Or..you know, simply a very motivated and inspired staff that has a work with a lot of variation and that is constantly pushing them to be better. Personally at least, the worst thing I know is to work on the same project year in and year out. This way they get a staff that is kept motivated and that gets experience from loads of different projects to improve other projects.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Flexible Engineering Teams Said to Operate Like a Startup
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or..you know, simply a very motivated and inspired staff that has a work with a lot of variation and that is constantly pushing them to be better. Personally at least, the worst thing I know is to work on the same project year in and year out. This way they get a staff that is kept motivated and that gets experience from loads of different projects to improve other projects.
It really comes into its own when you put it on party shuffle.. Its good for gatherings being able to queue up tracks. Its also been handy for me as I have an old laptop that does nothing other than be a jukebox, so its usually put somewhere inacessible and out of the way. A simple thing like the remote app is ideal. I'd rather they work on 10.7 as well though.
This is how you manage to make everything operate seamlessly together.
Apple isn't working on multiple projects. They're working on one project. They want to change your entire lifestyle. Think of everything as being subprojects of that one project. The iPhone, iPad, iPods, Macs, ATV, etc., are all subprojects that build up to the single project of changing your entire life to be easier.
People are moved from one aspect of the project to another, they should never be thought of as separate projects. They all have Mac OS X as their base.
I would have rather them released Snow Leopard in working condition before jumping over to iOS4.
Which is why Apple is leading the pack. I would love to work at a place like Apple where I know I am not going to be doing the same old thing day in and day out.
I think their aim is more to make as much money as they can. Apple doesn't have any benevolent motivations here, they want to sell as much as they can. That's fine, since they are in business, but the idea that they want to "make your life easier" seems a bit of a stretch. How are they accomplishing this? By giving us more ways to fritter away time on entertainment? That's not making your life easier, that's making it more pointless.
If they wanted to make MY life easier they would give us better computers, and better software to create things.
And as a general note, the way they operate seems to be chaotic. Usually start ups operate a certain way out of compromise. They don't have the funds to work the way they would want too. I can just imagine some programmers working on Logic, only to get yanked to go work on iLife. That kind of environment doesn't breed quality, or innovation. Not knowing what you will be doing a week from now because of the whims of one person is not fun. Most programmers want to make their code very solid and a state of long term unfixed bugs is usually a sign of bad management (which is what we see in a LOT of Apple software. How many apps seem way behind the times??).
Apple is not leading the pack. I don't think you'd want to be a programmer that wasn't allowed to finish your work, before being forced onto the next project that was destined to be half baked.
There is nothing wrong in using small teams and being flexible, but let's be honest because there is still room, plenty room for improvements. For example; I can name dozens of small annoyances in OS X 10.6.4 and I am pretty sure that none of them will be fixed. Possibly never. And if that is the result [adverse effect] of using small flexible teams... then it is time for a change. Seriously.
It more likely burned out staff because they never get down time. It is go go go at all times. I read on things like glass door report after report of the staff getting burned out because of the high demands.
One thing I know that keeps staff happy is as soon as they finish up a big project is to give them something easy to work on for a little while or go threw projects that do not have insane time demands on them.
Also reading threw it it looks to me apple has some pretty poorly commented and designed apps. In the way that some one else on the team could not just pick up the project and keep working on it because variable names are crap, method names are well well crap and the comments in the code are poorly done.
They should follow a standard in those areas so someone else can pick it up and understand what the code is doing.
I can see how shifting resources around keeps their minds fresh and their interest level high. What I cant see is why there is no redundancy. But why cant more than one person have knowledge of any given project even as theyre shifted around?
It sounds like Apple might be using the Agile method of project management rather that the Waterfall method.
I get that remote is a low priority, but it needs work. Since iOS 4, when connected to either my Mac or Apple TV, it cannot see my libraries. It only sees whats currently playing. This makes remote fairly useless.
It sounds like Apple might be using the Agile method of project management rather that the Waterfall method.
