Working at Apple (2011)(worrydream.com)
worrydream.com
Working at Apple (2011)
http://worrydream.com/#!/Apple
314 comments
I’ve often wondered how Apple manages to keep secrets across such a big organization. It’s fascinating and as an outsider I wonder if it’s because of a (cult like?) culture or because of fear (of legal consequences). It’s a real problem for those who want to showcase their portfolio and experience though, and that seems unfair.
Part of it is indeed internal compartmentalization — sharing certain things on a need to know basis. As an example, I was one of two engineers in our team who had done early work making our software little endian ready (possibly without even our manager being informed; I don't recall). But I knew the work was not complete, and no further work was asked from me for more than a year. So when a MacWorld keynote rolled around, I was convinced rumors of an Intel transition could not possibly be true. What I did not know was that for the final stage of the little endian cleansing, the engineering team was further reduced in size, and on our team, the other engineer had been tasked to do the rest of the work without my involvement.
Part of it is also regular training. And that training does not just involve sticks (You can and will be fired for leaking) but also carrots — leaks hurt Apple's stock price, and since most people in a position to leak own stock, you'd be taking money out of your own pocket (and your colleagues').
> It’s a real problem for those who want to showcase their portfolio
Once a product has shipped, you can generally talk about it to some extent. The article linked here seems to be talking more about research, which is more problematic because it's not really tied to a specific, shipped product.
Part of it is also regular training. And that training does not just involve sticks (You can and will be fired for leaking) but also carrots — leaks hurt Apple's stock price, and since most people in a position to leak own stock, you'd be taking money out of your own pocket (and your colleagues').
> It’s a real problem for those who want to showcase their portfolio
Once a product has shipped, you can generally talk about it to some extent. The article linked here seems to be talking more about research, which is more problematic because it's not really tied to a specific, shipped product.
I wonder how they avoid all the issues that Google is facing - workplace diversity issues, labor practices and other social justice issues. How does their HR handle those since we never hear about it in public?
> How does their HR handle those since we never hear about it in public?
Well, we do hear about their issues... when people start rioting (such as with Wistron in India in the last weeks) or jumping out of windows (Foxconn had to install nets to catch suiciders).
Well, we do hear about their issues... when people start rioting (such as with Wistron in India in the last weeks) or jumping out of windows (Foxconn had to install nets to catch suiciders).
Those are not apple employees.
For all intents and purposes, they're only doing work for Apple.
Subcontracting out work should not absolve Apple from responsibility.
Subcontracting out work should not absolve Apple from responsibility.
Apple has rules regarding labor for their subcontractors with penalties if they break them. It is not anything goes by any means. That does not mean some assholes wont try. Placing the blame solely on the back of Apple is absurd. Those factories don't exist in lawless places.
> Those factories don't exist in lawless places.
When it comes to labour rights, they practically do. Thats why it is so cheap to produce there. Thats why apple uses them.
When it comes to labour rights, they practically do. Thats why it is so cheap to produce there. Thats why apple uses them.
The other reason is that Apple has no choice. There's no other place that can produce what Apple needs to produce, in the quantities it needs. At any price.
No, please don't try to claim that work could be done in the US. It can't.
No, please don't try to claim that work could be done in the US. It can't.
> There's no other place that can produce what Apple needs to produce, in the quantities it needs. At any price.
Apple could build and operate the factories themselves.
Apple could build and operate the factories themselves.
Japan and Germany show that you can have industry in high wage countries. Your factories have to be more automatized though.
> That does not mean some assholes wont try.
At the scale of Wistron and Foxconn we're not talking about "some assholes", we're talking about the companies' leadership.
Apple (and other companies) specifically source stuff out to have that "liability shield" while being able to extract as low prices as possible. If their "labor rules" were worth the paper they are written on they'd hire the people themselves.
At the scale of Wistron and Foxconn we're not talking about "some assholes", we're talking about the companies' leadership.
Apple (and other companies) specifically source stuff out to have that "liability shield" while being able to extract as low prices as possible. If their "labor rules" were worth the paper they are written on they'd hire the people themselves.
That’s often the concept of subcontractors: you tell your subcontractor to not do legally and morally questionable stuff while both of you know that they will do that. You take most of the profits from that while taking no legal responsibility.
Usually this happens though when companies outsource their core business (construction or package delivery), so that applies not that well to Apple.
Usually this happens though when companies outsource their core business (construction or package delivery), so that applies not that well to Apple.
You're right, and it doesn't absolve Apple, and Apple knows that. Which is why Apple does what it can to ameliorate those kinds of labor issues. Those efforts aren't perfect, but Apple gives it a shot, at least. Apple isn't in a position to tell Wistron or Foxconn or anyone else exactly how to run their business. All Apple can do is measures like putting a supplier on probation until issues are addressed (like with Wistron lately), or (limited) wage demands, or threats to choose another supplier next time. But there are a very limited number of suppliers that can realistically fill demand, and none of them are paying $40/hour and building charter schools and condos for employees.
There is an aura around Apple that might make it difficult for anyone to risk being on their bad side.
I’m not sure about that. The media always like a bit of Apple bashing; I’m sure they would jump at any opportunity. We don’t even have many anonymous stories.
> The media always like a bit of Apple bashing;
You'd think so, but no - with the media economics being what it is, media outlets have to think 10-20 times before publishing anything negative about corporates because then you potentially lose out on their advertising money.
You'd think so, but no - with the media economics being what it is, media outlets have to think 10-20 times before publishing anything negative about corporates because then you potentially lose out on their advertising money.
> I’ve often wondered how Apple manages to keep secrets across such a big organization.
I've worked with Apple extensively over the last 10 years or so, and what I see from the outside looking in is that they are quite a bureaucratic and very siloed organisation that appears much more "typical" compared to other similarly large organisations than you would assume from their shiny exterior.
Anyone who knows anything about large organisations knows how bad communication between departments/divisions can be by default. The phrase "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" often applies here.
So for Apple, this plays somewhat into their hands. The various parts of the organisation are heavily siloed, with strict controls on cross-communication and even global teams involved in say the roll-out following new product launches, only get to hear many of the details (sometimes any of the details) on the day of launch.
It's a bit like the difference between Zero-Trust computing and the castle-and-moat paradigm. Apple operates Zero-Trust on strategic details internally. Each department/division is firewalled off from others and communication is heavily managed, orchestrated and most importantly carefully timed, much like their public communication is.
This leads them to being very good at keeping secrets within the org. The downside (as you would imagine) is that working with them can be quite a challenge. And I imagine working for them is very tough if you're at the outer edges and in one of the teams that are always "the last to know".
Edit: typo
I've worked with Apple extensively over the last 10 years or so, and what I see from the outside looking in is that they are quite a bureaucratic and very siloed organisation that appears much more "typical" compared to other similarly large organisations than you would assume from their shiny exterior.
Anyone who knows anything about large organisations knows how bad communication between departments/divisions can be by default. The phrase "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" often applies here.
So for Apple, this plays somewhat into their hands. The various parts of the organisation are heavily siloed, with strict controls on cross-communication and even global teams involved in say the roll-out following new product launches, only get to hear many of the details (sometimes any of the details) on the day of launch.
It's a bit like the difference between Zero-Trust computing and the castle-and-moat paradigm. Apple operates Zero-Trust on strategic details internally. Each department/division is firewalled off from others and communication is heavily managed, orchestrated and most importantly carefully timed, much like their public communication is.
This leads them to being very good at keeping secrets within the org. The downside (as you would imagine) is that working with them can be quite a challenge. And I imagine working for them is very tough if you're at the outer edges and in one of the teams that are always "the last to know".
Edit: typo
I think they keep the teams isolated from each other. Google never did that until recently, and most of the product leaks seemed to come from random people not working on the product that was leaked. (A great way to kill the company culture, and that's about it. It's not like you're being paid 7 figures to leak some detail about some inconsequential Android app.)
When I worked on Google Wallet, I remember most of the leaks coming from people running "strings" on the Android binaries. Stuff that wasn't released would ship in release builds but be turned off by feature flags. The feature flags had, apparently, easy to decipher names. I don't really know how actual names ended up in release builds (they're just enum values on the wire), but there was quite a push to remove some of this stuff before release to keep leaks to a minimum. Lots of tooling created, and I never heard about it again. (I feel like there are some authors that have some trademark method of getting scoops, and when that changes even in the slightest, they disappear into the ether never to be heard from again.)
Overall, I found all the secrecy kind of pointless. I spent most of my time at Google working on a project that was an open-source embedded device, and nobody ever wrote articles about upcoming features... even though they could clone the Git repository, read all the code, read all the incredibly-detailed commit messages, run it on their machine, and send us a pull request. My conclusion is that nobody really cared.
When I worked on Google Wallet, I remember most of the leaks coming from people running "strings" on the Android binaries. Stuff that wasn't released would ship in release builds but be turned off by feature flags. The feature flags had, apparently, easy to decipher names. I don't really know how actual names ended up in release builds (they're just enum values on the wire), but there was quite a push to remove some of this stuff before release to keep leaks to a minimum. Lots of tooling created, and I never heard about it again. (I feel like there are some authors that have some trademark method of getting scoops, and when that changes even in the slightest, they disappear into the ether never to be heard from again.)
Overall, I found all the secrecy kind of pointless. I spent most of my time at Google working on a project that was an open-source embedded device, and nobody ever wrote articles about upcoming features... even though they could clone the Git repository, read all the code, read all the incredibly-detailed commit messages, run it on their machine, and send us a pull request. My conclusion is that nobody really cared.
