Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 439 posts

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

#281

Post by scarface74 »

sam0x17 wrote: post #91
etempleton wrote: post #53

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…

I mean it is public information how much Apple makes from services. It doesn’t take much research to realize you are wrong.

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

#282

Post by anthomtb »

flangola7 wrote: post #217
bell-cot wrote: post #103

Earlier 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.

What revolutionary consumer technology has emerged since the iPhone, from any company?

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

#283

Post by paulmd »

etempleton wrote: post #53
wand3r wrote: post #33

> Apple, meanwhile, was more cautious. Its headcount increased just 20% from 2020 to 2022 At Apples size this is still pretty huge. At least, I thought it was until I saw that Amazon, Meta and Salesforce basically DOUBLED in 2 years. If this data is correct isnt that insane? How can you effectively double orgs of this size over a 2 year period? Its not like a startup with 50 people or something. I guess I was out of…

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.

there is a cultural mindset especially among startups that it's better to be alive and having to make layoffs than to move conservatively, have a faster mover overtake you and push you out of the market, and be dead. "The graveyards are full of businesses that moved appropriately for the market conditions", to warp a saying.

apple is an enormously stable company in ways that (to be very honest) even most other tech blue-chips are not. even microsoft or google have the sword of damocles hanging over them - given a sufficiently long and severe position of mismanagement it is possible that even google or MS could be unseated or even go under. arguably that is the trajectory MS was on in the 00s, and google could be similarly unseated by AI.

intel would be a great real-world example of that. Even 10 years ago the thought of big blue losing control was unthinkable, un-thinkable. And here we are, they're circling the drain right now and need to make very deep cuts and refocus on the essentials or they're going to be in bankruptcy in 5-10 years, during a down market in general and a specific market that they glutted during the pandemic (a lot of customers have enough PCs/laptops/servers for quite a while). And in contrast Apple is still making money hand-over-fist despite the market conditions - now that's stability.

I'm not going to say that google or MS doubling their size on a short-term timescale sounds like a good idea but it's a ride-or-die industry, you're pretty much either getting bigger or getting smaller, and mere homeostasis is a rare luxury.

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

#284

Post by JohnFen »

giantg2 wrote: post #271
JohnFen wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I turn down promotions. A promotion (especially to a management position) means another step toward the sort of work I don't enjoy and don't want to do.

You have to be careful how you do it. I was punished for turning it down. I was told that all I needed to do was work one extra hour per day (in addition to normal support, elevation, etc). Why would I take a position with higher expectations for a 7% raise and a 13% increase in hours - a rate cut? Plus, if I'm a high performer in my current role I should be getting bigger bonuses. I have a skip level where the depar…

True, you don't want to burn bridges.

But taking the description of your situation at face value, I would have quit that company. Its values are so different from mine that I'd feel I have no business being there.

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

#286

Post by lowatt »

These may be dimwitted questions but still want to ask: 1. Did Google, Amazon, Meta, etc benefit by over hiring during the pandemic? 2. Did the benefit of over hiring outweigh the cost of job cuts? 3. If both 1 and 2 are yes, then did they know about the possible layoffs and still intentionally over hired to max benefits?

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

#287

Post by giantg2 »

gnicholas wrote: post #278
giantg2 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be careful how you do it. I was punished for turning it down. I was told that all I needed to do was work one extra hour per day (in addition to normal support, elevation, etc). Why would I take a position with higher expectations for a 7% raise and a 13% increase in hours - a rate cut? Plus, if I'm a high performer in my current role I should be getting bigger bonuses. I have a skip level where the depar…

What would you do if this came up again? Would you still demur, but perhaps give a different reason (family needs right now, etc.)?

Possibly the family needs thing (which is true for me now, but wasn't then). I'm not sure it would have even worked though. Once they bring up the prospect of a promotion, they've already used a bunch of political capital to open that spot for you and it's an insult to say no. I get is different for other companies or even just other departments, but that's how it was for that one.

The other thing is, my company measures your engagement and potential by how ambitious you are. The reason they wanted to get rid of me is because they thought with an answer like that I would be disengaged and didn't have any potential.

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

#288

Post by sosull »

giantg2 wrote: post #271
JohnFen wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I turn down promotions. A promotion (especially to a management position) means another step toward the sort of work I don't enjoy and don't want to do.

You have to be careful how you do it. I was punished for turning it down. I was told that all I needed to do was work one extra hour per day (in addition to normal support, elevation, etc). Why would I take a position with higher expectations for a 7% raise and a 13% increase in hours - a rate cut? Plus, if I'm a high performer in my current role I should be getting bigger bonuses. I have a skip level where the depar…

I can empathise. Telling them that you didn’t want a management-style position was probably the right move given all the reasons you laid out, but it’s also an implicit rejection of everything that the people around you are striving for. They equate management with productivity and respect. You’re thinking of it like the difference between a pilot and an air traffic controller. Jobs with vastly different purposes. But still, your decision called their value system into question in a very profound way. It’s not like saying that you don’t want that kind of job, it’s more like you didn’t want to work with them more closely. And most people, myself included, don’t have the emotional intelligence to handle rejection maturely. It all gets very petty.

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

#289

Post by giantg2 »

JohnFen wrote: post #284
giantg2 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be careful how you do it. I was punished for turning it down. I was told that all I needed to do was work one extra hour per day (in addition to normal support, elevation, etc). Why would I take a position with higher expectations for a 7% raise and a 13% increase in hours - a rate cut? Plus, if I'm a high performer in my current role I should be getting bigger bonuses. I have a skip level where the depar…

True, you don't want to burn bridges. But taking the description of your situation at face value, I would have quit that company. Its values are so different from mine that I'd feel I have no business being there.

I didn't feel like I was burning bridges. I obviously worded it more gently and stuff.

It's consistently ranked as a best place to work. The written policies are great, but they don't matter because there are unwritten backroom policies. They are also one of the largest employers in the area and I can't move due to family issues. I was screwed, but sure, if one has other options, one should take them.

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

#290

Post by 1sembiyan »

neom wrote: post #111

Apple went public in 1980, Google went public in 2004. Apple has seen many more cycles than Google and Amazon. I'd suggest they're a little more gelled out?

This doesn’t explain Microsoft, which is just as old and laid off as much people.
Post reply on HN