How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong

An anonymous reader writes "Wired has a look at how the good and bad of Apple, their Yin and Yang, have come together to form a company that actually works. The piece looks at Steve Jobs' unusual and abrasive management style, otherwise known as 'Management Techniques From the Dark Side'. It's essentially a list of counterintuitive, suspicious-seeming and downright evil management techniques that work - for them."

Comments

What a silly article

[wass]

I read the first of five pages of the article, and decided it's not worth further click-throughs.

The author tries to come up with ways that Apple is evil, but really winds up taking jabs primarily at Steve Jobs. As a newfound mac user, I don't give a crap about Jobs, I care about using a computer that matches my needs and does what I want. For me that's Mac. And for most of the other 6-7% of the Mac marketshare it's a pretty similar situation.

Re:What a silly article

[rijrunner]

I think the author missed a lot. Was pretty far off base in a lot of areas. I have mainly worked large corporations and *none* had anything resembling worker empowerment..

Take this phrase from the article:

"Apple's successes in the years since Jobs' return -- iMac, iPod, iPhone -- suggest an alternate vision to the worker-is-always-right school of management. In Cupertino, innovation doesn't come from coddling employees and collecting whatever froth rises to the surface; it is the product of an intense, hard-fought process, where people's feelings are irrelevant."

Umm.. I have yet to work anywhere where even technical merits win hard-fought processes.

And I have never seen the worker-is-always-right attitude *anywhere*. If you have technically literate management, you *might* get a chance to pitch your side. Mostly not though. Then you run it by 10, or more, people whom all have the ability to veto, but not approve, your proposal.

I would hazard a guess that large corporations tend towards "worker as cogs" as an overall style. Look at the number of people the last few years that have received notices that their jobs were going to India in 4 weeks. Not exactly worker as individual talent there, ya know. Some try to buck the trend, but they are the exception, not the rule. Smaller companies use different styles. Another line form the article said "More than anywhere else I've worked before or since, there's a lot of concern about being fired". Shoot, the author needs to get out more. A lot of larger corporations will lay off entire departments or outsource them. At least at Apple, the implication seems to be that doing a good job means you keep your job. Many people these days are working under far greater concern of being fired and there is no productivity or metrics for them to meet to change that outcome.

Jobs is good at what he does. He spots future development and goes for it. That isn't a management skill. That talent at the level of a CEO would work under most management styles. And, his vision works because he does not have anyone to veto his proposals. You stick Jobs 2-3 management layers down in any large corporation and you would have all the problems of dealing with someone with his management style, but most of his ideas would be shot down by people who either did not like him, or his ideas.

Basically.. "Jobs is Jobs. You aren't." should be the lessons here. He's a CEO. You aren't.

Re:What a silly article

[clang_jangle]

Riiiight, all us Mac users are forced to buy all our parts and peripherals from Apple because nothing else works with a Mac. I used witchcraft to make my Epson printer, Sony monitor, Seagate HDD, Kingston memory, etc all work. Or maybe you meant software? Yes, with only bash, gcc, GNU, MacPorts, fink, OO.org, etc, etc, etc, I can see how you'd pity us.

EULA aside, anyone can build a mac clone that will run OS X. All it takes is to buy compatible components, which are only slightly less ubiquitous than win-compatible stuff, and a functional Apple logic board (or, if you're really resourceful, just the ROMs from it). Mac lovers of modest means have been doing it from the beginning, same as PC users. Sure is amazing how so many people who've never owned a Mac know all the drawbacks.

Someone sure has drunk some kool-aid...

Re:What a silly article

[BlueStraggler]

This meme is annoyingly false.

