Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by _1 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

How much talent is Apple losing today?

View on HN

As an Apple shareholder, there have been multiple red flags in the last 6 months, this is yet just another.

- Missing deadlines of product realeases.

- Seriously getting product design wrong and missing what users want. See Apple Watch, See iPhone 7, See MacBook Pro.

- Tim Cook being passive and an operations guy with no founder vision or drive.

- Failure to acquire new and innovate companies, instead doubling down on "strange" investments such as Didi Chuxing, and Softbank (both 1 billion).

I've been a huge Apple supporter and "fanboy", but the signs are starting to really add up. Soon enough the finance guys will start to see the patterns as well and there may be a significant correction.

Most good points. One I'd object to: "Failure to acquire new and innovate companies"

Acquiring innovative companies can be a good sign for innovative buyers. (Cisco was a machine at adding to it's product lines) For non-innovative companies, it's a death knell.

I'd rather see them acquire small and scrapy 10-100 people companies, though those people and founders would probably leave once their options fully vest after acquisition.

Missing what Apple Watch users want?

It seems for the most part that these are the most common issues: it isn't a phone replacement (no cellular connectivity) and the battery life is terrible.

For me as a Watch owner the battery life could be better but I don't want or have a need for it to have a cellular connection.

Just curious about how the product design of the watch is seriously wrong (same with the iPhone 7 other than it lacking a headphone jack).

As an Apple shareholder, this seems like a bunch of vague gripes.

- Apple has missed plenty of ship dates in the past; I refer you to the Saga Of The White iPhone.

- The Watch is selling well (dominating its category), iPhone 7 selling well (same), new MacBook is too early to tell.

- No drive? I wonder how well-informed you are if you think Tim Cook has no drive. He's not a product guy but contrary to popular belief, a CEO does not necessarily need to be.

- FoundationDB? Tuplejump? Turi?

I appreciate your points and I've been mostly ignoring the posts here and on social media constantly complaining about the new MacBook Pro. Howerver, as a whole there are signs things may be heading downward for Apple.

> The Watch is selling well (dominating its category), iPhone 7 selling well (same), new MacBook is too early to tell.

Apple Watch revenue barely shows up on their 10Q and 10K (see the mysterious other category), it is basically a non-factor to their performance and stock. I question why they even released the watch. iPhone actually is not selling as well as expected, they have cut orders[1] multiple times. There are widespread reports of users returning their new MacBook Pro's as well and switching to PCs/Linux.

FoundationDB was acquired in 2015 nearly 2 years ago. The others I can't speak too, but doesn't seem like it will make any impact. Think about this, Apple could and should have acquired either NetFlix or Tesla if they wanted too either last year or the year before... Now, both are too large and expensive for Apple to buy.

[1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+cuts+iphone+orders

> There are widespread reports of users returning their new MacBook Pro's as well and switching to PCs/Linux.

Without any data to back the claim up, I'm reasonably sure this is just a loud, extremely small, minority. There are some things wrong with the new MacBook Pros, but, in my opinion, they are still, very likely, the best laptops out there.

Then there is Consumer Report not recommended the MacBook Pro for the first time ever! Today, Apple claimed there was a bug in Safari[1] which caused the very poor battery life in their report. Sounds very fishy.

[1] - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/10/14225716/apple-macbook-pro...

Agreed. Apple's rebuttal does sound very fishy.

I'd love to hear how Consumer Report managed to get a nearly 20-hour battery life result in one of their tests, though.

It doesn't sound fishy at all, that was the most obvious explanation right off the bat. The battery was inconsistent when Safari was running, but consistent when Chrome was used in its place. That's a massive neon sign pointing to a bug in Safari causing problems, and loads of people said this as soon as the report came out.

Six and a half years ago, Steve Jobs literally told people to hold the iPhone 4 in a better way to keep it from losing reception. Software is hard. Hardware is harder. Doesn't sound fishy at all to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/jun/25/ipho...