I knew someone that worked at Apple around the launch of the iPhone. They worked on the macOS (then OSX, I guess) team and said they had very little idea that the iPhone was coming, despite it heavily using OS work they’d done. They were called into a few meetings and asked obscure questions but were never told why.
So I guess that helps. But it seems wildly inefficient to me. I guess it helps to have a giant pile of cash.
So I guess that helps. But it seems wildly inefficient to me. I guess it helps to have a giant pile of cash.
By instilling fear. When I was there, there were many stories of ‘the yellow team’ coming down on you if you were ever under suspicion
The secret/silo culture at Apple is insane and I can’t believe Steve ever signed off on it.
To warm up the old catch phrase, I regret to inform you that the cossacks do in fact work for the czar…
I used to think that way till I saw Google, which is pretty much the opposite, and now I understand it is important to take into account the cons as well as the pros [I'm still more biased towards the G model but less so than before].
In summary, everyone seeing and commenting on everything has two consequences:
(1) too much politics and need to potentially justify everything to everyone at the company and their dogs, not just stakeholders, literally everyone in the company, on Memegen, on TGIF, and to the world when stuff inevitably leaks, before the product is ready. This leads to groupthink and no one gets the courage of their conviction. [sometimes this is good and prevents poor products from get to the customer, but usually when that's the case, the team were incompetent and deliberately ignoring prior feedback under the ever-applicable excuse of "you are not the target customer" and could have prevented them if they cared.]
(2) when you have a siloed culture, you put the integration job, responsibility, and accountability on the management who coordinate. Therefore you have to be careful who you put in charge and the organization does not scale magically. But once you put the right person in charge, they are accountable and cannot slack off, nor make poor choices forever and expect others underneath them to fix them and expect them to be accountable. The buck stops with the integration point, which is singular. They have to make clear and concrete decisions, leaving less room for spray and pray or blaming stuff on others.
Point #2 has synergies with the way Apple is structured: not P&Ls, rather each person is an expert on some aspect of the product and the editing function and discussion on what to build happens very transparently at the top (evidently through heated discussions mediated by Steve who was not afraid of conflicts [contrast with Google execs.]) One person handles software, another handles hardware, another one silicon, etc. and they fight at the top not through proxy wars at the bottom. My sense is this aspect is what Steve "signed-off" on, and the rest naturally followed with that plus product secrecy aspirations (for marketing reasons and due to scar tissues from a past era).
In summary, everyone seeing and commenting on everything has two consequences:
(1) too much politics and need to potentially justify everything to everyone at the company and their dogs, not just stakeholders, literally everyone in the company, on Memegen, on TGIF, and to the world when stuff inevitably leaks, before the product is ready. This leads to groupthink and no one gets the courage of their conviction. [sometimes this is good and prevents poor products from get to the customer, but usually when that's the case, the team were incompetent and deliberately ignoring prior feedback under the ever-applicable excuse of "you are not the target customer" and could have prevented them if they cared.]
(2) when you have a siloed culture, you put the integration job, responsibility, and accountability on the management who coordinate. Therefore you have to be careful who you put in charge and the organization does not scale magically. But once you put the right person in charge, they are accountable and cannot slack off, nor make poor choices forever and expect others underneath them to fix them and expect them to be accountable. The buck stops with the integration point, which is singular. They have to make clear and concrete decisions, leaving less room for spray and pray or blaming stuff on others.
Point #2 has synergies with the way Apple is structured: not P&Ls, rather each person is an expert on some aspect of the product and the editing function and discussion on what to build happens very transparently at the top (evidently through heated discussions mediated by Steve who was not afraid of conflicts [contrast with Google execs.]) One person handles software, another handles hardware, another one silicon, etc. and they fight at the top not through proxy wars at the bottom. My sense is this aspect is what Steve "signed-off" on, and the rest naturally followed with that plus product secrecy aspirations (for marketing reasons and due to scar tissues from a past era).
Your reply was eye-opening. Thank you!
Another aspect of this is that some percentage of people conflate transparency/empowerment/etc. with democracy. The result can be that, if they disagree with some decision, they will just not let go. So you can end up with some decision being an ongoing tug of war to reverse it.
Great explanation and thanks for the valuable experience based insight. Which one do you prefer?
On the other hand, a more siloed culture with managers given carte blanche to run their reports as they see fit can easily fall prey to toxic environments of abuse, especially if the management above only cares if the EPMs are filing satisfactory reports and enough radars are being closed. The only thing protecting employees from abuse are then a weakened HR system that lacks full visibility into the system’s workings. And thus in parts of the organization, subcultures of toxicity and dysfunction are protected by a code of silence- of being siloed.
> Point #2 has synergies with the way Apple is structured: not P&Ls, rather each person is an expert on some aspect of the product and the editing function and discussion on what to build happens very transparently at the top (evidently through heated discussions mediated by Steve who was not afraid of conflicts [contrast with Google execs.])
This is so laden with internal contradictions that I can only presume it was part of an internal Reality Distortion Field training. Are you suggesting that Eddy Cue and Craig Federighi don't have budgets? And that every detail the 50k engineers work on are mediated by 5 people?
This is so laden with internal contradictions that I can only presume it was part of an internal Reality Distortion Field training. Are you suggesting that Eddy Cue and Craig Federighi don't have budgets? And that every detail the 50k engineers work on are mediated by 5 people?
Budget != P&L
If you think Eddy Cue's budget isn't tied to itunes profitability well...
To abstract the way a trillion dollar company operates in 2 paragraph necessitates simplification. Point still stands: you don’t attribute revenue to just iOS or just iPhone hardware or just marketing team.
I think you know exactly what I mean. If you’re just trying to engage in an argument at the margin, you are not going to get one.
I think you know exactly what I mean. If you’re just trying to engage in an argument at the margin, you are not going to get one.
> you don’t attribute revenue to just iOS or just iPhone hardware or just marketing team.
No, instead you have some finance team model the revenue split, to simulate the P&L you would have otherwise (and then the execs fight over the model, whether it's fair to give iOS any money for Apple Music when they support Windows and Android, etc.). This is a bog standard approach that many SV firms take. Even non-SV firms have to deal with this sort of thing when the IT department reports to the CFO.
Yes, Alphabet has 'side bets' but there are still _many_ products and services under the Google umbrella, and has even rolled some into their own. As best I can tell, this was a tool to quarantine specific executives from infecting the rest of Google -- when your acquisitions are holding quarterly all hands with an opener of 'Fuck being Googley' then you have a problem to solve.
It's hard to reconcile the 'ignorance is strength' argument you've offered here -- if employees aren't allowed to know what anyone else is doing, or even what the org chart looks like, then you can't have the collaboration it would take to make things work together well. And you would expect to end up with a lot of duplicated efforts, since middle managers are kept in the dark about one another's work.
No, instead you have some finance team model the revenue split, to simulate the P&L you would have otherwise (and then the execs fight over the model, whether it's fair to give iOS any money for Apple Music when they support Windows and Android, etc.). This is a bog standard approach that many SV firms take. Even non-SV firms have to deal with this sort of thing when the IT department reports to the CFO.
Yes, Alphabet has 'side bets' but there are still _many_ products and services under the Google umbrella, and has even rolled some into their own. As best I can tell, this was a tool to quarantine specific executives from infecting the rest of Google -- when your acquisitions are holding quarterly all hands with an opener of 'Fuck being Googley' then you have a problem to solve.
It's hard to reconcile the 'ignorance is strength' argument you've offered here -- if employees aren't allowed to know what anyone else is doing, or even what the org chart looks like, then you can't have the collaboration it would take to make things work together well. And you would expect to end up with a lot of duplicated efforts, since middle managers are kept in the dark about one another's work.
I’m not sure where you get the idea apple employees don’t know the org chart. Everyone has “Apple Directory” which is recursively click-to-show everyone and their boss and their reports, as well as contact info and even where they sit.
It also shows the internal mailing lists, how to get yourself on it (if it’s not self-add) etc. Then you can find the disclosures you might need for black/ultra-black projects...
It’s actually relatively simple to get access to anything you need, if you have the need and aren’t just curious.
It also shows the internal mailing lists, how to get yourself on it (if it’s not self-add) etc. Then you can find the disclosures you might need for black/ultra-black projects...
It’s actually relatively simple to get access to anything you need, if you have the need and aren’t just curious.
Disinfo. Apple’s internal systems, security policies, and the culture of secrecy is far less blasé than you describe. Discussion of internal tools should be avoided on public forums.
Didn't Jobs fire employees on the spot after asking them questions in the elevator and not liking his answers? Which prompted people to avoid taking the elevator with him.
Lol he refined the elevator-pitch...
I heard that only happened during the bleak years right after he came back from NeXT, and there were legitimate doubts Apple could survive the cash crunch they were in. I hadn't heard about summary on-the-spot firings since that era, could anyone worked through that era and later comment on this?
Yeah, when I started at Apple shortly after the iMac was introduced, those firings were already being referred to in the past tense. The rest of the Jobs 2.0 era was characterized more by the near-absence of major layoffs, as far as I can tell. I believe the Power Mac G4 Cube Team was decimated for mistakes that were not entirely theirs. The .mac team was reportedly decimated. But those are the instances I can think of, and neither of these were elevator-style summary firings.
Would be interesting how Apple installs such an ethos of secretivity - is it loyalty, respect or fear. Maybe a combination of all, and the fear may well be down to the aspect that if you are happy to dish secrets upon a past company then why should this company trust you with our secrets.
[deleted]
What a profound question. Annoyed I never asked it myself. Always assumed it was because of Apple’s position in the SV caste system.
