Former Anobit CEO Discusses Acquisition by Apple, Contrasts Cultures of Apple and Intel

[wizard]

Originally Posted by guerro

Apple went Bankrupt in the late 1990s??????????????

Read up on the history of Apple and Steve's return, the company would have failed if he didn't return and got key investments from Microsoft and others. The company was that close to reorganization. That is also why Steve took an axe to the company and killed Newton, drastically reduced Mac Models and otherwise eliminated expenses and payrolls they couldn't afford. Sadly people think that Steve killed Newton because he hated it, however the evidence is pretty clear he had to do so to get the company back on track.

There is good reason to the belief that Steve managed one of the biggest corporate turn arounds in history. In a very short time, relatively, he took Apple from skid row to the biggest corporation in the world based on income. That is the real success story of Steve Jobs.

[parapup]

At Apple, you have to run ahead just to stay in place, and there are very high expectations of everyone. Apple expects everything you do to be amazing

I guess they make an exception for the QA team - either that or alarm and do not disturb bugs in a row are considered amazing

[iRCL]

MacRumors - this was a great article

[bbeagle]

Originally Posted by needfx

same taste, different chicken

You'll need to give me a citation proving that they use different chickens than they used 40 years ago.

[daftpunker909]

Originally Posted by KdParker

It is not like they went into the job blind. I am sure that most people know what is expected of them plus they paid quite well to start with.

Pay is definitely good. But the amount of work you have to put in is excessive, especially when you consider how much revenue apple is making. One might think they can afford hiring additional people. I`m not sure if everyone knows what they get into. But a lot of people will be content with it.

[wizard]

This is probably an issue of context, Intel had almost a decade of poor performance and a lack of drive. So I could see this as an accurate reflection of the ethos at Intel over a fixed period of time.

Originally Posted by Nunyabinez

I take exception to the slam on Intel. I worked for Intel for 3 years as a marketing manager before I returned to get a Ph.D, and to say that they don't expect excellence out of employees is B.S.

He didn't say that at all. Rather he highlighted that not everybody at Intel is an A level player. That is a big difference.

I love the great things that Apple does, but it's not like there is a bunch of crap coming out of Intel.

ATOM, their GPUs, their GPU drivers, generally hot chips and other questionable endeavors. The fact is Intel has shipped a lot of crap over the years and has been out of tune with the market for some time. Only in the last few years have they gotten their act together with the Core products and an honest effort to address the needs of their customers.

Intel has certainly done some great things but that sometimes blinds people to some truly significant failures.

This guy is just taking a shot at a former partner. Intel has always had the reputation of hiring the best and brightest. Maybe Apple is wringing more out of their employees, but Intel is no slouch at innovation and consistent, quality improvement.

Again I think you need to re read what was posted, nothing here can rationally be taken as a shot at Intel. Rather it just accurately reflects different management techniques and a different focus. As for Apple wringing more out of their employees it is possible but you need to remember Apples employes are focused on development while Intel needs a far wider array of employees to cover everything from production, to environmental controls, to administrative needs. Apple on the other hand simply lets its partners handle much of the non A level stuff.

[needfx]

Originally Posted by bbeagle

You'll need to give me a citation proving that they use different chickens than they used 40 years ago.

cramming already those google queries. will revert asap and let you know if I run into any snags along the way

kaching!

[wizard]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

I wonder what A+ is responsible for iTunes 11. And the swiss railway clock disaster. And you can't fix maps with a dozen A+ people, but you can with 1000 B-.

While my experience with Maps is excellent I have to agree iTunes 11 is a complete disaster. Frankly it has been years since I've seen such a crappy piece of software from Apple. ITunes 11 stinks and has more bugs than software written by a 11 year old. In fact some 11 year olds produce better software.

That's the correct approach for players. But there is tons of work that needs doing, and I think the players are overstretched.



That's nonsense.

In any event I just had to put in my two cents with respect to Maps and iTunes 11. Relatively Maps rocks and always gets me to where I'm going. ITunes 11 can't even get simple things right like ending a movie and returning to the right place in your library. In a nut shell iTunes 11 is utter garbage.

----------

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

The funding from Microsoft was nothing more than a publicity stunt. $150 million when Apple had a couple billion in cash, does not make a "save." At the time Steve took over, Apple's operating costs and product lines were out of control. They were hemorrhaging money and were very close to bankruptcy; the $150 million from Microsoft would've only lasted a week or two.

150 million can go an awfully long way. However your position isn't supported by what is publicly know about the company at the time. They where indeed very close to being bankrupt with the common figure bandied about of less than 90 days before the bankruptcy became real.

The Microsoft "deal" consisted of several things and probably were somewhat responsible for helping to save Apple - at least in public perception...

