Inside Apple’s Internal Training Program | Hacker News Reader

Inside Apple’s Internal Training Program

nytimes.com

127 pointsjameshk17 comments

I used to be a certified apple trainer, this really paints their training program in the best light possible, it interprets fairly normal corporate training stuff as original ideas.

Most of the training programs are just like any well made otj training, the comment about employees signing up for job specific courses is misleading, while they had some optional courses, it was just like any online course management system, a simple way to manage initial and ongoing job training.

In Apple's defense, their otj training was still better than any subsequent company I have worked at.

Were you a trainer at Apple University? Because that program doesn't look like the regular otj training

Correct, but they use the same materials and training programs as far as I can tell, just different facilities.

The Picasso bit for instance was a paragraph included in an Apple history lesson, but it wasn't some philosophical discussion, just an aside about how they think, mostly to start some discussion about basic values.

Everything that Apple does is exaggerated. And this Picasso stuff - "Simplifying the Bull: How Picasso Helps to Teach Apple’s Style" looks like a nice PR stunt ahead of the new iPhone launch.

I was expecting a bit more from the article, but I noticed couple of things:

1. The program was established in 2008, which I think is relatively late and coincides with Jobs rapid deterioration of health. I guess Jobs was deeply concerned about the long term prospect of Apple.

2. As novel as the idea may seem, it didn't sound too different than garden variety internal training programs offered at larger Fortune companies.

3. Sounds like Apple HR is growing. I'd be interested to find out what percent of employees fall under HR, before and after 2008.

It should be noted that Jobs was never big on performance metrics.

I think your first point is the most important here. I worked at Apple in 2009, shortly after the creation of the Apple University program. I never worked with or in the Apple U initiative, but I have friends who did. Generally speaking, they explain the program as an attempt to codify and disseminate Apple's corporate culture -- with the eventual passing of Steve Jobs certainly in mind at the time. Apple U was an implicit acknowledgement that Apple would need to thrive after Steve's death or retirement, and that the Apple way of doing things was worth preserving.

It's not an entirely novel concept in the corporate world. After Apple I worked at another large corporation with a charismatic founder. In this case, the founder had passed away over a decade ago. There was a thriving "university" program within the company, dedicated to preserving his business practices and the culture he established. I didn't find much value in its specifics, but I respected its purpose in general.

Company culture is a rare and fragile thing. Especially these days, in our renewed era of "shareholder value" worship, with its twin gods of cost-cutting and homogenization. Apple's culture is a big part of why the company has been successful. To lose sight of that culture would be strategically devastating to the company's future.

Lest I sound like too much of a fawning fanboy, I'll reel it in. As I mentioned, I've never dealt with or attended any of these programs. I have no idea how good or worthwhile they really are. Nevertheless, I understand the impetus for having created them.

I once did "outside of Cupertino" training. The best bit was the pens & notebooks with subtle Apple emblemising on them. It made me much cooler with peers when I did my masters.

Thanks to Kogir or whoever renamed the post. I'm pretty tired right now.

Bull.

For bullshit.

this is fascinating inside view of Apple's culture and the TV remote example given is why Google TV flopped and Apple TV sells well (although way less compared to their i-products). The article depicts a picture of Apple's design centric culture where even engineers think top-down by starting with user interface/experience and then towards the technical implementation. This shows in their products.

the TV remote example given is why Google TV flopped and Apple TV sells well

Google TV was trying to do something entirely different from Apple TV. The former was about adding intelligence to cable (which is an enormous issue because there are many players you have to work with, and most are hostile and protective), the latter a relatively typical media box.

And FWIW, I absolutely despise the AppleTV remote. It is brutal to do anything beyond simple navigations, and even that is far less effective than it should be. Add that it has one of the most unforgiving, unidirectional IR emitters ever: I was shocked to find that Apple didn't go wireless for that.

It is unfortunate that the Apple apps for this -- using devices as remotes -- are so horribly terrible.

The worst feature of the Apple TV remote is that you lose them so easily (because they're tiny). Amazon Fire TV's RF remote (which is somewhat larger) has the same problem, and it's far harder/more expensive to replace.

Note that the AppleTV can be programmed to recognize almost any remote (and adds extra buttons). I agree completely about the IR receiver and also the Apps (especially if you have more than one device -- switching devices is a total pain).

well, except for the 1 button iPhone which has been overloaded 6 ways from Tuesday (was that one press or two presses or a Siri press?).

No different to the overloaded functions of double-clicking and click-and-drag on a mouse.

[total apple fanboy here]

I also wanted to chime in that I really don't think product quality is the main reason Google TV flopped. I have a Google TV because I got it for free and have been a big fan of it after extensive Apple TV usage.

I don't see the big deal about having more buttons on your TV remote. For actions like search, settings, rewind, typing, and more, the Google TV has a dedicated button while on Apple TV you have to click around a few times to get to the action. BTW, to do that you have to use 4 directional buttons not mentioned in the article. Wanna change the TV volume or turn it on/off with Apple TV? You'll need to keep your horrific TV remote around.

I think Google just isn't that good at marketing consumer hardware and thus no one even really knows about Google TV. Only techies seem to even know that there is/was a Google TV. Nowadays, GTV sucks because there isn't enough market share to entice app updates for things like Hulu, HBO Go, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com