You need to remember that Apple is a US based company, country which is by far the most litigious in the world. They (Apple, or any other powerful company, for that matter) can bring you to homelessness just by dragging you through courts.
I don't think Apple is known for being particularly litigious when it comes to going after ex-employees (except in cases of fairly blatant industrial espionage, e.g. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/apple-concerned-china...).
In comparison, Apple's reaction to a prolific leaker was fairly mild, and left him far from unemployable (I happen to know what company hired him next), let alone homeless: https://www.macworld.com/article/1018725/workerbee.html
In comparison, Apple's reaction to a prolific leaker was fairly mild, and left him far from unemployable (I happen to know what company hired him next), let alone homeless: https://www.macworld.com/article/1018725/workerbee.html
Yes. But how do you attract scientists if they can't publish their work at conferences, in journals, et c.?
By paying them lots of money and giving them interesting work. Obviously not everyone will make that trade but many will. There's plenty of work done in many areas of industry and government that aren't especially open and most of them probably don't pay nearly as well as Apple.
I recall that was an area of complaint about AI researchers a year or two ago. Valley companies were hiring them away from Academia and little research was being published as a result.
[deleted]
Principles are weak in the face of cash.
A friend bought his house with cash a couple of years ago with stock purchased through their EPP program as a retail employee from 2007-2011.
A friend bought his house with cash a couple of years ago with stock purchased through their EPP program as a retail employee from 2007-2011.
Fuck.. should have worked retail at Apple, self-studied CS and bought my own house instead of a $50k CS degree!
They had issues for a while in that area, actually. I hear that the ML people are now allowed to publish much of what they work on.
Yes, Siri has much more lenient policies for academic publications than other Apple departments, and other parts of Apple are also getting a little bit less strict. It was never entirely impossible to publish at Apple, but it used to be extremely difficult.
Once it became evident that this was a clear competitive disadvantage in ML hiring, policies evolved…
Once it became evident that this was a clear competitive disadvantage in ML hiring, policies evolved…
I assume it's mostly cultural--perhaps as reinforced by NDAs. I dare say that most people have a reasonable sense of what things involving their company are OK to talk about with outsiders, or perhaps even with other groups within their company, and which aren't.
It's a combination of fear and "I know something you don't know". I have a lot of friends that work there, and they won't say anything because they fear not only getting fired but getting sued by a trillion dollar corporation. But they also get quite giddy when something new comes out and they can then talk about how they worked on it a few years ago and how cool it's been using it before everyone else.
It’s a strange thing... in my experience, it’s mostly a cultural phenomenon. By induction: everyone around you takes secrecy incredibly seriously, so you do too.
When I was working on new hardware, for instance, to access it I would: enter the building (locked), enter my floor (locked, separate from the rest of the building), enter my office (locked, different key), remove the hardware from my cabinet (locked, another key). For some projects, the hardware could only be stored in offices in a certain building, so I’d have to walk a few blocks away and perform the same steps to access a temporary office where I could work on it (eg for the Watch before its release).
Sometimes this caused serious problems. For a while I was running the project which evolved circuitously into SwiftUI and Combine. We spent months iterating on designs dependent on the proclivities of Objective-C and changes which could be made incrementally to it—which obviously constrained us a lot. Meanwhile the Swift project had been going on for about three years... but only about 70 people inside Apple knew. I was talking regularly to some of the people who were working on Swift, and they’d try to subtly nudge my designs, but there was only so much they could do. After many months of this my boss got me and my colleagues disclosed on Swift (required pulling tons of teeth). The project would be so different in Swift (and would require language changes which the team wouldn’t be able to get to for years) that we canceled our project the next day, after many months of wasted work.
When I was working on new hardware, for instance, to access it I would: enter the building (locked), enter my floor (locked, separate from the rest of the building), enter my office (locked, different key), remove the hardware from my cabinet (locked, another key). For some projects, the hardware could only be stored in offices in a certain building, so I’d have to walk a few blocks away and perform the same steps to access a temporary office where I could work on it (eg for the Watch before its release).
Sometimes this caused serious problems. For a while I was running the project which evolved circuitously into SwiftUI and Combine. We spent months iterating on designs dependent on the proclivities of Objective-C and changes which could be made incrementally to it—which obviously constrained us a lot. Meanwhile the Swift project had been going on for about three years... but only about 70 people inside Apple knew. I was talking regularly to some of the people who were working on Swift, and they’d try to subtly nudge my designs, but there was only so much they could do. After many months of this my boss got me and my colleagues disclosed on Swift (required pulling tons of teeth). The project would be so different in Swift (and would require language changes which the team wouldn’t be able to get to for years) that we canceled our project the next day, after many months of wasted work.
Thank you a million times over for SwiftUI and Combine — you can just tell this workflow will be the future for the whole Apple ecosystem, and we may finally see a reincarnation of webobjects!
I’m kind of gobsmacked by your story. I guess Apple’s real innovation is implementing what appears to be a multi-domain, cross functional strategy in silos. You get the benefit of ‘experts’ in their function, while getting a cohesive interdependent product from higher level direction — and the beauty is that when it’s all assembled the pieces fit.
I’m kind of gobsmacked by your story. I guess Apple’s real innovation is implementing what appears to be a multi-domain, cross functional strategy in silos. You get the benefit of ‘experts’ in their function, while getting a cohesive interdependent product from higher level direction — and the beauty is that when it’s all assembled the pieces fit.
What if confidentiality agreements had a maximum duration? The author worked at Apple a decade ago. Perhaps their NDA agreements should expire about now.
Yes, it can be abused, but it’s kinda like copyright. It’s just like parents having a limited term: it (in theory) catches everyone up to best of X years ago.
Yes, it can be abused, but it’s kinda like copyright. It’s just like parents having a limited term: it (in theory) catches everyone up to best of X years ago.
I think visions can play out far beyond ten years, and their disclosure could potentially further cement existing power structures, such as Apple.
Of course, relying upon NDAs in lieu of real trust is trash anyways. Ideally, an [extremely well treated and compensated] team could maintain strict confidence based on ideology alone. Your mission just has to actually change the world for the better in some dramatic way.
To play devil's advocate, myself and quite a few other people probably have a keen interest in precisely what the nature and vision of Apple's long-term research was, even a decade ago. People like Bret think far beyond time scales that measure a single decade.
Of course, relying upon NDAs in lieu of real trust is trash anyways. Ideally, an [extremely well treated and compensated] team could maintain strict confidence based on ideology alone. Your mission just has to actually change the world for the better in some dramatic way.
To play devil's advocate, myself and quite a few other people probably have a keen interest in precisely what the nature and vision of Apple's long-term research was, even a decade ago. People like Bret think far beyond time scales that measure a single decade.
NDAs are a joke at larger scale (and pretty much anything important is of larger scale). A lot of Facebook internals are an exact clone of Google's due to poaching.
The perils of unlimited money: culture collapse and technologicical groupthink that stifles true innovation.
It's kind of unrealistic to expect a human being to somehow rigorously partition their creative process to respect a myriad of complex legal restrictions.
Imagine your profession is to envision the future. Now imagine the companies you've worked for all have very restrictive NDAs. You can't reason out the future very well when pieces of this thought tree have veritable locks on them; their presence alone jarring to creativity itself.
It's kind of unrealistic to expect a human being to somehow rigorously partition their creative process to respect a myriad of complex legal restrictions.
Imagine your profession is to envision the future. Now imagine the companies you've worked for all have very restrictive NDAs. You can't reason out the future very well when pieces of this thought tree have veritable locks on them; their presence alone jarring to creativity itself.
> It's kind of unrealistic to expect a human being to somehow rigorously partition their creative process
Such this. Everything I build, regardless of for who, ends up having a very similar smell. I reached conclusions about how things work well years ago. It’s difficult to reinvent the wheel when you already feel like you’ve perfected it.
Such this. Everything I build, regardless of for who, ends up having a very similar smell. I reached conclusions about how things work well years ago. It’s difficult to reinvent the wheel when you already feel like you’ve perfected it.
It would be like expecting a woodworker to come up with new techniques for each project. You develop a style, a way of doing things, and your employer is buying that from you.
There’s a very big difference between “I implement services this way because I’ve learned from google it is the most reliable” and “in 2022 Apple is going to launch VR goggles.”
>
The perils of unlimited money: culture collapse and technologicical groupthink that stifles true innovation.
I would rather claim that this is a peril of laziness.
I would rather claim that this is a peril of laziness.
NDAs aside, there's a huge amount of knowledge diffusion throughout all industries. (And, if there weren't, gaining "experience" wouldn't be worth much. Why would I hire you as a senior person if you were literally unable to apply anything you learned in prior jobs?)
And that's why many of these tech giants (Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay) have illegal agreements not to poach or hire each others top employees for a certain period of time.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
Had, ideally.
NDAs are notoriously difficult to enforce, especially when the party demanding the agreement is significantly more sophisticated and resourced than the party it hopes to constrain the liberties of.
Like say Apple, the most valuable company in the world.
Like say Apple, the most valuable company in the world.
This.
It took me a couple years to realize I was the type that invents over 10 years out. It is fun to do, but the tricky part is knowing when to file IP.
It took me a couple years to realize I was the type that invents over 10 years out. It is fun to do, but the tricky part is knowing when to file IP.
There were a few tweets about HomePod and AirPod Max's NDA being signed around 5 years ago from ex-employees.
It was deleted within hours if not minutes.
It was deleted within hours if not minutes.
NDAs generally have a 5 year duration. It’s possible there are longer ones, just the one’s I have signed have not contained anything longer.
Source: worked at Apple, Google, and Facebook among many others and have signed many many NDAs.