I am an old-school Unix sysadmin and developer, who went Mac back at 10.1 because it is the exact *opposite* of what you claim. All the hard-core Unix nerds were early adopters back then, because we didn't give a fuck about backwards compatibility issues with OS9, and all the Unixy goodness seemed to be fully supported, with a few Apple quirks that for the most part seemed like really good ideas once you got used to them. The standard unix development suite was included, preconfigured for you by Apple. Most Gnu apps seemed to work with little more than a recompile. X-windows was included out of the box. Apache is preconfigured and running in the basic system. Same with CUPS. As delivered by Apple, your laptop was a running LAMP server (AAMP? MAMP?). (These days the dev tools are a separate free download, but that wasn't the case in earlier versions.) Industry-standard file formats were all built in, and often (eg. with PDF) to a degree that puts all other OSes to shame. It even ran those annoying Microsoft apps for those situations when people insist on sending you proprietary files. The Apple apps, proprietary or not, are a mere footnote to all of the above. You can treat them as a nice little bonus, or you can drag them to the trash. Your call.

The only reason you're stuck with Apple, is that nobody else does all this in one box.

Re:What a silly article

[Lars T.]

Well, yes and no: Apple is more a hardware packager than maker, since it now just takes utterly standard components and puts them together. At one point it used unusual chips, had its own peripheral standard, etc., so Apple has taken many of the suggestions from others and conformed itself more to standard PCs. The few non-utterly standard components Apple had in their Macs always were there because the alternatives were either worse or more expensive. ADB - compared to DIN-plug keyboards and serial mouse interfaces? "Unusual" chips vs. dozens of chips in PCs (later replaced by only a couple of chips called "chip-sets", which amazingly did the same Apple (and others) did before with their "unusual" chips).

Re:What a silly article

[Apro im]

I'm a mac user, and while your peripheral argument is an excellent straw man, he actually said "Apple", not "Mac". First off, it is a pain to get certain things to play nice with my Mac, but by and large, I'm happy with its interoperation. However, the iPod/iPhone/Apple TV/all non-computer apple products are another story - the lock-in there is all over the place. They make as few concessions as possible (allowing mp3 on the iPod, and then lock you into the formats they want you to like - no ogg, no wma, no non-Apple DRM. Using anything but iTunes gets broken with alarming regularity (thankfully it gets re-unbroken quickly, too). Apple loves lock-in when it has the market, and embraces openness when it doesn't.

He needs to get towed a few times.

[ptbarnett]

Unauthorized parking in a handicapped spot is a violation of state law. In this case, the rules do apply to Jobs, regardless of the high opinion he has of himself.

Jobs needs to make a few trips to the impound lot to bail out his car. He would probably create his own reserved parking place, but at least that would put an end to the myth of the egalitarian parking lot policy.

Re:He needs to get towed a few times.

[sm62704]

Unauthorized parking in a handicapped spot is a violation of state law. In this case, the rules do apply to Jobs, regardless of the high opinion he has of himself.

To Steve Jobs, the hundred dollar fine he'd pay here for parking in a handicapped spot is akin to my putting a quarter in a parking meter. Chump change not worth worrying about.

Fines should be based on net worth, or at least income. Since they're not, the richer you are the less the law applies to you.

Re:He needs to get towed a few times.

[BlowHole666]

Seeing as how it's private property, he can park anywhere he wants. He can park in the front entrance if he wants. Yes it is private property but it is required to follow city laws and codes. That is why businesses must have handicap spots in the first place. City regulations require that a business have those spots. So no he can not park in the handicap spot. He could park in the front entrance however, but he would probably be breaking fire code. So just because someone owns the business does not mean they can do whatever. For example a chemical company can not just dump chemical waste on their back lot. If only life were as simple as your mind :)

They Be The Opposite

[webword]

Much of the success of Apple has nothing to do with Apple itself or Steve Jobs. Instead, Apple allows people to directly reject Microsoft. Linux satisfies this anti-Microsoft position as well, but Apple actually markets itself and has the financial backing to push this branding.

With that said, Apple helps keep Microsoft out of even more legal hot water, for example, by directly backing Apple. It's a CYA tactic on the legal front.

Bottom line: Don't just drink the Kool-Aid on the Apple story without taking 1-2 steps back to look at the marketplace, cultures, and end users.

