Apple expanding outside of SV as it struggles to recruit and retain talent
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
There's a reason why Steve Jobs wanted an anti-poaching agreement with Google; when people find out they could make more money working at another company, they're likely to consider leaving or trying to negotiate a pay raise.
Another problem is that a portion of Apple's compensation package (like those of some research labs, game companies, etc.) is paid in intangibles (prestige, coolness, blessings of St. Jobs, etc.) rather than dollars.
I think the thing to remember about Cook is that he’s a process and money guy, previously being the COO. I don’t think anyone at Apple would call him a “visionary” like they said about Jobs; that’s just not his style.
However the repercussions of this were pretty clearly felt, at least by me and my organization. We were tasked with a monumental infrastructure undertaking while continuing to support production use cases, and we were running as a skeleton crew for a lot of it, because getting headcount to hire more was such a heavily scrutinized process.
So I ended up on a team of 3 people maintaining 3 separate server components. It was honestly sort of brutal.
And I know Jobs was also famous for working people hard, but he had the charisma to make it have purpose. We were under Tim, and then under Eddy, who are… not the most charismatic fish in the sea. It really just felt like we were being pushed needlessly hard when hiring one or two more people would have made a massive difference and improved the overall development cadence and quality.
“People start to get confused that the process is the content...And that’s what makes great products. It’s not the process, it’s the content.”
—Steve Jobs
Apparently GCHQ in the UK had the same problem. They moved into a new donut shaped office but they somehow managed to not count one of their teams when doing the capacity planning and ended up with an office that was too small for the organization. And what's the one office shape you cannot expand in any way? A circle.
I'm getting on in my 30s and I can sense my ideas fossilizing somewhat, so I do try my best to counter that by being open to new ideas. But this one is hard to process.
What are we supposed to do with countries we disagree with? Boycott them, trade with them but ignore their domestic laws if we find them distasteful, organize coups to overthrow their governments and install ones we agree with? What's the actual plan once we're done posturing?
Criticize them and slowly change public sentiment of the brand until they make better choices. This is the free market and democratic way.
China is the US's second largest trading partner, and the EU's largest trading partner. If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it. Legislate laws that prevent corporations from doing business with China.
But to expect a corporation to take up the role of independently enforcing morality is uncharted territory, and I've yet to hear a coherent reason why corporations need to take on a role that until now, has been done by the government.
Surely that same principle also extends to someone choosing not to do business with corporations who do business with those who do morally reprehensible things.
I might disagree with your method, because I think boycotts and sanctions would only further entrench the Chinese government. They'll turn around and tell their people "See? The West only wants to keep you down!" (see Iran), rather than actually result in any positive change.
But I do fully agree that this role belongs to government, rather than expecting a corporation to enforce the moral will of a people.
we absolutely should be selective in who we do business with as to not allow authoritarian regimes to hold power since they are dangerous to everyone around them.
boycotts and sanctions are very effective method for doing this, as long as you give them a way to actually reenter the market if they actually change.
Our market is our leverage, if you want entry to it then you need to play by our rules. if that means you need to stop committing genocide and move towards democratic rule so be it.
Up until now corporations have focused on what they do best, which is making money, and the role of government is to legislate laws that reflect the ethics and morality of its people. This has worked pretty well so far. For example, tobacco companies can't legally sell cigarettes to 12 year olds.
My bafflement is, why the change? Why must Apple, or any other corporation take up a role that previously belonged to the government?
Corps are often very powerful and influential as well. Why shouldn't they take on a role larger than making money? If I became a corporation, do I get a free pass to be unethical, and commit atrocities as long as it's lawful? No. I would be shunned by society. Corporations seem to have long had a free pass. We should hold all entities to equal ethical standards and expectations, and respond in every way possible both as individuals and governments when those standards are violated. The laws around selling tobacco would never have happened without individual action first. Corporations need ethics too. I rather like it when our corporations follow our morals, I get tired of being cynical. That's reason #2.
Apple and other companies are global entities. Mini-states in their own right in a way. Trillion-dollar companies have enormous, global power. It may be lawful to follow a law in country X when in country Y that same law would be illegal or widely condemned. How is a government supposed to respond to global entities? Say those same tobacco companies sell to minors in another country where it is legal. There's not exactly an established legal precedent as far as I know. Is it still evil to sell to minors? Yes. Legal imbalance exists for global entities, so governments hands are often tied. That's reason #3.