Source: worked at Apple, Google, and Facebook among many others and have signed many many NDAs.
MIT's NDAs never expire.
#krueger #epstein #...
#krueger #epstein #...
I have a memory of Bret Victor tweeting something about how TouchBar was something he worked on. TouchBar was released more than 5 years later after he left.
Found the tweet: https://twitter.com/worrydream/status/791767756928462848?s=2... (Tweeted on the day TouchBar was announced; 8 years later)
Found the tweet: https://twitter.com/worrydream/status/791767756928462848?s=2... (Tweeted on the day TouchBar was announced; 8 years later)
They expire. People legally write whole books about their time at Apple.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37638098-creative-select...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37638098-creative-select...
Having met some people that work at Apple... they never stop talking about working at Apple.
If i was part of something that was used everyday by literally hundreds of millions of people around the world then even I would love to talk about the ones who gave me the opportunity to be part of it.
I would hope that you have hobbies and interests outside of work.
Your comment made my skin crawl. You're the type of person I desperately avoid at parties.
Perhaps a bit harsh?
I think many people share this point of view. Personally, this cult of Jobs & co. seems a bit strange to me. We know the guy was not really a nice person. He had many ideas - some of them failed, some of them were a success. But would I like to be a friend of such a person? Honestly, not so much.
Nowhere near as bad as Googlers in my opinion.
I very rarely see discussions about the internal politics, or disclaimers about working for Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix or Apple.
I very rarely see discussions about the internal politics, or disclaimers about working for Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix or Apple.
Oh don't get me wrong, they take their NDAs very seriously. To the point where if I casually ask "oh, so what do you do?" I'm treated with suspicion as a potential secret Gawker plot to find out what the new product launch is going to be.
But Apple folk tend to talk about non-NDA Apple stuff, Apple gossip and politics, and "guess which famous product lead I once swapped words with!" nonsense, and nothing else.
But Apple folk tend to talk about non-NDA Apple stuff, Apple gossip and politics, and "guess which famous product lead I once swapped words with!" nonsense, and nothing else.
I'm not sure how this relates to Apple specifically, apart from their reputation for secrecy. What large tech company allows its employees to disclose details of cancelled projects?
I’ve been on cancelled projects that produced patents, which inherently is disclosure if details.
Protected disclosure is rather different than random blogging. The latter is often specifically called out in employment contracts as requiring comms sign off.
Good clue:
How many Victors work at apple?
https://patents.google.com/?q=(inc.)&inventor=Victor&assigne...
And that was the mistake.
Bret thinks the work he did at Apple are his: "my creations".
I definitely have a problem with companies claiming the right to your brain 24/7 outside of office, in the proverbial shower, dreaming up an idea entirely unrelated to one's employment. But the very nature of the transaction to work on UI ideas for Apple is that Apple would "own" those ideas.
Also, my Firefox browser twice popped up warning about a slow page when I enabled JS for that page, and I finally gave up. And all this, simply to see a basic text with an empty box. So, this will be an unpopular thought, but it is possible that his prototypes were in fact carefully considered and considered non-optimal, for a variety of practical reasons.
I definitely have a problem with companies claiming the right to your brain 24/7 outside of office, in the proverbial shower, dreaming up an idea entirely unrelated to one's employment. But the very nature of the transaction to work on UI ideas for Apple is that Apple would "own" those ideas.
Also, my Firefox browser twice popped up warning about a slow page when I enabled JS for that page, and I finally gave up. And all this, simply to see a basic text with an empty box. So, this will be an unpopular thought, but it is possible that his prototypes were in fact carefully considered and considered non-optimal, for a variety of practical reasons.
That page was made in 2011 and doesn’t seem to have been updated since.
The layout (spacing of content relative to margin) is also pretty poor for reading on mobile phones, and those had existed for a couple of years by 2011.
This question is about understanding invention in large companies, not as a knock against Bret Victor:
His job title had "inventor" in it, and he mentions making many things, but he describes the impact of his inventions in the passive voice:
"These concept apps were shown around internally, presumably to inspire the people who did the real work."
I gather from this that he didn't see his role as advocacy or promotion of his work, and from "presumably" that he didn't really know what the purpose was of all this showing-round. My question: would he have been able to get into production some of the things he made and cared about, had he engaged in advocacy, or would that have been problematic in Apple's culture?
His job title had "inventor" in it, and he mentions making many things, but he describes the impact of his inventions in the passive voice:
"These concept apps were shown around internally, presumably to inspire the people who did the real work."
I gather from this that he didn't see his role as advocacy or promotion of his work, and from "presumably" that he didn't really know what the purpose was of all this showing-round. My question: would he have been able to get into production some of the things he made and cared about, had he engaged in advocacy, or would that have been problematic in Apple's culture?
It might not even be an issue of advocacy or engagement, it just might have been the right answer to the wrong problem. Or it requires new technology or it wouldn't really be useful
Prototyping is nice and thinking about solutions is cool but then comes reality
Prototyping is nice and thinking about solutions is cool but then comes reality
Sure, you can have a great idea and do everything right with it, but not see it succeed. I'm asking more about the corporate culture at Apple and more generally – is this sort of advocacy encouraged or discouraged, does it improve the chances of a new idea, that sort of thing.
I mean Apple has to see a good bit of value in prototyping things and letting people come up with new stuff, or they wouldn't have job positions with the title "inventor", right? Or is that just part of its self-image, and not really encouraged in reality?
I mean Apple has to see a good bit of value in prototyping things and letting people come up with new stuff, or they wouldn't have job positions with the title "inventor", right? Or is that just part of its self-image, and not really encouraged in reality?
Anything he invents becomes IP of Apple in perpetuity. This is smart
Apple historically has a fair bit of separation between design, software, and hardware departments.
It would stand to reason that he simply wouldn’t have the ability to advocate for his work outside of his design group.
It would stand to reason that he simply wouldn’t have the ability to advocate for his work outside of his design group.
I recommend http://worrydream.com/#!/quotes by the same author.
I think I accumulated more time re-reading it than any other (single) web page over the years.
I think I accumulated more time re-reading it than any other (single) web page over the years.
Great list, spent a while reading through it today. I admit it gives me some anxiety that someone could have read and internalized enough media that just a sampling of interesting quotes takes hours to get through. Perhaps I should spend less time on HN and more time with my nose in books and lectures.
Cool quotes.
That site looks like the old sites that we could generate from mac.com.
That site looks like the old sites that we could generate from mac.com.
Sure, but I recommend you take a closer look.
His articles, for me at least, are the most influential ones on how I think about creation and solving hard problems.
Here's a couple
Up & Down the Ladder of Abstraction http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/
Inventing on Principle: https://vimeo.com/36579366
His articles, for me at least, are the most influential ones on how I think about creation and solving hard problems.
Here's a couple
Up & Down the Ladder of Abstraction http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/
Inventing on Principle: https://vimeo.com/36579366
Damn straight. Good stuff. I have some reading to do...
He gives some amazing talks, too. The Future of Programming is well worth a watch.
https://vimeo.com/71278954
https://vimeo.com/71278954
The first quote is spot on for the people living in the eastern block in the 70s and 80s. Almost no money but very much everyday creativity. At least from what I remember from my relatives there...
This is an excellent collection, even though I don't agree with every quote I've read so far. The author has done a really good job in distilling long forms into points that like-minded individuals will find interesting. That's an immense amount of labor saved.
> I don't agree with every quote
But... Isn't that the whole point?
But... Isn't that the whole point?
Something seems off, am getting a "403 - Forbidden" while visiting the page.
Anybody else get it too or am I the only one?
This is while on Firefox Developer Edition on a Windows 10 PC.
Anybody else get it too or am I the only one?
This is while on Firefox Developer Edition on a Windows 10 PC.
Yes, exactly.
I remember that Guy Kawasaki once wrote that “Working for Apple is like being paid to go to Disneyland.”
That was quite some time ago. I’ll bet it no longer applies.
Happy Christmas, to those that celebrate it!
That was quite some time ago. I’ll bet it no longer applies.
Happy Christmas, to those that celebrate it!
This is a common outsider view, and one that BigTechCorp's actively encourage. Outsiders don't see the long hours, stressful deadlines, office politics, they just see the colorful beanbag couches and free catered meals.
The beanbag chairs and foozball tables tend to have dust on them.
I had a friend that was a derivatives (remember them?) analyst at a big Wall St. firm.
She told me about how they brought catered meals to your desk, and arranged car services to take you home at ungodly hours.
It was all about keeping you at your desk.
She made damn good money, though.
I had a friend that was a derivatives (remember them?) analyst at a big Wall St. firm.
She told me about how they brought catered meals to your desk, and arranged car services to take you home at ungodly hours.
It was all about keeping you at your desk.
She made damn good money, though.
But Apple doesn’t have beanbag couches or free catered meals.
Nor does Amazon, but people still line up to work in AWS. The compensation, the perception of working on something really big and important... it's a hell of a drug.
My impression is Amazon is mostly for people who don't land Google/Twitter/Facebook.
The quality curves mostly overlap (interview processes are noisy), but historically, Google has grabbed the very top -- the people who get offers everywhere. I think that's Facebook/Twitter now. I know fairly few really top people at Amazon -- the one-sided employment agreement, and harsh work conditions don't quite have the same appeal as work-life balance, fancy perks, and all the other stuff that comes with Facebook/Google/Twitter.
Compensation's similar, though, and about double what one would get outside of FAANG.