Evil Works

[thomas.galvin]

I think the point of the article is that evil works, if evil is also very good at what it does.

The whole point in allowing many different people to tackle a problem is to eliminate single-point-of-failure. If one company's product blows, we can choose another's. This is very important, both to the consumer, and to the market as a whole.

But when one company is the best at what they do, people stop thinking about choice. If apple makes the best mp3player/music store, why go anywhere else? If their operating system is so good, who cares if it only runs on their hardware... as long as their hardware is great, too?

Unfortunately, even evil geniuses sometimes fail. For instance, the iPhone SDK... I honestly don't see that going anywhere, unless the current license agreement is modified to something less draconian.

Re:Evil Works

[jedidiah]

Jobs is good enough to pull off his "asshole" routine. This doesn't mean
that it can work for anyone else. It also may not work for any other
company. It happens to work for Jobs and Apple (apparently).

On a similar note, there are plenty of people that are "google wannabes".
They will pick up on something they've heard about Google's management
style. They will try to implement it and be full of themselves. It ends
up being a big fiasco of course because such people are just kidding
themselves. They don't have the talent to be managers at Google or
Apple.

Re:Evil Works

[NeutronCowboy]

Thank you. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that. I have a friend who worked at Apple, and quit because upper management was evil and insane. From the stories I heard about her particular project, I can only wonder how anything gets accomplished there. What Apple's success tells me is that Apple's management methods of screaming at employees and "hero-shithead rollercoasters" (to quote the article) yield results not because the management methods themselves are working, but because there is a bona-fide genius at the helm whose micromanagement is genuinely better than whatever else a group of people could come up with. I also think that this works only because Apple produces Steve Jobs products. Jobs at the helm of IBM would be a complete disaster.

In short, Wired is trying to make Steve Jobs' business management methods into something that can work for everybody, which is complete and utter idiocy. If they'd have any experience with business management, they'd know that. What we have here is a person who is good enough with product development, deal making and personal leadership that he can overcome his absolutely craptastic management skills. Jobs is not a manager, he is a dictator. Just because he is a good one doesn't mean that you become good by emulating him. You need the rest of his skills as well.

I also agree that what works for Google is unlikely to work across the board for others. You create management strategies around the people you have. If you can't do that, you need to hire people who fit your management style. But you cannot impose management strategies on people who don't respond to those strategies. That's just a disaster in the making.

Differences with Google are oversold

[snowwrestler]

Google runs its servers on Linux, but with propietary tweaks. The Google search ranking algorithm is at least as secret at Apple's product roadmap, and they are no more forthcoming with their product roadmap than Apple is (remember all the random answers and stonewalling that met questions about Google's plans on a mobile phone prior to the Android announcement).

To be a large, public, consumer company you have to keep some things secret for a variety of reasons. You don't want to telegraph strategy to your competitors. You want to release things with a splash to earn unpaid media coverage. You don't want to be held legally liable for stock price movements based on R&D projects that might never get released. etc.

Apple is very closed and secretive about some things, but quite open about others. Like Google their core OS kernel is open source. Like Google they employ commonly available technologies--http, MP3, H264, AAC, Unix, USB, ATA, 802.11, etc.--but put them together in unique ways to create new products.

Meh.

[SatanicPuppy]

Where modern management philosophies are mainly about touchy-feelie crap and corporate culture is trending toward openness, Apple stands out as a company where management is aggressive and dictatorial and corporate culture is supremely secretive.

If you want to call that "Evil" I suppose you can. I think, however, that design by committee only produces piles of steaming crap. There is definitely something to be said for a guy who has vision, and the force of personality to see it through.

Re:Meh.

[SatanicPuppy]

Well, that theory holds less weight given that we have a period of Apple prosperity under Jobs, followed by a period of decline after Jobs, and then another period of prosperity after Jobs' return. Say what you will about him, he does have a measurable effect.

Re:Meh.

