Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a link to data supporting the doubling? I would love to see the numbers!
The numbers are in the article...
Ok, thanks. I admit am lazy and mostly read just comments :/
Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
221–230 of 439 posts
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...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.)
And what's the last revolutionary consumer technology that has come out of Apple? The original successful Macs, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, those were all under Jobs.
Quite the standard you’ve set there!
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...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.)
And what's the last revolutionary consumer technology that has come out of Apple? The original successful Macs, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, those were all under Jobs.
Watch and airpods are both rather successful products that capture about 30% industry market share every year.
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#224Hiring at Apple was limited because they don’t pay competitively and they only get the “true believer” types that are willing to work more hours at a discount. Source: a low level manager at Apple.
That is plain not true (and that is all I will say about it).
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ne…
Okay cool. But, none of this addresses the opportunity cost. What happens if you don't hire fast and you miss revenue opportunities. As the saying goes "revenue solves everything".
Cash flow solves everything, or profit solves everything are perhaps better phrases, since apparently people forgot that the purpose of a company is to make profit, not just revenue.
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like Nintendo's approach, and I like Apple's approach as well. I think it shows a lot more respect for employees than "hire as much as possible, then cut deep ASAP if fortunes change"; big firing rounds can be devastating to both the folks who go and the folks who stay.
I've generally found that if you can't measure something well, large American companies act extremely poorly with regards to that thing. Its well understood that layoffs destroy the morale of your employees, and that they drive out a huge percentage of employees, and specifically the ones who have the best alternative options. But I imagine that measuring the impact of brain drain from a layoff after a subsequent ove…
> I've generally found that if you can't measure something well, large American companies act extremely poorly with regards to that thing.
This is true, and goes double (at least) for anything that is at odds with maximizing superficial short-term profits, or with absolute control by management over employees' existences.
There are many studies at this point showing how much more productive and profitable companies can be when they treat their employees well and pay them at or above market rate, but the neofeudal mindset and the idea that this quarter's profit growth are the only metric are so deeply ingrained into so many people's heads that it's very, very hard to make any inroads.
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#227Apple’s job losses are hidden because they don’t build anything physical, they let their suppliers fire and hire.
That logic is broken because it does not apply uniformly across the FAANGs.
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay cool. But, none of this addresses the opportunity cost. What happens if you don't hire fast and you miss revenue opportunities. As the saying goes "revenue solves everything".
Cash flow solves everything, or profit solves everything are perhaps better phrases, since apparently people forgot that the purpose of a company is to make profit, not just revenue.
You can have run a company for zero profit and it can still be a benefit to society, so no the "purpose of a company is to make profit" is not necessarily true.
"If we want to know what a business is, we have to start with its purpose. And the purpose must lie outside the business itself. In fact, it must lie in society, since a business enterprise is an organ of society. There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer. The customer is a foundation of a business and keeps it in existence. The customer alone gives employment. And it is to supply the customer that society entrusts wealth-producing resources to the business enterprise.
Because it is the purpose to create a customer, any business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. These are the entrepreneurial functions. Marketing is the distinguishing, the unique function of the business."
- Peter Drucker
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [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…
Usually people decrying short-termism mean focuses on quarters rather than years. Are you saying Cook’s 10+ years that took the company from $100B/year to $400B/year are the short term, and it is at the expense of the next 90 years?
> Are you saying Cook’s 10+ years that took the company from $100B/year to $400B/year are the short term
Yes, however it's clearly successful.
> Are you saying Cook’s 10+ years that took the company is at the expense of the next 90 years?
Apple is slowly pulling away consumer ownership of their devices and is turning into an advertisement company. I honestly believe that is at the expense of the next 90 years. And this is rather more the point that I tried to make: short term profits at the expense of long-term customer satisfaction.
Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can you effectively double orgs of this size over a 2 year period? Apparently you can't.
Given the number of orgs that have done this quite successfully in the BC (before Covid) era, it seems like you can.
I dunno about that. I was at Facebook for five years, it doubled in headcount basically every year. The culture when I joined was very, very different to the culture when I left. And even after the layoffs they're still double the size they were when I left.