The quality curves mostly overlap (interview processes are noisy), but historically, Google has grabbed the very top -- the people who get offers everywhere. I think that's Facebook/Twitter now. I know fairly few really top people at Amazon -- the one-sided employment agreement, and harsh work conditions don't quite have the same appeal as work-life balance, fancy perks, and all the other stuff that comes with Facebook/Google/Twitter.
Compensation's similar, though, and about double what one would get outside of FAANG.
Not to forget the vesting schedules (initial grant, % by year)
Amazon: 5, 5, 40, 50
Google: 40, 30, 25, 5
Quite a difference in what they expect their employee tenure to be / be like I think.
Amazon: 5, 5, 40, 50
Google: 40, 30, 25, 5
Quite a difference in what they expect their employee tenure to be / be like I think.
Apple is somewhere in the middle: 25, 25, 25, 25
They do split it up, vesting every six months, so it’s actually 8 straight 12.5% chunks.
They do split it up, vesting every six months, so it’s actually 8 straight 12.5% chunks.
Google was even 25/y when i was there. I heard they switched to monthly now as did fb
Twitter? Really? If you judge by the stuff they put out publicly it’s mostly google and fb. Even linkedin has kafka. What did twitter ever put out? Mesos? (No, thanks)
I wasn't judging by open source. I was judging by:
1) Who is hiring top people in my group of colleagues
2) Who is described by people who work there as having a healthy work environment (i.e. people want to work there)
For Twitter, I'll admit I have a small enough N that I can't speak with very much confidence at all. I have one or two friends there, but they seem very happy, describe their peers as smart, etc. They're competent and I trust them, but well, one or two anecdotes doesn't make data.
But Twitter did put out a few high-profile things like Bootstrap. I don't like or use Bootstrap myself, but it's predominant in that area.
1) Who is hiring top people in my group of colleagues
2) Who is described by people who work there as having a healthy work environment (i.e. people want to work there)
For Twitter, I'll admit I have a small enough N that I can't speak with very much confidence at all. I have one or two friends there, but they seem very happy, describe their peers as smart, etc. They're competent and I trust them, but well, one or two anecdotes doesn't make data.
But Twitter did put out a few high-profile things like Bootstrap. I don't like or use Bootstrap myself, but it's predominant in that area.
Certain truth to that.
When someone here writes "I work at FAANG", that usually means Amazon.
When someone here writes "I work at FAANG", that usually means Amazon.
For the decently paid people, that may still be true. I'm not so sure for the common retail folks, or the freelancers that Apple used to hire to categorize and correct Siri recordings.
[deleted]
You're going to Disneyland all right, because you're going to be a mascot. Here, put on this Mickey costume and head. If you need to puke (and you will), there's a scupper inside the head. Now get out there and greet the kiddies for eight hours.
I've noticed that we never see people who work at Apple here in the comments section of HN and I wonder what the reason could be. Perhaps Apple forbids employees to post here? Perhaps they have even blocked the domain? Or perhaps Apple employees have no interest in HN because they simply have no entrepreneurial aspirations?
shrug I work at Apple
I’ve just moved out of an R&D group, and yes, there’s things I won’t talk about because Apple pay me very well to keep their “surprise and delight”, well, just that
There’s no culture of fear though, like some are saying, it’s just that there are projects I’ve spent years bringing up from bare bones, then there’s the time it takes to turn that into a product that Apple will sell. I’m willing to wait for that to happen, good news can always wait.
Now I work in icloud. I’m the DRI for privacy in my group, which is something that Apple take very seriously, it’s a fun job although there’s a lot of “it’d be really cool to do that, we could offer X, but we need a good way to keep the users data private under circumstance Y, so we can’t”. There’s going to be some interesting work along those lines in the future.
In the past I’ve worked in software (Aperture, Final Cut), and on technologies (precursor to Spotlight, and then the mechanisms behind Spotlight itself).
None of the above is anything that Apple would have any problem with me talking about, though they’d obviously not want me to disclose anything in the future that I might be working on. I’ve also worked for the Ministry of Defence, and frankly no company I’ve ever worked for has the security of a government agency like that. To compare the two situation borders on the absurd.
I like the various jobs I’ve had at Apple, it’s the longest I’ve ever stayed at any company, even ones I owned! I’m in the fortunate position of being able to choose where I work, and I choose Apple. That’s the strongest statement I can make.
I’ve just moved out of an R&D group, and yes, there’s things I won’t talk about because Apple pay me very well to keep their “surprise and delight”, well, just that
There’s no culture of fear though, like some are saying, it’s just that there are projects I’ve spent years bringing up from bare bones, then there’s the time it takes to turn that into a product that Apple will sell. I’m willing to wait for that to happen, good news can always wait.
Now I work in icloud. I’m the DRI for privacy in my group, which is something that Apple take very seriously, it’s a fun job although there’s a lot of “it’d be really cool to do that, we could offer X, but we need a good way to keep the users data private under circumstance Y, so we can’t”. There’s going to be some interesting work along those lines in the future.
In the past I’ve worked in software (Aperture, Final Cut), and on technologies (precursor to Spotlight, and then the mechanisms behind Spotlight itself).
None of the above is anything that Apple would have any problem with me talking about, though they’d obviously not want me to disclose anything in the future that I might be working on. I’ve also worked for the Ministry of Defence, and frankly no company I’ve ever worked for has the security of a government agency like that. To compare the two situation borders on the absurd.
I like the various jobs I’ve had at Apple, it’s the longest I’ve ever stayed at any company, even ones I owned! I’m in the fortunate position of being able to choose where I work, and I choose Apple. That’s the strongest statement I can make.
Thanks for your reply, but your comment still doesn't explain why we never (except now) see Apple employees in forums chiming in on things. There's never a "Hi I work at Apple, let me correct that...", or even a "disclaimer: I work at Apple, but my opinion on this is ...". This can't be because of what you say, that Apple wants to "keep their surprise and delight".
Also your reply seems to be very much in contrast with some other replies here. Which leaves me puzzled.
Also your reply seems to be very much in contrast with some other replies here. Which leaves me puzzled.
Apple’s culture of secrecy is partly self-imposed rather than fear of litigation or Global Security tac squads rappelling through your window or any fantasy fear like that. It’s nothing cult-like, just simple conformity in following social convention. People get used to not broadcasting what they work on, and an over-imaginative public does the rest.
I do think that the overall organization’s relative lack of participation in industry conventions and conferences (unlike the rest of FAMNG) seems to percolate to the rank and file as well, though you do see occasional tech talks from Apple engineers[0]. There’s also a sense that Apple is a world unto itself, there’s certainly enough decades worth of technology to work on and to study, that perhaps there’s relatively less interest in the outside.
[0] https://youtu.be/7UC7OUdtY_Q
I do think that the overall organization’s relative lack of participation in industry conventions and conferences (unlike the rest of FAMNG) seems to percolate to the rank and file as well, though you do see occasional tech talks from Apple engineers[0]. There’s also a sense that Apple is a world unto itself, there’s certainly enough decades worth of technology to work on and to study, that perhaps there’s relatively less interest in the outside.
[0] https://youtu.be/7UC7OUdtY_Q
I've seen plenty of acknowledged Apple employees commenting here. I know several others who never publically acknowledge their employment, but are active here.
The thing that they won't do though, is engage in a discussion about Apple products or features, particularly when the issue is an active industry discussion. Apple PR is very explicit about who speaks for the company, and how the company feels about unapproved spokespeople. All corps do this, but Apple takes it very seriously.
For what it's worth, the people I know who work at Apple today, either directly or through acquisition, have the usual set of opinions about big companies, but are well-above-average happy at Apple. I don't know anyone who wouldn't change a thing or two here or there...and the folks that came through acquisition are more mixed, but that's all to be expected.
The thing that they won't do though, is engage in a discussion about Apple products or features, particularly when the issue is an active industry discussion. Apple PR is very explicit about who speaks for the company, and how the company feels about unapproved spokespeople. All corps do this, but Apple takes it very seriously.
For what it's worth, the people I know who work at Apple today, either directly or through acquisition, have the usual set of opinions about big companies, but are well-above-average happy at Apple. I don't know anyone who wouldn't change a thing or two here or there...and the folks that came through acquisition are more mixed, but that's all to be expected.
Apple engineers comment here all the time. Occasionally they will identify themselves, sometimes they will comment with something that is easy to tie them back to. And sometimes they’ll comment anonymously too.
That being said, you’ll see the last two a lot more than the first, because “I work at Apple” predictably gets people thinking that you are also speaking for the company in an official capacity.
That being said, you’ll see the last two a lot more than the first, because “I work at Apple” predictably gets people thinking that you are also speaking for the company in an official capacity.
I just checked, and the last time I mentioned that I worked at Apple on here was 4 days ago [1]. I’ve seen others do it too.
Perhaps you just haven’t noticed it because frankly it’s rarely germane; at best it’s an aside to add colour to an argument. This time the topic is Apple and it’s relevant...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25491234
Perhaps you just haven’t noticed it because frankly it’s rarely germane; at best it’s an aside to add colour to an argument. This time the topic is Apple and it’s relevant...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25491234
Employees are encouraged to "go dark" on social media. There's significant internal training on secrecy. Public association with the company is strongly discouraged. I'm using soft words.
I left after two years.
I left after two years.
Even a lot of companies that don't have such secrecy in their DNA don't necessarily encourage social media posting. And, frankly, a lot of employees look at the risk-reward of being active on social media, at least in a professional context, and decide it's not worth it.
I don’t work for Apple, I work for another big Corp. We have very very strict social media policy. Couple people get fired each year for posting sensitive information on their LinkedIn. I guess, Apple has even stricter policy regarding their (even personal) opinions.