[Lemmy Caution]

As far as I'm concerned, Apple is successful for one reason, and one reason only: they have hired some of the greatest designers in history to work for them, just like Google has hired some of the greatest programmers.

I love Apple design. But that delicious, creamy center is wrapped up in all the corporate avarice, control-mongering (DRM, lawsuits etc), and nastiness that the contemporary corporation is capable of. I think that they are actually worse than Microsoft in this regard.

Re:Meh.

[jwiegley]

But again, this sequence does nothing for proving that this success is due to Jobs' aggressive, dictatorial style. It is equally plausible that Jobs made some small positive change such has hiring some bright engineers upon his arrival. Or maybe made a decision that all products should be sleek and devoid of buttons and sharp edges and come in pretty colors. Either of those decisions could account for their success, both could be effective despite micromanagement or abusive management. One could argue that you should imagine how much better the products from these people would have been had Jobs had a different attitude. That, as the original respondent said, apple is succeeding despite Jobs.

I have worked for aggressive, dictatorial people before. I am fully convinced that, while they might be able to establish a stable of employees with parental-appeasement issues that work hard and produce to gain the appreciation of an authority figure, there is nothing that will be produced that couldn't be with a fair, comfortable management environment.

Should Jobs get the praise for whatever decision he made that did make apple a success? Of course. Should his management style be adopted by others? No. Not until it's proven that it was the reason for success. I don't believe that proof has been provided and there are far too many other companies such as Google that demonstrate that success is not tied to an abusive management style and thus provide a counter-example sufficient to suggest looking towards other reasons for apple's success.

Leadership, not totalitarianism

[boristdog]

Jobs may be a dick, but he's also a natural leader, which is always more important.

I'm not a fan of Apple, nor of Mr. Jobs, but he has some serious leadership skills. The fact that he's also a dick is not a factor in his success. Apparently his leadership can outshine his dickishness.

Fortunately Mr. Jobs decided to start a computer company instead of a religious cult in Guyana. Who knows what Jim Jones' "Kool-Ade OS" might have been like had he chosen a different path.

Re:They don't understand because they are wrong.

[Scaba]

Microsoft Vista and Dell's Pocket DJ and the Zune may have been designed by comittee but the parts that suck were pushed from on high.

Right. Pushed from on high. In other words, designed by committee.

Apple is only the king of cool because the commercial alternatives suck so badly.

No, it's because they actually make cool stuff. The lightest girl in a roomful of fat chicks is still a fat chick.

Free software designs consistently trounce commercial offerings.

If by "consistently" you meant "rarely," then I totally agree.

Package management on free systems is nearly flawless and free systems come with everything needed. People on Mac are insulted with popups that ask for money when they run into what should be common features. Windows victims walk on eggshells around their OS, backing up binary files and terrified of installing or removing programs. Then there are things like Amarok and MythTV which simply kill iTunes and Tivo respectively. Where free software developers successfully reverse engineer hardware drivers, the result is rock solid stability that commercial makers can only achieve with drastic hardware choice limitations.

Hahaha. OK, I just got you were being satirical. Well done!

Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think

[Omnifarious]

Most companies try to identify a market segment, work out what people in that segment want to buy, and then produce a product for that market. Apple tries to produce products for Steve Jobs.

*nod* Most good software I've ever seen was designed to solve the specific needs of a very few people, often needs the software author h(im/er)self had. I think the focus group method is practically guaranteed to lead to mediocre or poor designs. There is nothing specific it's really trying to do, and it's hard to get enthusiastic over something and do a really good job on it when no individual seems all that excited over it.

Apple is in the console business

[Animats]

Don't compare Apple with Dell. Compare it with Sony or Nintendo. Those companies are equally closed and secretive. Akio Morita (1921-1999) was Sony's founder and the equivalent of Steve Jobs. Sony hasn't been doing too well since Morita died.

Re:Success isn't deterministic

[Lumpy]

Not really.

the iPod is not their saviour product. The problem is very few people get exposed to the Apple line. I recently let a big customer borrow my apple TV for a week. He's a huge Microsoft fan and has Media center PC's in every room.