I postponed a purchase of a fully loaded 13 inch model because of the lack of compelling enhancements (not sold on the bar) and these reports of battery life issues likely mean I will not make the purchase at all. At least 3 people I know are in the same boat and could have purchased at launch. While purely anecdotal and selection bias (all of us work in tech), but that's close to $10k in sales right there.

Best case, I'll skip this generation, but I'm strongly considering razer blade stealth + core.

I'm in dire need for an upgrade, too, and have been broken up about the fact that there is no dGPU-free option this time around. As well as the battery life issues, which probably are at least tangentially related to the dGPU.

If there was any clarity as to when we could expect a new MBP, I'd very strongly consider waiting. But otherwise, I'm thinking I'll just bite the bullet on the current one, mainly because of the keyboard (entirely subjective, but I very much like it), and the screen (just as subjective). Anecdotally, I've seen a reasonable number of people say that the new MBPs run cooler and quieter, which, to me, is very appealing in a laptop.

As far as TouchBar goes: while playing with it at the store, I found some reasonably cute uses that might offset the loss of function keys, such as the seek-bar for Picture-in-Picture or AirPlay videos. And, of course, TouchID.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: if at all feasible – definitely wait for a refresh. But, personally, after taking the time to think about it, I've found sufficient reasons to upgrade even to the 2016 model.

That's just the thing - my upgraded '12 15 inch MBP with 16GB RAM can last me until the chassis give out. To help with weight while traveling, I've been using an iPad + VPS for coding.

Switching back to Linux no longer feels like a downgrade after a year of VIM over SSH.

Had my new rMBP+TB machine for a month now, and I seriously can't see any use of the Touchbar that makes a difference to me. I simply don't ever look up there. Its not useful in bed - when laying down with laptop on lap, I can't even see the Touchbar screen.

So to me its a near-total useless 'feature' that has the potential to be reverted in the next generation. Unless I see a really killer app for it, I'll just continue ignoring it - and one of the reasons I may not see it, is that Apple are discouraging developers from using it as a display and requiring, rather, that it be used as a control surface. If I had an RSS feed on the thing, I'd find it a lot more useful - but Apple have a policy against that sort of thing. This seems like a broken policy, to me, though ..

> Apple Watch revenue barely shows up on their 10Q and 10K (see the mysterious other category), it is basically a non-factor to their performance and stock.

It usually takes a few iterations for an Apple product before it becomes successful. The iPhone, iPod, and iPad all had pretty weak sales for a few years before they take off. I say it's too early to judge the success or failure of the Apple Watch.

> iPhone actually is not selling as well as expected, they have cut orders[1] multiple times.

There have been reports of Apple cutting iPhone orders basically every year. People somehow seem to forget that.

> There are widespread reports of users returning their new MacBook Pro's as well and switching to PCs/Linux.

The Mac line is what I'm actually worried about. I think we'll see this year how they see the future of the Mac. My guess is that they are to switch to their own ARM based processors, especially now when Microsoft is developing ARM support for Windows. Perhaps not this year but not too far into the future.

> Missing deadlines of product realeases.

Remember the white iPhone 4? Hell, I remember the time during the switch from PowerPC to Intel meant you couldn't get your hands on an iMac for a month or two (late 2005).

> [...] missing what users want. See Apple Watch, See iPhone 7, See MacBook Pro.

Recently purchased the iPhone 7 after having stuck with a 5S for three years. I've got to say it's an excellent phone and I don't understand the whingeing. You get headphones and an adapter in box which works fine with my other headphones, though I stick with the supplied lightning cable ones. The shallow depth of field pictures it takes makes me feel like I've got an SLR with a prime lens in my pocket wherever I go.

I've played with the new MBP and it felt more Star Trek than any touchscreen laptop I've used. The NVMe storage in it largely negates the need for more than 16gb RAM.

> Tim Cook being passive and an operations guy with no founder vision or drive.