>Apple has even stricter policy regarding their (even personal) opinions
Which is increasingly important in the current political climate. Apple doesn't want their employees to be associated with any political views.
Which is increasingly important in the current political climate. Apple doesn't want their employees to be associated with any political views.
This is not true at all. I’m fact, most of the Apple engineers I know online talk much more of politics than their work because one of those topics doesn’t have an NDA on it.
that reminds me of the well-known saying by Michael Jordan: "Republicans buy Macbook Pros too."
Apart from the gay CEO, shouldn't the Republicans be worshiping Apple? It's a trillion dollar company that has figured out a way to make software companies and developers to PAY THEM to create software on their platform (for the "privilege" of adding even more value to it), and then force themselves in between these developers and the users to further gauge out even more money from both its users and developers.
A really fine example of capitalism (academically speaking).
A really fine example of capitalism (academically speaking).
What do you mean apart from him? "Tim Apple" is the one Apple exec who went to hang out with Trump.
[deleted]
Many companies have policies which prohibit this. It's not even specific to SV or the USA.
I'd see it as protection of both parties. The company doesn't want any reputational damage or off-message communications. The employee doesn't want to fall afoul of any liabilities they might place upon themselves or the company by revealing or promising anything they shouldn't. So personal social media activity is not prohibited, but social media activity in the context of your employment by the company is.
I suspect Apple might be far harsher than most companies if people step over the line, based upon previous examples.
I'd see it as protection of both parties. The company doesn't want any reputational damage or off-message communications. The employee doesn't want to fall afoul of any liabilities they might place upon themselves or the company by revealing or promising anything they shouldn't. So personal social media activity is not prohibited, but social media activity in the context of your employment by the company is.
I suspect Apple might be far harsher than most companies if people step over the line, based upon previous examples.
Actually, I'd go even further: you don't really see comments from _any_ bigco employees except a few SV-based ones, Google might be the most well-represented here. Maybe that's because Google has/used to have a culture internally that promoted activism and openness of opinion,
Several people who work on WebKit at Apple are regulars in HN comments, fwiw. You may just not have noticed because they may not advertise that they work at Apple.
To protect yourself from being pressured by external actors. If somebody is able to manipulate an Apple employee then they could gain access to insider information.
I don't think it's forbidden or nefarious. It's just easier to say nothing, and avoid the risk of saying something that is secret.
Secret, a bit too much candor, someone takes offense, etc. A lot of people just see it as safer to avoid activities they see as potentially harmful for no real benefit.
[deleted]
A good friend of mine worked at Apple in a mid-to-senior role for about two years; when he joined he told me not to ask him anything so I didn't.
Shortly after he left we were having a drink, and I say: "Just tell me this, did you like it there?" He thought for a fair bit and eventually said "no comment".
Shortly after he left we were having a drink, and I say: "Just tell me this, did you like it there?" He thought for a fair bit and eventually said "no comment".
I worked at Apple for 5 years in two different groups and this really isn’t that normal. The person in the article worked on experimental hardware which is not most people’s experience. Most people have no problem talking about what they work on, the technology they use, and what they like about Apple. Unfortunately rarely people find those blog posts interesting enough to share leaving a disproportionate number of posts like in the article.
Sounds like NSA. A friend worked there and couldn’t even tell her husband what she did. Like not even a general idea.
One benefit of that is that you can't take work home, although I think Covid is forcing them to make some changes.
If you leak from NSA they either attempt to assassinate you, or you get put in prison. Due to the massive illegal spying programs run by the NSA, they have lots of avenues for finding out who leaked the data.
If you leak from Apple (and they find out) then Apple can sue you and maybe get a civil judgement against you take your assets and possessions, but you remain a free person.
Huge difference.
If you leak from Apple (and they find out) then Apple can sue you and maybe get a civil judgement against you take your assets and possessions, but you remain a free person.
Huge difference.
Mastery of something to serve or help and seeing good things happen from that is one of the things that bring happiness to me.
Often, I’ve blamed my employers for being miserable, but I realize now that they can contribute to happiness or unhappiness but they aren’t the primary reason for frustration or unhappiness.
My health, primarily my mental health, affects how I act and how I interpret things.
Even the best people that aren’t mentally unwell can be unhappy.
However, being unhappy most of the time is mental illness, whether it’s because of what seems like an unreasonably difficult environment or one that’s seemingly reasonable.
Some may bounce out of it and others can’t seem to, but being stuck in a mode of “I had promise and they killed it” doesn’t help anyone.
In this case maybe the “no comment” was a joke, maybe it was a bad fit, but those that aren’t unhappy most of the time should get help.
Often, I’ve blamed my employers for being miserable, but I realize now that they can contribute to happiness or unhappiness but they aren’t the primary reason for frustration or unhappiness.
My health, primarily my mental health, affects how I act and how I interpret things.
Even the best people that aren’t mentally unwell can be unhappy.
However, being unhappy most of the time is mental illness, whether it’s because of what seems like an unreasonably difficult environment or one that’s seemingly reasonable.
Some may bounce out of it and others can’t seem to, but being stuck in a mode of “I had promise and they killed it” doesn’t help anyone.
In this case maybe the “no comment” was a joke, maybe it was a bad fit, but those that aren’t unhappy most of the time should get help.
You’re allowed to talk about what it’s like to work at Apple (good or bad), just not the work at Apple.
Yea, but if you did, nobody would accept the offer.
Its a big company and I’m sure the experience on different teams is varied - but I really like working at Apple.
It’s hard work but much more interesting than my previous jobs, and people _really_ believe in the values like privacy which I like.
It’s hard work but much more interesting than my previous jobs, and people _really_ believe in the values like privacy which I like.
Apple has a no-bullshit work culture (you aren't infantilized like at many other Silicon Valley companies) and the employees really do value and care about their work and its impact in the grand scheme of things.
Unfortunately, this doesn't extend to upper-management, which is why we see things like Apple 'forgetting' to implement cloud-wide E2EE at the behest of the FBI, or turning over iCloud servers to the Chinese government, creating a massive corporate-sponsored state-surveillance network.
Unfortunately, this doesn't extend to upper-management, which is why we see things like Apple 'forgetting' to implement cloud-wide E2EE at the behest of the FBI, or turning over iCloud servers to the Chinese government, creating a massive corporate-sponsored state-surveillance network.
That’s the reason why I think I couldn’t work for Apple.
I'm baffled. Why couldn't he say he was happy at Apple if he was happy? The "no comment" answer kinda implies he wasn't really happy.
I can't speak for him, but I understood him to be sardonically answering my question. If he was genuinely afraid to say anything bad about the place I imagine he'd have said "it was okay" or the like.
> The "no comment" answer kinda implies he wasn't really happy.
You don't think that was the point? "No comment" is a very common way to express that you weren't happy.
You don't think that was the point? "No comment" is a very common way to express that you weren't happy.
Because you sign various employment contracts that contain all sorts of landmines even after you’re gone, and out of self-preservation it’s a helluva lot easier to just not comment.
They can't be that all-encompassing as to not be able to say if you were happy...?
In today's social media world where people are willing to post any gossip on the internet for some meaningless likes / points, I think its actually prudent to measure your words carefully before you voice them. Especially if the law is involved.
They’re not. It was either a joke or he was trying to be edgy.
There are disparagement clauses often.
No, there are not disparagement clauses in the US tech industry, and if any company has them then they deserve to be utterly roasted from now until the end of time. Please make HN posts about each company with a disparagement clause so everyone here knows which companies to avoid. It'll be the easiest Internet points you'll ever make, and you'll be doing a public service.
To be honest, that doesn't sound like a "good" friend to me. Doesn't trust you enough to share not only any work details, but not even an opinion either? Maybe too much self-importance?
You've never worked in a high-security environment, have you?
My father was in the CIA, in the late '40s thru '60s.
We didn't find out until the late '90s.
One of his brothers was almost certainly a Company Man, too, but that has never been confirmed; even though he’s been dead for decades.
Apple's OPSEC is probably tighter than the CIA's.
My father was in the CIA, in the late '40s thru '60s.
We didn't find out until the late '90s.
One of his brothers was almost certainly a Company Man, too, but that has never been confirmed; even though he’s been dead for decades.
Apple's OPSEC is probably tighter than the CIA's.
Yes I have. Guarding national security is one thing. Keeping a new consumer gadget secret is another. Apple isn't so important.
To society as a whole, yes. To the company itself, there is definitely competitive advantage to protect trade secrets so harshly. It’s hard to argue it doesn’t have some value for Apple. I think it’s a little extreme and disagree with the degree to which they enforce it on all of their teams, even knew where it clearly has minimal competitive advantage.
I agree. Apple doesn't (nor do many other corporates). And so they make you sign lot of contracts and non-disclosure agreements to shut you up. So you shut up to put food on your table.
I don't have many friends, but of the ones I do there are still two whole people I would be comfortable sharing privileged info with peace of mind that they will keep it to themselves. The same goes the other way, I have no problem keeping confidential things confidential.
Agreed, that's just called having a good friend. I've had friends at Apple that have no trouble telling me what they're working on.
CIA does very little guarding national security as far as I can tell.
For a spy agency that is exactly how it should be. If any rando on the internet could detect what they were doing then it wouldn't be very secret.
The CIA is very quick to 'leak' of its successes to the national press via 'anonymous government officials'. It's just I don't consider staging coups and arming extremist 'rebels' to be part of protecting national security[1].
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
How can you tell that all successes are leaked and that all the things leaked are actually true? If they prevent 100 terrorist plots but 95 of those were through various means that they wish to keep secret, they would simply only leak the ones for which they don't care that their sources are exposed. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to verify if the stories about arming rebels are even true, or maybe a side plot to play down their competence and lull the actual adversaries into a false sense of security.