Microsoft would "invest" $150 million in Apple.
They would promise to continue develop Office for Mac.
Apple would drop all patent litigation.
They would both agree to cross-licensing (of current technology) for the next ten years.

That investment was far more important than you imply.

What really saved Apple was Steve Jobs trimming off all the fat. Allowing the money they did have to last longer giving them time to refocus, develop new products and get them on the market.

Trimming the fat allowed Apple to move forward when it otherwise would not have been able to do so. You however make the implication that they had all sorts of money, that isn't the case at all. 2 billion in the bank doesn't mean much if you can't cover expenses every month.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by carmenodie

KFC has been frying of chicken for over 40 years in a row and that sh** is still fingering licking good.

Not sure what you mean here. It's still fast food level chicken. You can get better tasting chicken in lots of other places.

Originally Posted by 12dylan34

Steve came back by Apple acquiring NEXT and made the famous chart with consumer and professional on one axis and portable and desktop on the other. He minimized their computer line to 4 products, which, along with some funding from Microsoft, saved the company.

The funding did nothing but appease the ignorant. As did the MS Office commitment. Of course MS was going to keep making Office, it makes them money. That's why they kept making it after the five year commitment expired.

Minimizing the computer line, and the courage to break a few molds (i.e. the iMac form factor) is what "saved" the company.

Originally Posted by macingman

They were VERY close to bankruptcy however. Around 90 days away from bankruptcy in fact.

Apple had $4billion in the bank, and the previous $750million dollar loss was from write-downs. The public and press failed to understand this and thought "Apple is going down."
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

I wonder what A+ is responsible for iTunes 11. And the swiss railway clock disaster. And you can't fix maps with a dozen A+ people, but you can with 1000 B-.

I wouldn't call the swiss railway clock a distaster. An oops, sure, but not a disaster.

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Difference is one leads to burn out and once does not.
It could also be said one use the stick for everything and the other use a carrot

Note that giving your A-game does not necessarily mean working long hours or stressing. I'd love to work in a place where my A-game was expected, encouraged, and celebrated.

[wizard]

You can't look at that 2 billion figure and take from that that Apple was in good shape or not close to bankruptcy. There is a lot more to it than looking at a current bank statement and saying they where in good shape. Just their payroll at the time would have taken a significant portion of that money over 90 days, possibly as much as 350 million. Actually that is a wild guess based on 20,000 employes. Now you may say that isn't that bad, you still have X number of dollars left over. The problem is those dollars where shrinking fast due to slowing sales, little profitability in many sectors Apple was playing in and general mismanagement.

Originally Posted by shawnce

In most ways Microsoft's investment was symbolic and orchestrated by Steve and Bill to help both Apple's image of relevance and Microsoft's image of playing well with others (facing down anti-trust issues at the time). It was also coupled with cross licensing and Office development guarantees. Apple had substantially more money available then the 150m they got from MS ignoring the potential of taking financing.

You make an assumption here that banks will lend to companies when it is obvious that they are failing. You can certainly find investment houses looking for high risk investments but you give up a lot dealing with those guys. In the end 150 million is always significant when you are on the ropes.

Apple was in bad shape but it had cash on hand, it hand the potential to get more cash (loans),

Again that is baloney, failing business don't get loans, at least not from the sorts of people you want to be taking loans from. Banks can be extremely sensitive about engaging in business with companies having financial troubles.

and it could (and very much did) take steps to radically cut costs.

The cost cutting was perhaps the most underestimated of Steve moves when he returned. Some see it as his hatred for certain products but the better informed realize he had no choice, the company needed to be rebuilt around core products to move forward with. The only problem with that is that decisions at the time that made sense, for example the limited Mac line up don't make sense today.

[ericinboston]

Originally Posted by Joe-Diver

Different cultures drive different results, and customer experience.

And...Apple is quite different than Intel or other giant (people size) companies...Apple makes what?...6 computers, 3 different iPods, 1 iPhone, and 1 iPad...all of which are aimed 99.94% at consumers. Intel makes a LOT more products and so tons of other places...what about Microsoft and it's mass of software and business services/support? What about GE or IBM or other companies with employee counts over 20,000?

Another item is that if you want the A+ team every day, you need to pay them. I'm not saying Apple employees are millionaires, but they're not going to be working there for the same $$ as other places. And the other places aren't complacent or lazy employees, it's just a different culture. Apple often seems to be super super stressful and many of their eggs are in 1 basket (iTunes fails and there go the iPods, iPads, iPhones, music sales, etc).

I'm sure it's very exciting to work at Apple, but I think it would feel like you're always working at a startup company where every day could seemingly be the last day of business and every single solitary thing must be 100.00000% perfect.

