Former Apple engineer says company more rigid, less competitive under Tim Cook than Steve ...
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.
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.
"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.
Comments
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.
This is also what he says RE: Scott Forstall's firing
So far no other company has produced anything that'll knock the iPhone off its throne anytime soon.
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.
That makes no sense -- profits are up because there's nothing to sell? Yeah that isn't how it works.
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. 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.
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.
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
"...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?
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.
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.
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.