I'd say his passion for user privacy and commentary on his sexuality has shown him to be someone who cares for peoples rights. A good attitude to have when you're the CEO of a tech giant.

> doubling down on "strange" investments such as Didi Chuxing, and Softbank (both 1 billion).

Softbank completed a $31 Billion purchase of ARM recently. Still thinking Apple shouldn't have put a $1 billion shoe in the door? If memory serves they were also the first major distributor of iPhones in Japan when NTT Docomo were more interested in pushing flip phones.

> I'd say his passion for user privacy and commentary on his sexuality has shown him to be someone who cares for peoples rights.

He's not running for office he running a public company. As a shareholder those things are not priorities, but to him they are. Thus the problem I have.

And so you ignored the larger point that he's more than capable of making smart investments like Softbank who now own ARM, similar to Apple's prior investment in Imagination Technologies Group who design the GPUs for the A-series SOCs. Apple was first out the door with a 64-bit ARM chip in a smartphone - they need this investment to stay at the front of the pack. It also helps to invest in a company that shuttles more iPhones than any other distributor in a market as difficult and lucrative as Japan.

Getting back to my comment you quoted -- given the growing concern over user privacy, being in the position where you can serve both users who care AND those who don't is a very nice position to be in. His being gay while growing up in a conservative state no doubt influenced his desire to protect users privacy. The culture of the company is important if it's to attract new talent.

Choosing to take (or not take) a position on protecting people's rights is part of running a public company. This sort of thing shapes Apple's brand, makes a difference in recruiting, makes some employees feel more valued (and others less so) and so on in all sorts of other little ways. Tim Cook may be doing this well or badly, but either way making these choices is absolutely part of his job.

i bought an iphone 7 specifically because it protected user's privacy a bit more than android phones. so i wouldn't say they don't matter at all. to some people they do.

There are plenty of companies who will compromise their customers to make a buck, why not invest in them? As a human, I'm glad Tim has priorities other than greed.

>he shallow depth of field pictures it takes makes me feel like I've got an SLR with a prime lens in my pocket wherever I go.

I hope you are joking here. Even the cheapest SLR with some cheap lens produce better results atm. It's a fun feature to use, but nowhere near the SLR, even when using in perfect light conditions.

> Even the cheapest SLR with some cheap lens produce better results atm.

Perhaps in terms of resolution and rounder bokeh but you need to understand the effect of separating the subject from the background is the important part. Being able to do it quickly and without carrying a body and lens is incredibly valuable.

Remember: The best camera is...

okay but this is not 'I've got an SLR with a prime lens in my pocket wherever I go.'

Resolution, noise, soapy effect on border of the object separated from the background etc.

'Being able to do it quickly' is exactly what I called fun. No point comparing in to SLR of any price range.

> okay but this is not 'I've got an SLR with a prime lens in my pocket wherever I go.'

You missed the important part of that quote: it takes makes me feel like ...meaning it was a subjective statement.

Here was a comparison Ars Technica did with the iPhone 7 camera and a couple of Sony DSLR models. Of course the iPhone isn't going to win outright but I thought it held its own fairly well and the picture quality was quite good

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/mini-shootout-can-iph...

Well, I wasn't saying it has bad camera, just not nearly as good as any SLR with any lens, not for now at least.

>> makes me feel like I've got an SLR

It doesn't matter very much what the objective performance is. Grandparent feels like he's got an SLR and there lies most of the value.

Okay, maybe I've misunderstood the initial comment.

>Seriously getting product design wrong and missing what users want. See See iPhone 7

Hmm...after reading [1] and [2], it seems that at least some users wanted the iPhone 7.

[1] http://bgr.com/2016/12/22/iphone-7-popularity-revenue-record...

[2] http://bgr.com/2016/10/20/iphone-7-sales-figures-september-q...

>Tim Cook being passive and an operations guy with no founder vision or drive.

