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.
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?
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.
But Tim is also running an Apple that is exponentially larger than NeXT & Pixar. How possible (or easy) is it to manage Apple, at its current size, in the same manner that NeXT or Pixar was managed?
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?
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?
Yep, and throwing Scott Forstall's name in there is sure to get more attention.
Jobs appreciated conflict, he saw it as part of character building. There's a video out on YouTube where he likens conflict to a tumbler where regular stones are thrown in together, and they come out as gems.
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.
But Tim is also running an Apple that is exponentially larger than NeXT & Pixar. How possible (or easy) is it to manage Apple, at its current size, in the same manner that NeXT or Pixar was managed?
It's not. Maybe that's why Steve felt Tim Cook was the right man to take over for him. I find it amusing that the same people who piss all over Tim Cook worship Steve Jobs like a saint. Pretty much the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him. If people have an issue with current Apple leadership blame Steve for not doing a better job cultivating the right leadership team for when he was no longer there.
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.
But Tim is also running an Apple that is exponentially larger than NeXT & Pixar. How possible (or easy) is it to manage Apple, at its current size, in the same manner that NeXT or Pixar was managed?
It's not. Maybe that's why Steve felt Tim Cook was the right man to take over for him. I find it amusing that the same people who piss all over Tim Cook worship Steve Jobs like a saint. Pretty much the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him. If people have an issue with current Apple leadership blame Steve for not doing a better job cultivating the right leadership team for when he was no longer there.
"the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him"
That's what I don't seem to get. This ex-Apple engineer claims the "real" reason Forstall was fired was due to creating conflict and caring about products yet these senior execs worked with SJ for over a decade. As far as I know, no one was more demanding than Steve Jobs when it came to caring about products, yet they stuck around.
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.
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.
It's not. Maybe that's why Steve felt Tim Cook was the right man to take over for him. I find it amusing that the same people who piss all over Tim Cook worship Steve Jobs like a saint. Pretty much the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him. If people have an issue with current Apple leadership blame Steve for not doing a better job cultivating the right leadership team for when he was no longer there.
Well, we all know from past experience, that Jobs really wasn't good at picking people to run his company. Sculley grew profits initially then over expanded into all the wrong products in the 90s almost causing Apple to go bankrupt.
It's not. Maybe that's why Steve felt Tim Cook was the right man to take over for him. I find it amusing that the same people who piss all over Tim Cook worship Steve Jobs like a saint. Pretty much the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him. If people have an issue with current Apple leadership blame Steve for not doing a better job cultivating the right leadership team for when he was no longer there.
Well, we all know from past experience, that Jobs really wasn't good at picking people to run his company. Sculley grew profits initially then over expanded into all the wrong products in the 90s almost causing Apple to go bankrupt.
Question is what are the right products? Those who grew up during the Mac / PC era, want Apple to prioritize / focus on Macs. Those who came into the Apple ecosystem by way of iPod / iPhone, want Apple to focus on mobile devices. Others want Apple to focus on the future, like AR / VR / Automotive / AI. End of the day they're all important products. Apple is much bigger than before and way more competition than before simply because their competitors are becoming more design-driven and integrated in terms of hardware / OS / services => they are incorporating the "Apple Way" into their organizations.
When SJ unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he said it was a bet-the-company product. It's no secret that Apple is pouring a lot of R&D money / manpower into an auto-related product / service, which I would go as far as to say, is also a bet-the-company initiative. Knock on wood, it isn't the wrong bet.
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.
I have no idea whether this is true, either, but yes, there are at least 5 times as many employees since 2007 (not sure about the numbers within product development but the company has grown!)
Yup, every company has to evolve. Standing still = going backwards. One of the unfortunate side effects of 'streamlining', and 'increasing efficiency', etc etc, can be compartmentalization, and productivity procedures that makes for rigid and boring places to work. Everyone strives for order and control but once achieved the fun may have vanished. Anyone who is involved in creative endeavours know that the creative process is not usually orderly and efficient. You need a certain degree of chaos.
Interesting peripherally relevant article below. Pixar is very different than Apple with a lot less people, but I think Ed Catmull's thought speaks to a core problem any organization driven by creativity struggle with.