[Squilly]

Originally Posted by PlutoPrime

Are you a Samsung marketing employee? I was reading about a less publicized Samsung marketing tactic the other day. It involves hiring regular forum Trolls to wage a war of attrition against Apple to tarnish their brand.

Umm... No. Although that would be a decent job...

----------

Originally Posted by iglobe

Anti-apple company ceo

Then why would I be here?

Logic?

[somethingelsefl]

Originally Posted by carmenodie

KFC has been frying of chicken for over 40 years in a row and that sh** is still fingering licking good.

COTD material! Good point.

[TMay]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Yes clearly those other companies you mention don't have any commitment to excellence

Commitment to excellence starts at the top. Certainly, Meg Whitman and the Board of Directors in charge at HP doesn't inspire the same kind of commitment that Steve Jobs did, nor that Tim Cooke does now for Apple.

[petsounds]

Originally Posted by newagemac

This is not surprising at all. Steve Jobs instilled a commitment to excellence in Apple and it shows. Doesn't mean everything will always be perfect but compared to their competitors it is quite obvious. Dell, HP, Samsung, Motorola, and the rest of their competitors seem to operate around something quite different.

Having worked at an Apple partner company and having talked to some Apple engineers, I can tell you that this constant expectation of 150% comes at a price -- both to Apple and the humans who work there. Most engineers just can't survive in that pressure cooker for too many years and they burn out. Which is a bad place to be for those people, but also a bad outcome for Apple because they lose a valuable engineer. I think Google probably strikes a better balance between performance and employees' outside lives.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by TMay

Commitment to excellence starts at the top. Certainly, Meg Whitman and the Board of Directors in charge at HP doesn't inspire the same kind of commitment that Steve Jobs did, nor that Tim Cooke does now for Apple.

I wouldn't argue that point. And I wasn't. The issue raised wasn't whether or not it was the same level of commitment. But rather having a commitment to excellence. To imply that Samsung, Microsoft or other top-tier tech companies don't have a commitment to excellence - regardless of execution - is just ridiculous.

[saturn88]

Originally Posted by rbonzer

It must just in hardware where Apple requires the A-Game. Their software UI design is excellent, but the execution is pretty average.

The iPhone antenna design was not excellent.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by saturn88

The iPhone antenna design was not excellent.

Along with many many MANY other products. Many of which were under the guidance of Steve.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

Along with many many MANY other products. Many of which were under the guidance of Steve.

Shhhhhhh. Don't disturb those people with their heads in the sand.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Shhhhhhh. Don't disturb those people with their heads in the sand.

Okay, I won't mention

Final Cut Pro X-gate
Crackbook Pros-gate
Lap burning Laptops-gate
Thermal paste-gate 2008
Liquid cooling leak-gate

Just off the top of my head.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

Okay, I won't mention

Final Cut Pro X-gate
Crackbook Pros-gate
Lap burning Laptops-gate
Thermal paste-gate 2008
Liquid cooling leak-gate

Just off the top of my head.

Liquid cooling? Oh boy that takes me back. Do not forget capacitor plague. It is really hard to remember something before that. I could bring up bad solder jobs in iBook G3 and eMac CRT issues.

[TheRealTVGuy]

"Apple expects greatness everytime"

So do most of the users of these forums...

[JHankwitz]

Originally Posted by macingman

They were VERY close to bankruptcy however. Around 90 days away from bankruptcy in fact.

"Close" only counts in horseshoes and atomic bombs.

----------

Originally Posted by daftpunker909

Sounds good on paper. However, knowing a couple of hardware engineers at Apple I would never even consider working for that sweatshop. 12-14 hour days + weekends without better compensation are a modern form of slavery. Good products, but at the price of its employees.

Those employees are free to find employment elswhere, aren't they?

----------

Originally Posted by daftpunker909

Pay is definitely good. But the amount of work you have to put in is excessive, especially when you consider how much revenue apple is making. One might think they can afford hiring additional people. I`m not sure if everyone knows what they get into. But a lot of people will be content with it.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find top-notch people today? The demand far exceeds the supply. When you are forced to start hiring 2nd tier people, you start seeing problems with product releases.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by daftpunker909

Sounds good on paper. However, knowing a couple of hardware engineers at Apple I would never even consider working for that sweatshop. 12-14 hour days + weekends without better compensation are a modern form of slavery. Good products, but at the price of its employees.

Apple is a sweatshop? If you ever had any credibility (which is doubtful) you have lost it forever.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by Eidorian

Liquid cooling? Oh boy that takes me back. Do not forget capacitor plague. It is really hard to remember something before that. I could bring up bad solder jobs in iBook G3 and eMac CRT issues.

eMac CRT issues reminds me of the iBook/MacBook discoloration that resulted from improper cooling and venting.

Funny thing is I can only remember Mac flaws. I am sure there are iPod and iPhone flaws I cant recall.