Apple's culture is being challenged. Will it change the company's products and services?

The Verge’s Zoë Schiffer has been doing some stellar reporting on signals of change in Apple, giving us some insight into both how Apple works and how it changes (or resists change).

Here’s a podcast episode/transcript covering everything she’s reported on recently:

There’re a lot of complex issues here.

Apple’s decision to introduce Slack, Slack’s effects on the company, and the ways they’re now trying to govern it.

Apple’s disregard for their own employees’ privacy, or at least its dysfunction in IT management that leads to privacy problems.

Apple’s insistence against work-from-home (WFH), the cost of living in Cupertino/SF, and the fact that Apple seems to be alone in this stubbornness might lead to employees going elsewhere.

There’s clearly some ethical issues at play, too, and it’s interesting that some employees are countering the stories of those who have been vocal.

So much is going on!

My question for MPU: do you think these issues are a sign of change at Apple that will affect its products or services? Howso?

My take: in strategic foresight/futures thinking, we talk about signals, trends, and drivers. Signals indicate trends, trends are caused by drivers. These events are signals, and some of the underlying drivers are easy to see: easier mass communication; the visibility of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) issues, Apple’s cultural resistance to bottom-up change. I suspect that a resulting trend might be a loss of talent for Apple, which could influence products and services 5–10 years down the line.

Apologies in advance to the mods for creating a thread in which there may be strong opinions…

5 Likes

Of course Apple’s culture is being challenged, and is changing. As it has from the outset. Is this the culture of. :

  • Steve and Woz in a shed Apple
  • 1984 iconoclastic Apple
  • 1995 going under Apple
  • 2000s iDevice Apple
  • 2010 late Steve Apple
  • 2015 It’s now Tim Apple?

Obviously, no it isn’t. Writing an article to tell us Apple changing is simply stating the obvious. Implying that Apple used to be a monoculture in which everyone marched to the same drum, and that independent thought is new and therefore a threat to the business is lazy and shallow.

This seems to me nothing more than an attempt to find something else (after China, anti-trust, Covid, Tim’s not Steve etc etc etc) to say about the problematic future of Apple.

I’ve been lucky enough (in some cases, unlucky enough) to work in and with many different organisations. They all charged all the time (even the ones that didn’t want to changed transitioned from alive to dead - change of a sort). The best of them spent a lot of effort dealing with internal debate and dissent, but not always successfully. Differences of opinion are it just a symptom of big groups - they’re a reason for big groups.

Ouch. Listen, only I get to think of myself as lazy and shallow!


I’d thought it was clear from the content of my OP, but I guess it wasn’t, so I’ll restate:
Apple’s culture of top-down secretive decision-making is being challenged by modern standards in communication and unconventionally-public campaigns from its staff.

Obviously all organizations are changing all the time. The above, however, seems to be something new for Apple. I was curious about what others thought about the impact of that on the company’s outputs.

I’m sorry, my comments were aimed at the article, not your post.

You’re right, modern community comms are a major challenge to some existing management structures and cultures. As were others in the past.

Put more simply, my issue with the original article is treating this as unique to Apple, as opposed to something core to any sizeable organisation

1 Like

Ah, hah, sorry. I’m lazy, shallow, and sensitive!

More on topic: if you haven’t listened to the Decoder episode, I’d encourage it. Schiffer is brilliant and does a great job of illustrating why what’s happening right now might be different than the previous shifts you’ve mentioned. The latter half is particularly illuminating.

I’ve actually made the argument in the past that there are no “100 year old companies”. There are only multiple, successive sub-companies that have the same name - based on the owners (small biz) or CEOs (big biz). And your list illustrates this perfectly.

Some companies retain their original founding values, but that’s due to very specific, ongoing choices made by the current leadership - not due to some ontological reality of what the company “is”.

The single most glaring example that comes to mind (for me) is actually Apple. Did you know they used to ship circuit board schematics with the Apple II? Can you imagine modern Apple doing that? :smiley:

That’s not judgement from me - I like modern Apple reasonably well. But it’s interesting to be aware of.

Good point - very good point

1 Like

I’ll listen - thanks

As to the epithets - you’re a better judge than me :joy:

1 Like

I subscribe to Decoder. I listened to the episode yesterday and thought the reporter had quite a good grasp of the facts and the implications. Nilay’s questions were good, too, as usual.

Generally I’d expect introduction of addictive side channels and immediate access to coworkers to cause products to suffer long-term in a company that meticulously solves design and hardware engineering problems that are intractable at other companies and conducts effective UX reviews in person. I don’t think that the conclusion of this press/legal cycle will attract as many brilliant new job candidates as it repulses. We’ll see!

1 Like