So, nobody is around to motivate Apple and other corps to do the right thing. There should be consequences to abetting abhorrent laws and censorship. Everyone cheered when Apple stood up to the FBI and refused to assist hacking a suspect's phone. Everyone booed when Blizzard and other companies buckled and went along with the CCP censorship. Corps need to be punished for bad behavior (or knowingly working with or for criminals) somehow, and (here's the cynical view) they will only pay attention if it hurts their bottom line.
I do see where you're coming from regarding cynicism. I don't find it ethical to allow corporations to sell cigarettes to 12 year olds in countries where that's legal, but I'd rather they be allowed to do that than to take up the role of ethical enforcers, further taking away that burden from government and reducing the pressure for meaningful reform.
I guess I also have less faith in our ethical standards than you do. We're not yet at a state where we have a coherent, stable ethical framework. Things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability. It's why I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent for other nations. I most certainly don't want to live in China or have Chinese-style laws in my country, but at the same time I'm not in a position where I can praise or condemn the Chinese for how they're doing things. Strong-arming the world into mirroring my ethical standards is only going to lead to even more division and hatred, rather than the desired result of a more ethical world. Expecting other nations to smile when we criticize them and condemning them when they don't listen is unrealistic.
As for your last point, I suppose it's the free-will of the consumer to punish corporations in the only way they respond to; their bottom line. This is effective when it comes to product and service quality, in that if you don't like it don't buy it. The corporation has to either improve its offerings or lose its market position. But the result of asking them to take ethical positions turns things into a PR game with no meaningful results other than making the public feel better. For example, Blizzard didn't internally change or have an ethical awakening after what they did. All they're going to do is invest more into PR to avoid looking bad in the future. Nothing changes. If you've had any interaction with the sorts of people that rise to senior positions in _any_ corporation you'll realize such people, like politicians, are incapable of any sort of genuine ethical conviction.
> things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated now, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability
I wouldn't have it any other way. You can't change people's minds with force, only time and pressure. Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period. Despite that, actual civil rights ideas took decades to take hold even after the extremely violent Civil War. The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work. In fact, many of these ethical standards are encoded into laws which are in turn enforced with the state's monopoly on violence (e.g. police, military, swat).
For Blizzard and some companies are perhaps ran by sociopaths. In which case, all they learned is that they need better PR. But I'm sure some companies (aka the people leading those companies) did listen.
Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste.
It's tricky to judge people in the past, or to try to get a sense of how one would act if transported to that time. We're not inherently better than the people that came before us; we're still the same species. It's easy to take a stand against slavery today, but not so easy if you can see the Civil War on the horizon and all the ruin it brought. I can't judge people who adopted positions in 1830 I find disgusting today from the comfort of 2021, when I lose nothing from my position and they had everything to lose.
> The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work.
I think you're underplaying the effect of "division and hatred" and where it can lead. You can't build a better world by tearing down your current world. I agree that mirrored ethical standards are required for civilization to work, but you have to strike a balance between avoiding stagnation and excessive compromise and maintaining a degree of social harmony. We're currently building a world where the ethical divisions between citizens of the same country are greater than the ethical divisions between nations in previous eras. To think this will end well for anyone is unrealistically optimistic.
> Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste.
Yes it's cynical, but that's been my experience so far. I've been fortunate enough to encounter a lot of people that are genuinely _good_ and to call some of them close friends, but I never saw any of their qualities in people that occupy the c-suite. Maybe I'm wrong in my generalization, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make given the evidence.
In any case, I suppose I'm no longer "baffled" like in my OP. I'm starting to see the logic behind the attitude of expecting corporations to take ethical positions. Thank you for clarifying things.
Simultaneously, Apple has in its ranks a famous rapper who's rapped about (and admitted to committing) violence against women, sits in a senior and lucrative role in Apple leadership.
As you can see from above, the morality always plays second fiddle to profit.
As an old hand, my personal perception and feeling on the topic of morality in corporations is, it's a trick/PR ploy to get young people to feel like they're part of something good. There are many words to describe this phenomenon and both side and naive come to my mind.
