[HN Gopher] Apple Succession Strategy: Keep the Old Guard Around...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Succession Strategy: Keep the Old Guard Around as Long as
Possible
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 60 points
Date : 2024-09-01 14:31 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| lapcat wrote:
| Funny, I always thought misleading shareholders was illegal. I
| guess they only care if the share price goes down.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The thing that is valuable to Apple as a company is to have
| these people, their networks and their decades of knowledge
| accessible. Even if someone is in retirement age and already
| practically living in Costa Rica sipping Pina Coladas all day -
| the fact that you can call up the guy and ask him some weird
| question is invaluable.
|
| Many jokes have a kernel of truth, and that's the kernel behind
| this classic engineer joke [1].
|
| [1] https://www.et.byu.edu/~tom/jokes/Consultant_Engineer.html
| lapcat wrote:
| That's fine, but Apple is still apparently lying about what
| these people are doing exactly.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > their networks and their decades of knowledge accessible.
|
| Having that experience outside the company doesn't magically
| make it inaccessible, it just means they have to pay a fair
| rate, along with everyone else, for access to it.
|
| What it allows is them _monopolizing_ those networks and
| knowledge and ensuring no one else can access it.
|
| This is not a good outcome.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Why are you downvoted?
|
| I think this tactic is nothing more than deception, the guys
| are not staying around and give some guidance, they left or did
| not do the job the shareholders thought they were doing.
|
| I have no problem, that people get payed big money to stay at
| the company and just to little consulting, but hiding their
| real position or amount of work is just theatre.
| metadat wrote:
| https://archive.today/Yx3Lg
| klelatti wrote:
| This should be a more widely used tactic. It keeps the experience
| onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor!
|
| And it's probably better for the individual too. Going from
| having a role that takes up a huge amount of your life to zero in
| a short time probably isn't healthy for that person (or their
| family).
| Onavo wrote:
| This is only if the company is not stuck in a rut. In academia,
| the state of the art advances when the previous generation dies
| off.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| An often repeated idiom without any evidence.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| There's a lot of evidence... a century or more old.
|
| The lack of recent evidence is inherent, it doesn't say we
| fixed it. But also we also changed enough stuff on the last
| century that blindly applying older lessons isn't a
| gainfully strategy.
| whiterknight wrote:
| This academic system has only existed for 100-150 years. Less
| for science.
| MBCook wrote:
| This is the same old guard who has been steering the ship more
| and more directly towards world-wide antitrust issues as the
| years have gone on.
|
| Maybe this isn't the ideal strategy in their case?
| klelatti wrote:
| I made a general point about wider application without
| commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded
| to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies
| in general heading toward antitrust issues?
| MBCook wrote:
| You're right you didn't comment on Apple. That's why I
| replied to you. Because while I think you're correct in
| general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad
| strategy.
| microtherion wrote:
| Since Steve Jobs died, Apple's valuation has gone up 10x and
| revenue about 4x. It stands to reason that a larger company
| would attract more antitrust scrutiny, but it's hard to blame
| the executives for that.
| MBCook wrote:
| I don't think that's what's attracting it though.
|
| They've been going around demanding 30% of everyone's
| revenue, no matter how tenuous the connection. And it's
| getting them in trouble.
|
| Sure 30% of smurfberries is fine. That's their rule, who
| cares. And they have a rule it doesn't apply to physical
| goods, which is why you can order stuff in the Amazon app.
|
| But then they decided that people giving yoga lessons over
| the time during the lockdowns owed them 30%. And other apps
| that had been in the store for 15 years suddenly seemed to
| require 30% when they didn't before. Want to sell e-books?
| You have to give Apple 30%. Now there isn't 30% anywhere to
| give. But you have to. So saith Apple.
|
| Instead of keeping their cut the same or even lowering it,
| they've been effectively increasing it by deciding their
| rules apply to more and more apps and services.
|
| Which looks exactly like monopoly jacking up prices.
|
| "Just don't have an iPhone app" isn't really viable at this
| point for a lot of businesses. It's not 2008.
|
| They didn't actually need to do any of this. It's not like
| they were going to collapse if they didn't keep deciding to
| expand what was "theirs".
|
| And every single time they've gotten in a fight with a
| government they keep doubling down and getting in trouble.
| Instead of giving an inch they dig in until they're ordered
| to give up 12 miles.
|
| I like apple products. I've been using them forever. I do
| not like where the management has been going.
| Zafira wrote:
| I disagree, it's really damaging to refuse to let go of the
| reins.
|
| Bob Iger at Disney never really took succession seriously and
| then never really left which has left the company somewhat
| rudderless because the ship is now dependent on a person and
| not culture/policy.
| klelatti wrote:
| Lack of succession planning and an overdominant CEO are
| utterly distinct concepts to the approach being described
| here.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from
| consulting for a competitor!
|
| This means the labor market is not operating correctly. For a
| company to be able to fork out a salary not for production but
| for protection you've done something really wrong in your
| monetary policy.
| klelatti wrote:
| You're assuming it's just about pay when that's not
| necessarily the case. Lots of loyalty in many cases but still
| want to stay involved. Push them out of the door and they
| will find something to do and that may be at a competitor.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > You're assuming it's just about pay
|
| That's how markets work. Pay is information that everyone
| participating can use to make judgements.
|
| > Lots of loyalty in many cases
|
| That's a non tangible item and it means people are finding
| excuses to avoid participating in the market.
|
| > they will find something to do and that may be at a
| competitor.
|
| Your goal is to have lots of "somethings" being done.
| That's how your economy grows and new opportunities are
| created.
| klelatti wrote:
| So the labour market only operates correctly if people
| opt for the highest paid job and do the most work?
|
| Hard disagree from me then.
| whiterknight wrote:
| There are modes of compensation besides money. There is value
| besides direct production.
| throwpoaster wrote:
| That's the opposite of a succession strategy, no?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| This sounds like a great tactic. It's a little concerning that
| they may not be developing employees to step up and take on roles
| when people retire or want to leave
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-01 23:01 UTC)