It is in the very nature of a spy agency that the general public does not know what they are up to.
It is in the very nature of a spy agency that the general public does not know what they are up to.
If they intentionally leaked nothing, this would be perhaps a reasonable approach.
The fact that they leak positive stuff sometimes, and coupled along with the fact that they run a global network of torture sites (and hacked the computers of their own congresspeople who are their oversight, then lied about doing so) means that they probably aren't as do-good and trustworthy as you seem to think they should be assumed to be.
The fact that they leak positive stuff sometimes, and coupled along with the fact that they run a global network of torture sites (and hacked the computers of their own congresspeople who are their oversight, then lied about doing so) means that they probably aren't as do-good and trustworthy as you seem to think they should be assumed to be.
Of course they're not do-gooders. It's a spy agency, shady stuff is their very raison d'etre.
I was questioning the original point made by AsyncAwait, which was that "CIA does very little guarding national security as far as I can tell." The "as far as I can tell" part of that comment makes the rest just silly, since making sure you can't tell is 90% of spy work.
I was questioning the original point made by AsyncAwait, which was that "CIA does very little guarding national security as far as I can tell." The "as far as I can tell" part of that comment makes the rest just silly, since making sure you can't tell is 90% of spy work.
You've missed the point of my comment entirely.
I've put the "as far as I can tell" part in there precisely BECAUSE from what we CAN tell i.e. has been declassified or leaked, it pretty much all terrible shit that has nothing to do with protecting national security.
Of course there's a lot we can't tell, but given the stories we can tell the ratio of good/bad is way out of whack in favor of the bad, especially given CIA's tendency to selectively leak good stories about itself and its extensive declassified historical record, the amount of 'good' should be a lot higher than it is.
Destroying torture records for example shows that it is way more concerned with illegally concealing bad behavior than avoiding it in the first place.
I've put the "as far as I can tell" part in there precisely BECAUSE from what we CAN tell i.e. has been declassified or leaked, it pretty much all terrible shit that has nothing to do with protecting national security.
Of course there's a lot we can't tell, but given the stories we can tell the ratio of good/bad is way out of whack in favor of the bad, especially given CIA's tendency to selectively leak good stories about itself and its extensive declassified historical record, the amount of 'good' should be a lot higher than it is.
Destroying torture records for example shows that it is way more concerned with illegally concealing bad behavior than avoiding it in the first place.
All the secrecy at spy agencies has been shown time and time again to be primarily to coverup their ineffectiveness and incompetence, not to mention the crimes against humanity.
I had both, Amazon and as a defense contractor. Nothing ever would have prohibited me from talking about how work was, what I worked on was for obvious reasons easier at Amazon. But even in the contractor job it was no problem saying I worked on Integrated Logistics Support on aircraft. This was a far cry from being CIA, so.
That being said, I told people the comment thing more than once. Always to people I know and people that know me well enough to get the meaning. In other cases I just said I won't answer certain questions. Much different than the bo comment trope.
That being said, I told people the comment thing more than once. Always to people I know and people that know me well enough to get the meaning. In other cases I just said I won't answer certain questions. Much different than the bo comment trope.
It's sometimes funny how those things worth with the government. I was talking to an acquaintance who worked at a company that built satellites for NRO/NSA & Friends. He could tell me things like "we had a great test of the cryocoolers last week and some of our design tweaks really improved the performance. On the other hand he wouldn't tell me what the satellite was for or even its name.
A coworker of mine went to a foreign country once on a business trip. When he asked what he could tell his wife about his trip, the guidance he got was "You can tell her either where you're traveling or why you're traveling. Not both."
A coworker of mine went to a foreign country once on a business trip. When he asked what he could tell his wife about his trip, the guidance he got was "You can tell her either where you're traveling or why you're traveling. Not both."
A friend of mine had an aunt who worked for a government agency.
She got an award. She did something that was a big deal. They had a ceremony and her close family was allowed to attend.
However, my friend said the ceremony was congratulations and handshakes, but zero details about what it was for.
She got an award. She did something that was a big deal. They had a ceremony and her close family was allowed to attend.
However, my friend said the ceremony was congratulations and handshakes, but zero details about what it was for.
Loyalty to institutions that don't care about you is the most foolish idea. I would never worry about keeping state or company secrets because they would never keep mine. It's a one-sided exercise in self-flagellation. The more we learn about our government the more we learn about it's inhumanity. Giving your life to it is akin to throwing it away. Perhaps worse than that because of the damage one can cause.
[deleted]
? Apple is not 'the CIA' for gosh sakes.
There's no reason for all of this.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to say 'I work on iOS' or I work on 'new hardware but I can't say much more than that', or 'I work in production for Apple TV'.
Most people at most companies are not allowed to talk about the details of what they do.
There's no reason for all of this.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to say 'I work on iOS' or I work on 'new hardware but I can't say much more than that', or 'I work in production for Apple TV'.
Most people at most companies are not allowed to talk about the details of what they do.
That. I was contractor once, we obviously were allowed to say what we did to various degrees. Like working on picture analysis or analyzing operational data and so on. But not about the actual details. Even the projects and so on were usually only refered to indirectly. After that, it usually just took 5 minutes on Google to find out what it was. Say supporting a new military aircraft program for the German armed forces, that left you with two options. Again, we never talked about the details, say prices, data and so on. And I won't. Nor will I talk about concrete data from my days at Amazon.
But, yeah, I very much talk about what I did. Would be quite difficult to pass interviews and get projects, wouldn't it?
Same goes for the real secret stuff. Saying you worked abroad for the CIA is much different from saying you served as a CIA operative in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2004. Unless, of course, you get an official legend fot your life after.
But, yeah, I very much talk about what I did. Would be quite difficult to pass interviews and get projects, wouldn't it?
Same goes for the real secret stuff. Saying you worked abroad for the CIA is much different from saying you served as a CIA operative in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2004. Unless, of course, you get an official legend fot your life after.
Good thing that under Jim Cook, there's nothing they can hide as no new products exists :)
That's certainly one possible way to interpret what he said. Here's another: he wasn't refusing to answer my question, he was sardonically answering it.
This is the same as working anywhere. It's best to maintain a strict work/private split. All company files, screenshots of company work, and the like go back to the company when I leave. If I want to re-create, from scratch, some of that work (and put enough of a spin on it to not run afoul of any patents or copyrights the company holds), and show it off, that's acceptable of course.
I am very grateful for my job to be writing free software. Everything is made available for the world to use or change without strings attached.
It feels like I am leaving some sort of legacy, no matter how small, and that makes my existence a lot more meaningful.
Did you exchange a walking part in a war for a lead role in a cage? –Pink Floyd
It feels like I am leaving some sort of legacy, no matter how small, and that makes my existence a lot more meaningful.
Did you exchange a walking part in a war for a lead role in a cage? –Pink Floyd
I always thought that was "walk-on part".
You are correct, it is.
It is [1]. For those not catching the reference, it is a line from Pink Floyd's song Wish You Were Here.
[1] https://www.songfacts.com/lyrics/pink-floyd/wish-you-were-he...
[1] https://www.songfacts.com/lyrics/pink-floyd/wish-you-were-he...
Of course we need to hear how you get to work on free software!
and why shouldn't we?
parent reminds me of a quote from David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs"
"Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)—and particularly its financial avatars—but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value."
"Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)—and particularly its financial avatars—but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value."
Sure, but the impact you’re having has the potential to reach many orders of magnitude fewer people. It’s a trade off, and I personally wouldn’t feel a sense of superiority.
Isn’t this comment and the Pink Floyd quote a bit patronizing?
Every new article like this confirm the common thesis that Apple is more like a cult than a company.
I cannot fathom people preferring to work there over Google or Facebook, however everyone does have different ethics and pov’s.
I cannot fathom people preferring to work there over Google or Facebook, however everyone does have different ethics and pov’s.
Interestingly (for UK readers), Dominic Cummings is obsessed with Bret Victor (the author of this article).
Care to elaborate more?
I have some vague recollection that Bret Victor was involved with the design of the Touch Bar. Is this something that has been confirmed?
I think he tweeted about it when TouchBar was announced (3 years ago?)
Found the tweet: https://twitter.com/worrydream/status/791767756928462848?s=2... (Tweeted on the day TouchBar was announced)
Found the tweet: https://twitter.com/worrydream/status/791767756928462848?s=2... (Tweeted on the day TouchBar was announced)
Or audio world can do what video and vfx world did, you know - move away from Apple platform altogether.
So on one hand you get to do some cool stuff for one of the most successful companies in the world.
On the other hand you cannot talk about anything you do at all, as if the time spent there does not exist.
Personally I'd rather spend my time at a company that allows for some discussion.
Personally I'd rather spend my time at a company that allows for some discussion.
Maybe I’m jaded as an attorney, but aren’t most professional jobs relatively confidential? Thinking of things like ad agencies, insurance, finance, law, teaching (what specific students are doing), any tech job with clients... you can’t go talking about trade secrets and advice others are paying you for. That’s business 101.
Edit: outside of the service industry, I’m hard-pressed to think of a job where you can ethically talk about any and everything you do in your job...
Edit: outside of the service industry, I’m hard-pressed to think of a job where you can ethically talk about any and everything you do in your job...
> On the other hand you cannot talk about anything you do at all
... to people outside of Apple. Apple has 137,000 employees in 25 countries. I’m sure you’ll find someone to discuss your work with.
