21–30 of 137 posts
It's all a symptom of too much money and too many resources, I think. Focus get's completely lost. Isn't there a way to run a big company? Is anything known on how Apple does it? How big are their development teams, even? Would it make sense to manage internal teams a bit like startups, that is they would have to succeed on their own and pitch for investments?
Not only that. Wrong people in the wrong places.
Can you think of a project, a product or a company that succeeded with a somewhat negative-sounding name (even if meant somewhat ironically or as sort of a renegade mentality)? I'm drawing a blank.... It's odd that I can't think of a single one though. Even among game studios, etc.
It's all a symptom of too much money and too many resources, I think. Focus get's completely lost. Isn't there a way to run a big company? Is anything known on how Apple does it? How big are their development teams, even? Would it make sense to manage internal teams a bit like startups, that is they would have to succeed on their own and pitch for investments?
Can you think of a project, a product or a company that succeeded with a somewhat negative-sounding name (even if meant somewhat ironically or as sort of a renegade mentality)? I'm drawing a blank.... It's odd that I can't think of a single one though. Even among game studios, etc.
What do you mean "a somewhat negative-sounding name"? Products succeed with embarrassing names like "Wii" all the time.
Can you think of a project, a product or a company that succeeded with a somewhat negative-sounding name (even if meant somewhat ironically or as sort of a renegade mentality)? I'm drawing a blank.... It's odd that I can't think of a single one though. Even among game studios, etc.
Garage games?
It's all a symptom of too much money and too many resources, I think. Focus get's completely lost. Isn't there a way to run a big company? Is anything known on how Apple does it? How big are their development teams, even? Would it make sense to manage internal teams a bit like startups, that is they would have to succeed on their own and pitch for investments?
According to Wikipedia, Apple has 34k employees. Microsoft has over 100k. Maybe at that scale, 34k and 100k aren't very different, or maybe that's like night and day.
Maybe MS would do better with 34K than 100K people...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
/ did happen in the past (Apple)
It's complicated. Apple's products were always highly regarded. Their problem was pricing - they charged too much for boxes Dell sold for much less.
It wasn't until 2000 or so when they got their mojo back.
You'd have to think they would be better off giving up on owning the mobile platform, given that they are up against Android and iOS/iPhone I don't think they could possibly come up with something compelling enough to get mobile companies to pay for a license over the free Android OS which iterate much faster. Possibly they could form a partnership with the aim of bringing other products to a platform. They could sup…
> they would be better off giving up on owning the mobile platform They can't afford that. Their strength comes from the lack of viable options - each of their product lines reinforces the dependency on other product lines. If you use Exchange, you probably won't be able to use anything other than Outlook, which runs on Windows and is part of Office, which makes using Sharepoint more or less painless, which runs only…
But conspiracy theories work too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Wikipedia, Apple has 34k employees. Microsoft has over 100k. Maybe at that scale, 34k and 100k aren't very different, or maybe that's like night and day.
34K still seems a lot, but how many are really involved in developing the core products? A lot of them would probably be sales people etc? Maybe MS would do better with 34K than 100K people...