I get that remote is a low priority, but it needs work. Since iOS 4, when connected to either my Mac or Apple TV, it cannot see my libraries. It only sees whats currently playing. This makes remote fairly useless.
Don't look at a start-up culture simply by measuring resources and growth opportunities. What we're talking about here is keeping the creative process alive by ensuring individuals move around and don't get stuck in a rut.
I'm a software engineer at a large organization and have been here for 10 years. The danger I see everyday is stagnation of both products and people. When someone spends all of their time in one area, they tend to get locked into a certain way of thinking and have a difficult time breaking out of the mold that they create for themselves. It's no coincidence that many of our best products and ideas within products have come from people that are new to the team working on that product. These folks aren't "trained" to look at a product a certain way, so they always present a fresh approach.
I have no experience with Apple apart from being a consumer, but I see the benefit of what they're doing. The risk is that you can burn out talent very quickly, but there is always a fresh slate of people ready to step in and take their spot.
Exactly...
I wish they would keep up with the hardware side better though... the Mac Pro refresh was long overdue.
It's pretty darn easy to take a few off the shelf Intel designs and throw together a computer.
It's a shame I built myself a better Hackintosh then what they were offering at the time for 1/3 the price.
As an engineer myself (structural, not software), i'd suggest that this type of situation is much better and enjoyable than the opposite - being stuck on, sometimes 1 monotonous part of a project day in, day out. That is how you loose good engineers - by boring them so much they no longer want to work for you.
My firm used to operate like that, but with the recession and the resulting cutbacks to staff, we've restructured to this kind of model. Staff now work on a variety of projects, sometimes temporarily leaving 1 project to help get another out the door. Then we fall back on the other, and maybe when that 1 is nearing completion/release, others might help you out too. The key is to ensure that these staff redirections are temporary. If not, thats a clear sign that you are understaffed or being poorly managed.
This is why Apple lags behind when it comes to apps. Independent developers can be far more responsive to the end-user's needs in a competitive market. Even Apple prefers to showcase developers' apps in advertising over their own. One Apple coder being moved from project to project cannot keep up with developers who can devote far more time responding to the end-users' needs. I can't think of a single Apple app that I wouldn't replace given an alternative.
Don't mix the two engineering together. As an Infrastructure Engineer (as well as a EET) getting pulled from a project to another one is something that not only myself but my team hates. We call it the endless game of Red Light Green Light.
Don't Apple have non-lead programming staff?
Every software company I've worked at, and I've been doing it since the 80s, the lead developers work the bleeding edge releases before handing them over to maintenance programmers that do the bug fixes, interim releases and port to different platforms.
This leaves the leads free to push the boundaries on new products/versions while the current products get updated.
I've lead projects and done the grunt maintenance stuff and both take particular skills to be good at your job. Lead development might seem like 'rock star' stuff but it's often once a product is out of lead development that all the source gets tidied up and performance tweaked. Often that's where the more experienced programmers are too - the ones that can spot a support nightmare coming from young graduate programmers with no idea how to look after a product. It's an awful lot less stressful too. Let the young guns burn themselves out.
Perhaps now I think about all the good stuff that gets no maintenance from Apple then maybe they don't have enough support programmers? I was just putting it down to them seemingly having the attention span of a gnat.
Every software company I've worked at, and I've been doing it since the 80s, the lead developers work the bleeding edge releases before handing them over to maintenance programmers that do the bug fixes, interim releases and port to different platforms.
This leaves the leads free to push the boundaries on new products/versions while the current products get updated.
I've lead projects and done the grunt maintenance stuff and both take particular skills to be good at your job. Lead development might seem like 'rock star' stuff but it's often once a product is out of lead development that all the source gets tidied up and performance tweaked. Often that's where the more experienced programmers are too - the ones that can spot a support nightmare coming from young graduate programmers with no idea how to look after a product. It's an awful lot less stressful too. Let the young guns burn themselves out.
