Live data from Hacker News

Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 439 posts

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#101
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing too fast is damaging to both culture and productivity. You have a bunch of people starting that are still learning. Depending on the job and the person it can take a full year to be fully competent in a job. Apple was smart to move slower. They are probably one of the best run companies in the world.

> Growing too fast is damaging to both culture and productivity. This seems to be general sentiment here lately. Do you have any evidence to support this or is purely conjecture?

Not that I have a rigorous source, but I feel we can generally agree the following:

New hires take anywhere from 3 months to 8 months or more depending on the position to ramp up

During ramp up period, there’s a productivity toll taken on the team via teaching the new hire

Thus during this time, productivity is hampered

——

For culture, I think it’s a bit more subjective. But if you have a team of 5 who then gets 1 new hire to teach over 6 months, generally it allows them to “mesh” better in the culture.

Both in terms of team mates learning about the new hire, and the new hire having room to fit in within the culture, and bring their own value to the team (assuming an already existing good culture.

Now say you have 3 new hires on a team of 5. If we further presume productivity is also hampered more as more people are onboarded at once, that creates additional stress on the team to teach them.

Further, it could be harder to have the new hires feel part of the team if less time is spent getting to know each one. But assume this isn’t the case:

Business will most likely expect at least the same productivity from the team. Now they’re stressed from teaching, higher expectations on their output (onboarding a team member is tiring work), and the business is going to soon expect productivity to increase further after headcount is upped by over 50% in this example.

Now take that, and add on new teams created to interact with, additional communication layers, and it’s pretty straightforward to assume growing too fast can be negative

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#102
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing too fast is damaging to both culture and productivity. You have a bunch of people starting that are still learning. Depending on the job and the person it can take a full year to be fully competent in a job. Apple was smart to move slower. They are probably one of the best run companies in the world.

> They are probably one of the best run companies in the world. I would disagree with this. Although their risk is spread much better than it was in the early 00s, a huge amount of their recurring revenue right now teeters on the brink of destruction in the form of their 30% app store cut and the walled-garden nature of their app store. All it would take is a morally principled, non-lobbied regulator to step in and r…

So you're saying Apple isn't a well run company because they haven't properly managed their regulatory risk around the app store? What should they do hire more lobbyists? Not have built a $100 billion/year business because of a vague threat of future regulatory change?

We've seen pushback on the 30% but mostly for a select group of major companies who want to offer alternative payments. The majority of apps aren't going to be asking customers for their credit cards separately vs a single "subscribe" button, nor do they all have CCs already in their existing DBs. Even worst case if 25% of the revenue gets lost due to secondary subscription payment support (assuming they don't somehow still take a cut), that 75% is still a monster that could support Apple for a long time.

Not to mention the rest of their businesses.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing too fast is damaging to both culture and productivity. You have a bunch of people starting that are still learning. Depending on the job and the person it can take a full year to be fully competent in a job. Apple was smart to move slower. They are probably one of the best run companies in the world.

> [Apple is] probably one of the best run companies in the world. I would argue that perhaps Apple's business side of things is arguably well-run. I personally disagree; I think that since Tim Cook has taken over, Apple's business focus is more on short-term gains instead of long-term quality. But I would also strongly argue that their software side of things has been trending downward ( especially in terms of qualit…

>...more on short-term gains instead of long-term quality...

Considering that Tim has been CEO for 11 1/2 years now, and things are still going incredibly well for Apple...it seems pretty hard to argue that he is too focused on the short term.

(FWIW, I mostly agree about their software quality.)

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#104

Apple is known for going with tiny teams rather than the gigantic, bloated trees of VPs and Directors that other companies have. Their CFO even spoke[1] publicly about it, a rarity. Sometimes you just need a team of two people reporting to the CFO to do something. You don't need 2 SVPs, with 10 VPs, with 80 Directors, each with trees of management/ICs to do the same thing. 1: https://twitter.com/workmj/status/1595324…

That's a neat find. Thanks for linking to it.

I think I found the full interview on YouTube [1] Managers: From Italy to Top Global Businesses. Luca Maestri, CFO of Apple

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHWwq5--nEw

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#105
post #102
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are probably one of the best run companies in the world. I would disagree with this. Although their risk is spread much better than it was in the early 00s, a huge amount of their recurring revenue right now teeters on the brink of destruction in the form of their 30% app store cut and the walled-garden nature of their app store. All it would take is a morally principled, non-lobbied regulator to step in and r…

So you're saying Apple isn't a well run company because they haven't properly managed their regulatory risk around the app store? What should they do hire more lobbyists? Not have built a $100 billion/year business because of a vague threat of future regulatory change? We've seen pushback on the 30% but mostly for a select group of major companies who want to offer alternative payments. The majority of apps aren't go…

I'm saying they have over-extended to the point where they are begging for regulation. Much wiser to not over-extend to the point where regulators are pissed off. Now they could lose it all instead of having a more reasonable rate.

At this point they should self-regulate, like any misbehaving child who realizes they are in the wrong should before they get punished. It's not a risk and it's not going to hurt their stock if it's self-imposed. People always praise anything that comes from within with Apple so it would actually be a pretty savvy play, given what's on the horizon.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#107
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To help bring the next paradigm in computing interfaces. I don’t understand why people have forgotten all of the sci-fi movies that have been showing what’s possible

Let me know when someone has solved the "glasshole" creep factor. Clearly Apple is the most capable in shifting consumer sentiment but that's a challenging hurdle.

Challenging is different from impossible, and yes we are talking about Apple, a company who’s proven time and time again that they’re up for solving UX challenges

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#108
post #51
post #40

All of these "company X has avoided layoffs" articles are pretty foolish, are all the big layoffs done? Are we even sure there won't be second rounds by summer? Apple could layoff 4% in a week and these same analysts will try to explain why there was no other way

> Apple could layoff 4% in a week Highly unlikely: https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/02/apple-layoffs-tim-cook/

Highly unlikely? Tim cook literally said in the quote "You can never say never."

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#109

A few days ago we were criticizing Nintendo because it was making too much money per employee and didn't hire enough. Also, we criticize Google for laying people off and Amazon for everything else (overhiring?). One wonders why Apple gets high praise for "hiring cautiously".

I think Nintendo is a wonderfully run company. They are probably a bit too set in their ways of doing things, but they always seem to be ready to take advantage of an opportunity or minimize the damage of a bad product launch. How many companies could have survived the WiiU?

Not only survived the Wii U but followed it up with a smash hit. The Switch is now the third best selling console of all time, behind only the Nintendo DS and the PlayStation 2.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#110
Many business sectors go out of their way to dress up as tech in order to get "tech valuations". Being able to project an image of owning the future makes wonders for stock price and thus incentives. But the big picture in the last few years (pre-pandemic) has been that tech was maxed out and saturating.

With the pandemic there was an excuse to pretend again that the sky was the limit. That attitude seems now being corrected - reverting to a cash-cow model. Some companies can do cash-cows better than others ;-)

P.s. another factor where Apple tries to differentiate itself is the privacy front. What it believes in practice is a different matter, but to the degree that there are visible legislative headwinds this would make any tech company that directly or indirectly draws revenue contingent on current rules might be more cautious going forward.

Post reply on HN