeXTSTEP/Openstep and OS X.
Sounds like your "network" is poised to save the world. Or at least put a dent in the universe?
Meanwhile, the executive team that Jobs put in place to save Apple is largely still there.
How many people have ever worked for Apple? Maybe 130,000 as a guess? So why would anyone at all care about a 1/130000ths helping of opinion about Apple's culture? Was this engineer appointed the official keeper of the Apple cultural perspective or is he just one of the 130,000 or so independent opinions on a highly subjective topic that even current Apple employees have very different and very personal opinions about?
There's a difference between operations and culture. As companies get larger, i.e., more employees, more partners, more supply and distribution channels, have more extensive product lines, legacy support, and broader customer bases they must become more operationally focused. Entrepreneurs and startups who don't learn how to scale up and/or out usually don't survive. But scaling and executing operationally doesn't mean that the cultural factors that got you to a successful place have to go away, and that's where Apple under Tim Cook has maintained its focus as well as Apple under Steve Jobs ever did.
Corporate culture is a really difficult thing to evaluate because it isn't really driven by policies and directives flowing down the chain of command. It's much more subtle, subjective, and influenced by everyone who's part of keeping the enterprise moving on a continuing aggregate basis in a recognizable direction, up or down, especially when the leaders aren't directly involved in day to day stuff and when the managers are not actively cracking the whip on their direct reports. Apple's performance and sustained innovation under Tim Cook has been very strong because the Apple culture is still focused on constantly delivering customer value, whether it's with introducing new products, shoring up existing products, scaling services and ecosystem up and out, not selling out on sustainability, not compromising on a culture of inclusion for its employees and partners, and constantly rewarding its shareholders with financial success. In an enterprise as large and far reaching as Apple there are always going to be some sore points and misses.
If Apple didn't have such a strong culture, commitment to the bigger positive picture, and belief system they'd be like other companies and react inappropriately to small setbacks and lose their way. But they don't, and having a leader like Tim Cook who understands the bigger picture and believes in the Apple culture backed by solid operational execution continues to pay dividends and positions them extremely well for future challenges. If you want to see examples of small minded, whacky, undisciplined, thoughtless, and irrational handling of challenges that reflects a total lack of a moral compass and a cultural void - there are many fine examples on Twitter.
A perfectly rational, reasonable opinion and post. Thank you.
Why Apple still want me to pay $10 to BUY a movie? I do not want to build a movie library. Most of the movies I only like to watch once. Apple executives are not very adaptive to high tech at all. They just live under the glory of Steve Jobs.
Then rent it? And then instead of complaining about the price of the rental, put the blame where its due -- the studios.
Then why Netflix can allow users watch unlimited number of movies with a $10 monthly fee but Apple can't?
Apple may be making money on its one product foundation but as a very longtime user it has become one of the most disappointing, boring companies on earth. Reliable and predictable though. Was given a new iPhone for Christmas and I still couldn't be bothered to unpack it. If I never used another Apple product I might experience some nostalgic feeling but it really wouldn't bother me otherwise, something I rarely felt in the past. It says something when thei most interesting product, to me, is the Apple TV which is hardly exciting. They have become the Windows an Ofice Microsoft of old and their CEO has managed to turn them into Compaq. Nice to know we have a new stylus to look forward to. So very disappointing ...
Note, I am not saying anyone else is any better, just that Apple no longer feels special to me.
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.
By what metric is Tim Cook's Apple not innovative?
Comments
One of their biggest disgusts resides with Mail.app, but isn't limited to Apple Music, iTunes and UX on OS X and iOS, to the many coding design patterns that introduce more bugs than they ever should.
I've suggested they go back and fix it or STFU about it because pissing on a private listing does no one any good.
Much respect with XCode though not much respect yet for Swift. These are folks who have written every aspect of NeXTSTEP/Openstep and OS X.
Other companies simply use squirrels which are easy to please; anything shiny will do.
How many people have ever worked for Apple? Maybe 130,000 as a guess? So why would anyone at all care about a 1/130000ths helping of opinion about Apple's culture? Was this engineer appointed the official keeper of the Apple cultural perspective or is he just one of the 130,000 or so independent opinions on a highly subjective topic that even current Apple employees have very different and very personal opinions about?