Perhaps now I think about all the good stuff that gets no maintenance from Apple then maybe they don't have enough support programmers? I was just putting it down to them seemingly having the attention span of a gnat.
Even with devs dedicated to 1, 2, or 3 projects, it can be go, go, go without down time. That's just a side effect of understaffing not the method used.
I agree, and I was shocked to recently learn that our devs are instructed not to comment their code. They mumbled something about security. Given Apple's extreme secrecy, I don't doubt it.
It is worth pointing out how Steve works on projects, he meets with you and then agrees what should happen next, and he meets with a great may people...when he has the next meeting with you he remembers exactly where the previous conversation ended, he continues that dialog immediately, he has an incredible memory and maybe this is his way of pacing himself in order to deal with as many decisions he makes in a single day, and, he does this all over the world...
Disappointing
I'm all for an innovative engineering model that works for them and I like the sound of it their approach, but it sounds like they need more resources. The staleness of the Remote app and other things on the iPad and OS X damages the Apple brand for me. Where is weather, clock and calculator on the iPad? On the iPad the Remote app, in addition to the splotchy, stretched interface designed for a tiny screen, frequently doesn't work for me. It plays the wrong song and other weird things. It frustrates me, so now I don't bother. I thought Apple was supposed to bring a lot of quality and refinement. It seems the bigger they get, the sloppier they become and more falls through the cracks. Kind of like my web writing.
I'm all for an innovative engineering model that works for them and I like the sound of it their approach, but it sounds like they need more resources. The staleness of the Remote app and other things on the iPad and OS X damages the Apple brand for me. Where is weather, clock and calculator on the iPad? On the iPad the Remote app, in addition to the splotchy, stretched interface designed for a tiny screen, frequently doesn't work for me. It plays the wrong song and other weird things. It frustrates me, so now I don't bother. I thought Apple was supposed to bring a lot of quality and refinement. It seems the bigger they get, the sloppier they become and more falls through the cracks. Kind of like my web writing.
It's no excuse! Apple is debt free and has billions of dollars in the bank. Hire some ***** programmers!
How many core engineers do you think developed Openstep? We had 12 engineers. We had roughly 30 in SQA and 50 in Professional Services, etc.. over at NeXT.
We brought that lean approach to Apple. You work on a lot of stuff and are never bored.
Leaving that environment made me realize how slow and bloated most businesses are in IT.
Steve Jobs has always been a penny pincher. You think that's about the change? Nope, he'll keep working those engineers to the BONE.
Jeez - Just hire some more people!
It's not that easy to find talented people willing to work in a pressure cooker environment for a megalomaniac boss. Even more so when there are plenty of opportunities at places with a relaxed atmosphere like Google.
This is why Microsoft lumbers and accomplishes nothing compared to Apple. Microsoft throws huge teams of people at every little project and nothing ever gets accomplished.
I really like the mindset. Sure it might cause some projects to linger longer, but ultimately you get the best people working on most things.
It is my issue with pitching in Major League Baseball. There are too many pitchers used these days, although it is trending back a a bit. When people take their #1 pitcher out of the game and replace them with their number #9 pitcher, almost always there is going to be a fall off in quality. Now let the number 7, 8 and 9 pitchers alternate throwing pitches and it becomes even worse. Or even better let the three of them work together to throw each pitch.
It also brings accountability to people. One of the problems when you throw big teams of people at every project is when things go wrong, everyone can skate taking responsibility.
I really like the mindset. Sure it might cause some projects to linger longer, but ultimately you get the best people working on most things.
It is my issue with pitching in Major League Baseball. There are too many pitchers used these days, although it is trending back a a bit. When people take their #1 pitcher out of the game and replace them with their number #9 pitcher, almost always there is going to be a fall off in quality. Now let the number 7, 8 and 9 pitchers alternate throwing pitches and it becomes even worse. Or even better let the three of them work together to throw each pitch.
It also brings accountability to people. One of the problems when you throw big teams of people at every project is when things go wrong, everyone can skate taking responsibility.