Some PR is a trick, absolutely. You don't have to watch Mad Men to understand that. But not all CEOs are profit-motivated robots. Tim Cook probably actually believes in promoting privacy. Satya Nadella's son has cerebral palsy. In some way, that impacts how Microsoft is ran. Leaders are humans that can be persuaded. Morality has a place, not everything is fake or second fiddle to profit.
PR doesn't exist in a vacuum. Like you said, "the young people" believe it. Those young people include leaders and future leaders and CEOs. Sometimes the PR becomes the truth. Such as when Google employees strongly protested Google's Pentagon/military contracts - and Google dropped them.
https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/apple_china_vpn_apps
Don't make yourself the single point of failure that the Chinese government could apply pressure on in the first place.
Make iCloud backups actually encrypted fully.
They know they are being induced to do these things, they have competitors (android) that have options to mitigate these things (side loading, actual encrypted backups) , but they don't do it for honestly suspicious or greedy reasons at this point, despite saying they're all about 'privacy' on bilboards.
Obviously that has turned out to be completely wrong, but they can’t just ‘exit’ until they have rebuilt their supply chain.
Well Yes and No. They are bringing part of the Supply Chain out of China, slowly in the name of diversification or Indian expansion whatever people want to call it.
But they are also courting and helping Chinese companies coming out of China to set up in other places.
Basically it is the same supply chain jut not located in China. Not entirely sure this is "getting out of it".
Presumably because those Chinese companies have the know how.
But those other places are democracies, so what’s the problem with this?
> Basically it is the same supply chain jut not located in China. Not entirely sure this is "getting out of it".
Isn’t your complaint about the lack of democracy in China? How does moving the work out of China not solve the problem?
So that means you have the drawbacks of high cost of living but none of the attractions of being in an urban city. Getting between Cupertino and San Francisco is awful - your options are a lengthy Caltrain or a miserable drive, and neither living in SF and commuting to Cupertino nor living in Cupertino and heading to SF in the evenings (and heading back home late at night) are particularly enjoyable. So you don't really get the cultural benefits of being near a big city.
I learned recently that Apple does have a NYC engineering office (I live in NYC, and I used to live and commute in SFBA), which made me actually think about applying to work there for the first time ever. The cost of living in NYC is a bit higher, but at least I get to actually enjoy the city, which makes it much more worthwhile for that cost of living than working in the Valley proper.
I'd be interested in interviews with executives about what is attractive about SV and what, if anything, has changed (without the current trendy stuff). Living costs and talent have been expensive for a long time.
Cupertino might not be the most active place in terms of things to do, especially regarding nightlife (which the most exciting thing is probably getting donuts at the 24/7 donut place on De Anza south of Apple's old headquarters). However, Cupertino has an amazing selection of Asian restaurants that you can't find in most American suburbs. We're talking authentic Taiwanese, Chinese, and Japanese restaurants. One of my favorite Japanese restaurants in the Bay Area is Ajito on Bollinger Road near De Anza Blvd, which is a Japanese izakaya that specializes in chicken-based dishes. I go there regularly, and during the pandemic I bought take-out hot bento boxes, which are delicious! Another one of my favorite restaurants in Cupertino is a Taiwanese restaurant on Wolfe across the street from Apple's new headquarters called Southland Flavor Café. It has some of the best shrimp fried rice I've ever tasted this side of the Pacific!
I wish most American suburbs had the collection of Asian restaurants that Cupertino has. But outside of the Bay Area and Los Angeles, most American suburbs don't have that extensive of a collection.
Seriously, you put mountain view or cupertino in an average town in north america and people would think your in a lower-middle working class neighborhood that that has budget problems that is emptying out, with a large abandoned mall that just sat there empty for years until very recently and broken pot holed roads everywhere. It's bizzare. Even nearby Stockton, being famous for going bankrupt, has better road conditions than Cupertino on average. And cupertino has a company that is in the top 3 in global market cap headquartered there.
It's gone pretty far in Cupertino.
As to what is good about the SFBA, well it has great weather and still has a large concentration of smart people to hire.
I love flexibility of working from home, but I also wonder if this will soon hit an inflection point towards gradual decline.
If you add a huge arcology within walking distance to your mother ship, so that we can all live in the beautiful glass dream, I might consider that rather than a house. But then again, if you won't hire a reasonable number of people to do the work anyway, I probably won't trust you to run the homeowner's association