I'd disagree with this, he has vision and drive he's just not got a great vision and sees no value in the Mac line yet pushed out weak products like the Watch and the iPad Pro.

iPad Pro might have made sense if launched at the start but launched when all the pro apps have left the iPad platform it just seems like he doesn't even understand his own ecosystem.

Thankfully they seem to have dropped the fantasy of shipping a car.

Greplin was neat, but Gross had only been an employee for a couple years, and he arrived at Apple after a low-dollar acquisition. This is probably just the end of his earn-out.

I'd be surprised to learn that this was a strategic blow to Apple.

Based on fanboys complaining, a lot.

They have 115,000 employees. Losing two won't make a big difference (yes, I know those two are important, but still).

I think it is disingenuous to say that the lead programmer of Swift and Director of Machine Learning won't make a difference.

I know if my company lost two important people in one week would be very significant.

I have faith a company like Apple can replace them with people every bit as talented and competent.

It's not always that simple. Execs like this take entire teams of talented subordinates with them. The headline focuses on one person but the real brain drain occurs when that person turns around and starts to poach the absolute best talent from their previous orgs. I've found recruiting and hiring at the very top to be as much (or more) about the individual exec/manager than the company itself.

No one said anything about it being simple, just that it can be done when you have the resources and reputation of a company like Apple.

For what it's worth, Chris Lattner specifically said in his farewell email [1] that "we don’t expect it to impact day-to-day operations in the Swift Core Team in any significant way." If you take him at his word, presumably that would mean the brain drain will be a nonevent.

[1] https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mo...

Or it may just mean that the brain drain won't have a direct day-to-day impact, just an indirect, growing decay in capacity and capability as people leave and the team struggles to replace them.

FWIW, a lot of companies have non-solications in place to try and prevent this kind of behavior. They're far from fool-proof, and there is nothing stopping an employee from leaving of their own volition, but I would guess both of them have some sort of agreement in place not to poach talent directly.

What you're describing is not only illegal, but also something for which Apple recently contributed to a half-billion dollar settlement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

a lot of companies have non-solications in place to try and prevent this kind of behavior

If you know of other companies engaging in backroom nonsolicitation agreements with each other, the responsible thing to do for your fellow STEM workers is to call the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and let them know that the Apple/Google/etc. settlement didn't achieve its intended effect.

The type of "no-solicit" that bfstein is talking about is very different from the one you're referring to. The no-solicit contracts that are common in Silicon Valley mean that you, as an ex-employee, cannot directly approach a current employee that you know there and offer them a job at your current employer. The no-solicits that they got in trouble with in the HTEAL were where the company's HR department refused to approach employees at other tech companies. The former is a contract between you and your employer, which is legal and enforceable. The latter was a verbal contract between competitors to the detriment of their employees, which is illegal.

In practice, what most big companies do is they ask incoming employees for the names and personal contact info (and only that) of good employees that they have worked with in the past, and then pass that info on to HR, for a corporate recruiter to make the initial contact. Has the same effect, but no contracts are broken, since the corporation does all the soliciting.

Those contract clauses would be void in California.

Why?

Section 16600: http://www.tradesecretsnoncompetelaw.com/2014/05/articles/no...

(just read the 2nd paragraph. the rest of the article makes the rather obvious point that, if you solicit based on confidential company information, 16600 won't save you.)

This article (and most of the rest of the information I found on the Internet) is referring to solicitation of customers, not solicitation of employees. The few sources I found [1][2] indicate that non-solicitation agreements for employees are very much enforceable, but only if the employee directly reaches out (if the current employee contacts a former coworker about a job, that's legal, and ditto for the former employee's new employer).

[1] http://www.pashalaw.com/legally-poaching-employees-company-a...

[2] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/understanding-nonsoli...

It's entirely standard at tech companies to have a non-solicitation clause in employment contracts that prohibits soliciting other employees up through a fixed period (e.g., one year) after you leave.

IANAL but I did some research on this and to the best of my understanding these are perfectly legal and enforceable in California.