I see the same attitude at the Apple Store when interacting with the employees. If I am asking questions about the iPad Mini 4 to one employee and then ask the same person to tell me more about the new MacBook Pro with Touchbar almost always I am greeted with the reply "That isn't my area of expertise." What!?! So that person was only hired and trained to talk to customers about iPad's? What a joke!
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.
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.
But Tim is also running an Apple that is exponentially larger than NeXT & Pixar. How possible (or easy) is it to manage Apple, at its current size, in the same manner that NeXT or Pixar was managed?
It's not. Maybe that's why Steve felt Tim Cook was the right man to take over for him. I find it amusing that the same people who piss all over Tim Cook worship Steve Jobs like a saint. Pretty much the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him. If people have an issue with current Apple leadership blame Steve for not doing a better job cultivating the right leadership team for when he was no longer there.
"the entire executive team at Apple was there during the Steve Jobs era and many of them worked directly for him"
That's what I don't seem to get. This ex-Apple engineer claims the "real" reason Forstall was fired was due to creating conflict and caring about products yet these senior execs worked with SJ for over a decade. As far as I know, no one was more demanding than Steve Jobs when it came to caring about products, yet they stuck around.
The fact that he mentions Forstall make me wonder if he worked under him. Interestingly an Apple software designer who worked on the original iPhone software design team (and who presented the new messages app at WWDC last year) posted a photo on his Instagram of an iPhone design team reunion. Bas Ording and Mike Matas who no longer work for Apple were there. Notably absent from the photo was Scott Forstall.
Apple was 'thin, competitive, dynamic' because the company was made in Steve Jobs' image. When you have god-like status, yeah, you can shift employees as much as you want.
Can't expect any person to lead any company in that same fashion. It takes a one-in-a-million personality.
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.
Have you seen Musk do a presentation? The man looks like he's about to start crying.
Jobs was a terrific spokeperson and keynote presenter, but that certainly isn't the norm. Without googling name other CEOs who did double duty as awesome spokespersons? Not Musk, not Bezos, not Zuck. It's not normal for CEOs to be awesome keynote guys and that's a fact.
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.
You do realize the cross-pollination is exactly why the new HQ is a circle, right?
But yeah, Apple is doomed now because Cook isn't Jobs. Got it. Let me find my tropes folder...
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?
No! We must frame this as a failure and lay it at the feet of Tim Cook. People can't explore new challeneges and opportunities without it being an Apple failing. Hater creed.
Comments
"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.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/apple-taps-blackberry-talent-as-car-project-takes-software-turn
That's what I don't seem to get. This ex-Apple engineer claims the "real" reason Forstall was fired was due to creating conflict and caring about products yet these senior execs worked with SJ for over a decade. As far as I know, no one was more demanding than Steve Jobs when it came to caring about products, yet they stuck around.
When SJ unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he said it was a bet-the-company product. It's no secret that Apple is pouring a lot of R&D money / manpower into an auto-related product / service, which I would go as far as to say, is also a bet-the-company initiative. Knock on wood, it isn't the wrong bet.
Yup, every company has to evolve. Standing still = going backwards. One of the unfortunate side effects of 'streamlining', and 'increasing efficiency', etc etc, can be compartmentalization, and productivity procedures that makes for rigid and boring places to work. Everyone strives for order and control but once achieved the fun may have vanished. Anyone who is involved in creative endeavours know that the creative process is not usually orderly and efficient. You need a certain degree of chaos.
Interesting peripherally relevant article below. Pixar is very different than Apple with a lot less people, but I think Ed Catmull's thought speaks to a core problem any organization driven by creativity struggle with.
Ed Catmull - How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity
Can't expect any person to lead any company in that same fashion. It takes a one-in-a-million personality.
Jobs was a terrific spokeperson and keynote presenter, but that certainly isn't the norm. Without googling name other CEOs who did double duty as awesome spokespersons? Not Musk, not Bezos, not Zuck. It's not normal for CEOs to be awesome keynote guys and that's a fact.
But yeah, Apple is doomed now because Cook isn't Jobs. Got it. Let me find my tropes folder...
No! We must frame this as a failure and lay it at the feet of Tim Cook. People can't explore new challeneges and opportunities without it being an Apple failing. Hater creed.