There's a difference between operations and culture. As companies get larger, i.e., more employees, more partners, more supply and distribution channels, have more extensive product lines, legacy support, and broader customer bases they must become more operationally focused. Entrepreneurs and startups who don't learn how to scale up and/or out usually don't survive. But scaling and executing operationally doesn't mean that the cultural factors that got you to a successful place have to go away, and that's where Apple under Tim Cook has maintained its focus as well as Apple under Steve Jobs ever did.
Corporate culture is a really difficult thing to evaluate because it isn't really driven by policies and directives flowing down the chain of command. It's much more subtle, subjective, and influenced by everyone who's part of keeping the enterprise moving on a continuing aggregate basis in a recognizable direction, up or down, especially when the leaders aren't directly involved in day to day stuff and when the managers are not actively cracking the whip on their direct reports. Apple's performance and sustained innovation under Tim Cook has been very strong because the Apple culture is still focused on constantly delivering customer value, whether it's with introducing new products, shoring up existing products, scaling services and ecosystem up and out, not selling out on sustainability, not compromising on a culture of inclusion for its employees and partners, and constantly rewarding its shareholders with financial success. In an enterprise as large and far reaching as Apple there are always going to be some sore points and misses.
If Apple didn't have such a strong culture, commitment to the bigger positive picture, and belief system they'd be like other companies and react inappropriately to small setbacks and lose their way. But they don't, and having a leader like Tim Cook who understands the bigger picture and believes in the Apple culture backed by solid operational execution continues to pay dividends and positions them extremely well for future challenges. If you want to see examples of small minded, whacky, undisciplined, thoughtless, and irrational handling of challenges that reflects a total lack of a moral compass and a cultural void - there are many fine examples on Twitter.
The Apple stores are vastly improved from what they used to be, like day and night. And I don't think you know what the word fashionista means. She for sure isn't one.
You can't change the world if your losing money. The first goal of company is making enough money to thrive (or at least fight another day, if presently your not on top of your game). Jo
Jobs concentrated on the product line side of the equation, trimming the fat and focusing it so it stayed true to Apple's goal of improving the user's life (not giving him more shiny gadgets). This focus, by simplifying the supply chain, worked in synergy with operations.to set Apple on a more solid financial footing that enabled the Ipod and then Iphone to occur soon after.
So Steve pulling people from different projects to focus on one thing - Cross-pollination
Reports of Mac engineers being pulled in to get iOS 7 ready - CRISIS!!
I rank different elements of the current iPhones as:
1. iOS (excellent)
2. Hardware (great) - CPU, Screens, and TouchID best. iPhone 7+ cameras great. iPhone 7 camera good. Audio Average
3. Design (Average) - iPhone 6 and 6S look ugly. 7 is finally not annoying.
4. Services (below Average) - Some good, others bad like iMaps and SIRI
I tend to be critical on Apple because there are some areas that I think Apple should do more:
A. Regularity of Mac updates (at least one every two years)
B. SIRI
C. MAPS
D. No Echo competitor/Home Hub
If there is a quarter where Apple results could be a disappointment it would be the Oct-Dec because of 1. No headphone jack (and the AirPods weren't out)
2. The Note7 exploding, and 3. Issues with the new MBP concerning batteries and power.
But remember how Apple does has to be compared Google and Apple just performs better as a company. So the iPhone 7 should easily sell more than the iPhone 6S
and hopefully the iPhone 6. Google has a long ways to go to prove they can sell their own product lines (Pixel, Home, WIFI, ChromeBooks).
So despite my criticisms Apple will still deliver great financial results ( especially because the iPhone7+ will really drive the ASP up).
Sounds like your "network" is poised to save the world. Or at least put a dent in the universe?
Meanwhile, the executive team that Jobs put in place to save Apple is largely still there.
A perfectly rational, reasonable opinion and post. Thank you.
Note, I am not saying anyone else is any better, just that Apple no longer feels special to me.
He is innovative, just in a very boring way.