That would be career suicide though.

Not entirely sure about the back story of Chris Lattner joining Tesla. But according to Techcrunch,

    Gross first found his way to Apple after Cue, formally called Greplin, 
    was acquired by the company for $40 million back in 2013 for its 
    predictive search capabilities. After spending the last three years in 
    Cupertino, Gross was ready to get back to his entrepreneurial roots.

It's possible that agreement during that acquisition Gross has a 3 year vesting period and it's not very surprising that some founders leave after certain stock vesting events. This is purely my speculation but it's possible. And the timing of it might just be a coincidence.

Lattner was indeed THE lead programmer of Swift, but Gross was A Director working on Machine Learning not THE guy in charge of company wide machine learning efforts ("Director" at Apple basically means second level manager).

Sorry this is off-topic, but I really dislike the overuse of the word "disingenuous" in tech discussions. It means you think the person is being insincere or duplicitous in what they are saying. It's much more likely that they just have a different opinion than you.

Questioning a person's sincerity is unproductive and usually unnecessary. It makes discussions needlessly personal and unpleasant.

> It means you think the person is being insincere or duplicitous in what they are saying.

That was exactly what I meant to say. I felt that he was making presenting a positive spin on a tech company he likes.

Anyone that spins a story that they know they are spinning are being "disingenuous" to themselves.

Someone could just as easily say you are presenting a negative spin on a tech company you dislike. It doesn't make for very interesting or productive discussion.

> It doesn't make for very interesting or productive discussion.

So what your saying is Hacker News isn't interesting when two biggish names leave a company for other companies? Some of us think it is significant. The reply was someone talking about my disuse of an english word. I replied that was exactly what I intended to use.

I can't seem to figure out if your defending another person or attacking me or both/neither.

I agree. When is this exodus at Apple going to end? Maybe they saw the next set of products and said "meh".

"Naive" might be the word you're looking for. And indeed, whenever important people leave, it is always significant. In fact, it can be significant even when they're not important at all. But you do need to wait a year to find out whether it makes a difference!

You might be surprised at who can leave without ultimately causing a problem.

Based on Apple's performance in machine learning, I would say some change in management has long been warranted.

You really can't say losing top engineers is like losing a file clerk. Granted, engineers aren't EVERYTHING and there is more talent than a handful of people. I wouldn't call losing these people company emergencies, but they're different dimensions from losing an employee in a commodity position.

So? Let's say Apple has 500 "top engineers". What will losing two mean? Probably nothing.

True true, but I'll spout off this: I hope it works out to some key decision makers realizing they need to rethink somethings - purely as a thing I wish would happen.

Losing two publicly is signaling. The very fact people are talking loudly about leaving apple is a sign of apple's weakness.

Lattner isn't talking loudly. He's barely talking about it at all. His only announcement about it was a brief aside in an email about a change in the Swift open source leadership.

Engineers are not simply interchangeable. Their expertise and experience are a very important part of who they are. A lead engineer can have a significant impact on the direction of a company, even one the size of Apple.

When a important engineer leaves, sometimes a lot more end up following. Or at least their team members more open to looking at other offers.

That'll be the interesting thing.

Lattner was in the top few of the world in his research and what he created, not just one among Apple's "top 500".

9 women can't make a baby in a month

not yet at least

Not sure why parent is getting downvotes for a more gender-counterbalanced quip about The Mythical Man Month, which is entirely relevant to this discussion.

Well, one is physically impossible while the other is theoretically improbable. So there's that.

It makes a difference. Probably a big one.

Individuals with experience in specialized areas and in leading in those areas can make a large impact in any company (their own or otherwise). How can you assume that losing individuals making a large impact wouldn't have an impact itself?

Considering that he's becoming a partner at YC, you'd think he was a high-value employee, or could have become one should have they retained him. Seems like a big loss to me.

Quotes a number that is 87% retail employees: Calls parent post "Disingenuous"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com