When I went to his house yesterday to install a new 58" set in his bedroom and asked if I can pick up my apple Tv he said. "How many of those do you have in stock?" He is buying 12 of them for his home replacing the media center PC's as the appleTv product kicks the ever living crap out of windows Media center.

The fact you can "rent" a HD movie for $4.99 was his biggest love of the device. His wife loves that she can "buy" lost right away as well.

If Apple had more exposure to people so they can actually TRY their stuff, they would kill Microsoft and everyone else overnight.

Problem is, Apple doesnt have a "try it for a week for free" program, and your experience at the apple store is sanitized at best.

Re:completely ignorant

[2nd Post!]

Why do you think they won't release Darwin for the iPhone? The Darwin page has entries for the iPhone's webkit and java engine. I mean, the iPhone isn't even a year old and only has a beta SDK!

People said the exact same thing about the Intel version of Darwin, yet they did release the Intel versions of Darwin!

Re:Handicapped

[realisticradical]

Is there a good reason that apple doesn't simply have a parking space for the CEO?

Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think

[realisticradical]

They do seem to learn from their mistakes though. The cube was too expensive and so it's turned into the mac mini. Maybe the Air will fail but there will probably be a sequel that will learn from the mistakes of the Air.

Re:completely ignorant

[Niten]

And this is supposed to count against Apple... how, exactly?

If the authors of the BSD-licensed software used in Apple products were that concerned about getting every single bit of code contributed back by everyone who touches their software, then -- guess what? -- they would have licensed that code under the GPL instead. They are not only meeting, but actually surpassing, their pseudo-contractual obligations for use of the code.

I'd say the fact that Apple continues to contribute anything back to these projects speaks well of them. Not that the company doesn't have its own faults, of course, but let's give credit where credit is due...

Jobs' management style

[strangeattraction]

Having never worked for Jobs directly I have worked with many people that have worked for Jobs. There are certain personality types that are drawn to him. Usually it is a person that adores approval which at first sounds strange given what is said about him. The scenario generally works like this. Jobs take a look at your stuff and tells you it is shit. The employee becomes distraught and redoubles her/his efforts. The next time Jobs sees your stuff he tells them how fabulous it is. Getting the attention is such an ego rush the happy employee goes about trying to reproduce this often random response. Essentially is is very much like gambling addiction.

For some this approach is extremely effective. For others is intolerable.

Re:well, it is silly, but not in the way you think

[tknd]

Take a step back and try to understand what you just said.

Most good software I've ever seen was designed to solve the specific needs of a very few people, often needs the software author h(im/er)self had.

Why is this true? I would suggest that the software is good because both the developer and the customer are the same person. There is no need to argue or communicate because you are the same person in both roles.

I think the focus group method is practically guaranteed to lead to mediocre or poor designs.

I would say poor requirements engineering will lead to poor designs; you cannot design something for which you don't completely understand. To make things worst, most customers do not understand engineering and sometimes they may not even know exactly what it is they want. But they will insist that they need something to solve their problem.

It is practically impossible to get the requirements right the first time. I have found that the only way to remain on track is to continuously verify the resulting implementation against the customers. But this is an expensive process and everyone has been trying to find ways to make this process cheaper or use alternative methods. Apple it seems has an expert customer who happens to also be the CEO. Therefore verifying the design and implementation is actually fairly cheap (or required) for them.

Re:What a silly article - Mod Parent Up

[clang_jangle]

Not just lately, who could forget the September 1998 issue of Wired, wherein they interviewed several "experts" and concluded that due to the Y2K bugs society as we know it would cease to exist? Yes, that was the very last issue I actually read, but sadly their crap still gets reproduced all over the place. Wired is the Inquirer for the semi-computer-literate crowd and has been for about a decade now. The fact that the Inquirer has the largest circulation of any publication in the world is clearly not lost on them.