... to people outside of Apple. Apple has 137,000 employees in 25 countries. I’m sure you’ll find someone to discuss your work with.
Yes, this. I could talk about the things I've worked on at [big company], but really, no one outside of [big company] would find it interesting anyway (and not all that many inside [big company] to be honest).
Rumor has it Apple is very siloed internally as well, so likely you can't talk to other employees outside your team either.
I haven't worked there, but isn't Apple famously siloed, even internally? My impression was that there were many areas that could not tell even other Apple employees what they were working on.
Actually, Apple is siloed internally as well. I worked there for a little over three years and had friends there in other departments with whom we could mutually not share what we were working on. It both makes for a worse working culture and causes issues in practice as people relearn the same lessons and reinvent the same solutions in different areas.
Apple is a huge company so certainly experiences will vary but all the anecdotes, podcasts, and books written by former employees mention the highly collaborative environment, even within very secrete siloed projects [1].
Honestly, the reality is most engineering is tedious and boring and mired in context. The old 10% inspiration 90% perspiration quote always rung true for me. I think you’ll struggle to have anything other than a superficial conversation of any hard problem or question with any engineer whose not closely associated with your team.
[1] Examples abound but this is my favorite: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37638098-creative-select...
Honestly, the reality is most engineering is tedious and boring and mired in context. The old 10% inspiration 90% perspiration quote always rung true for me. I think you’ll struggle to have anything other than a superficial conversation of any hard problem or question with any engineer whose not closely associated with your team.
[1] Examples abound but this is my favorite: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37638098-creative-select...
My other reference point for big tech companies is Facebook, which is mostly open internally. There were many times over the years where I was able to search around and find someone who had worked with a specific external partner or tool I was evaluating or developed something relevant internally, where I could reach out and get insights and pointers from them. Occasionally that turned into longer collaborations and a couple of times even people switching teams.
Monocultures reinforce bad habits. I have friends at a wide variety of tech companies - Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Tableau, AirBnB, and more. All of us know, in broad terms, what the others do. We don't discuss trade secrets or specific unannounced projects, but we're able to talk about things like "X works on Storage Spaces for Windows, Y works on WebXR, Z works on security, etc."
We're also all able to talk freely about what aspects of our jobs and employers we like and don't like. This is valuable information - for instance, I've heard enough first person anecdotes from various teams to know that I'm not interested in working for Amazon unless all other avenues to pay my mortgage have failed.
The Apple experience sounds like my interview with the NSA years ago. All of my attempts to ask any questions were met with a "no comment" for the most part. Very frustrating experience. I walked away with not much more idea of what a job there would be like than you could get from reading Wikipedia.
We're also all able to talk freely about what aspects of our jobs and employers we like and don't like. This is valuable information - for instance, I've heard enough first person anecdotes from various teams to know that I'm not interested in working for Amazon unless all other avenues to pay my mortgage have failed.
The Apple experience sounds like my interview with the NSA years ago. All of my attempts to ask any questions were met with a "no comment" for the most part. Very frustrating experience. I walked away with not much more idea of what a job there would be like than you could get from reading Wikipedia.
> Monocultures reinforce bad habits.
Very true but it is interesting that Apple is often used as an example to follow on avoiding a monoculture. In the business press anyway.
https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/strategy/avoid-an-organizatio...
Very true but it is interesting that Apple is often used as an example to follow on avoiding a monoculture. In the business press anyway.
https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/strategy/avoid-an-organizatio...
But what prevents the employees of these secretive companies from posting anonymously here or elsewhere?
How the author left-
Goodbye Apple, great machine.
Grind and polish, smooth and shine.
I couldn't catch your match with mine.
But I will always say I tried,
and if a hundred fires died, perhaps the embers smolder on,
to be remembered when I'm gone.
http://worrydream.com/Departure/
Goodbye Apple, great machine.
Grind and polish, smooth and shine.
I couldn't catch your match with mine.
But I will always say I tried,
and if a hundred fires died, perhaps the embers smolder on,
to be remembered when I'm gone.
http://worrydream.com/Departure/
> Q - Oh, okay, I thought you had made some sort of mistake.
> A - Yes, exactly.
I suppose working at Apple was that mistake?
I suppose working at Apple was that mistake?
"What can you tell us about what you did in your last job?
Can't say.
"What were the biggest challenges at your last job?"
Can't say.
"Can you describe a situation in your last job that taught you about professionalism?"
Can't say.
"OK, did you like your last job?"
Can't say.
----
So you could've done absolutely nothing of value or done something amazing, but the simple fact that you worked at a multinational company is supposed to make you stand out positively.
Can't say.
"What were the biggest challenges at your last job?"
Can't say.
"Can you describe a situation in your last job that taught you about professionalism?"
Can't say.
"OK, did you like your last job?"
Can't say.
----
So you could've done absolutely nothing of value or done something amazing, but the simple fact that you worked at a multinational company is supposed to make you stand out positively.
I went there with JS disabled and was very confused–it just showed a list of links. Not pleasant.
Edit: With JS enabled, the design just amazed me
Edit: With JS enabled, the design just amazed me
How do people get the next job after Apple? Let's say someone has worked there for a good couple of years - are they not allowed to share anything about that period in the job interviews or on Linkedin?
>> How do people get the next job after Apple? Let's say someone has worked there for a good couple of years - are they not allowed to share anything about that period in the job interviews or on Linkedin?
You have to be creative and toe the line. I have just spent some time interviewing after working at a place with a hardcore non disclosure agreement.
My LinkedIn for this job is a brief blurb that reveals the scope of my work/seniority without revealing details about the company. In the Apple case it could be something like "led team of X engineers developing the core server side infrastructure for payments." This is OK because everyone knows that Apple deals with payments and that there must be people working on the backend of it, and its meaningful that you led people in that context. (or whatever one did.)
My resume goes into a tiny bit more detail but also says "details protected by NDA." It's important because w/o saying that it just looks like you had no accomplishments.
In interviews you can usually manage by being abstract enough. EG: you can say "I had to design a system that handled millions of transactions per day" and then talk about high level things that go into the design of such things, you don't need to say what the system specifically did or exactly how many millions of hits it got. You can be explicit about the NDA here too and people have always been very respectful of it.
However, in my case - most of my experience was prior to this company so even if the question is "tell me about how you did X at your last job", I just say "that gets too close to the NDA, but let me tell you how I did that at my previous role."
Basically, it's not a problem, and you gain way more from having Apple on your resume than you lose from not speaking about certain details.
You have to be creative and toe the line. I have just spent some time interviewing after working at a place with a hardcore non disclosure agreement.
My LinkedIn for this job is a brief blurb that reveals the scope of my work/seniority without revealing details about the company. In the Apple case it could be something like "led team of X engineers developing the core server side infrastructure for payments." This is OK because everyone knows that Apple deals with payments and that there must be people working on the backend of it, and its meaningful that you led people in that context. (or whatever one did.)
My resume goes into a tiny bit more detail but also says "details protected by NDA." It's important because w/o saying that it just looks like you had no accomplishments.
In interviews you can usually manage by being abstract enough. EG: you can say "I had to design a system that handled millions of transactions per day" and then talk about high level things that go into the design of such things, you don't need to say what the system specifically did or exactly how many millions of hits it got. You can be explicit about the NDA here too and people have always been very respectful of it.
However, in my case - most of my experience was prior to this company so even if the question is "tell me about how you did X at your last job", I just say "that gets too close to the NDA, but let me tell you how I did that at my previous role."
Basically, it's not a problem, and you gain way more from having Apple on your resume than you lose from not speaking about certain details.
Interviewing someone like yourself isn't hard at all... I've interviewed hundreds of people (which isn't thin air here on HN) and I've pretty much seen it all.
Generally speaking, in an interview, I'm trying to assess /what you can do/. Which is not "what you have done".
I've interviewed at least 2 people, who were hired against my recommendation, in different companies, that clearly fleeced everyone else. In both cases, the candidate walked the walk & talked the talk, but something seemed off. "Sociopath" is a term that is thrown around loosely but I think it applies to both candidates (one man, one woman). In both cases, they'd convinced most of the interviewers they were very strong in areas they'd never professionally tackled before.
I'm less interested in what the candidate claims to have done; that could be reality, or a well-rehearsed and "lived" fantasy. But by talking about hard engineering problems in real-time, with "curve balls", I can usually tell if the candidate has "the right stuff" or not. Even if it's just aptitude. I can train smart people who handle themselves well. But if the candidate can't field tough questions and unexpected (off-script) questions, that's enough for me to pass on the candidate at the level I'm hiring.
Generally speaking, in an interview, I'm trying to assess /what you can do/. Which is not "what you have done".
I've interviewed at least 2 people, who were hired against my recommendation, in different companies, that clearly fleeced everyone else. In both cases, the candidate walked the walk & talked the talk, but something seemed off. "Sociopath" is a term that is thrown around loosely but I think it applies to both candidates (one man, one woman). In both cases, they'd convinced most of the interviewers they were very strong in areas they'd never professionally tackled before.
I'm less interested in what the candidate claims to have done; that could be reality, or a well-rehearsed and "lived" fantasy. But by talking about hard engineering problems in real-time, with "curve balls", I can usually tell if the candidate has "the right stuff" or not. Even if it's just aptitude. I can train smart people who handle themselves well. But if the candidate can't field tough questions and unexpected (off-script) questions, that's enough for me to pass on the candidate at the level I'm hiring.
That sounds like an intentional feature for Apple.
You can talk about things you worked on after they ship and are publicly known.
It's important to remember people who really love their job and do well don't tend to leave so you almost always get stories from people who don't fit that description (though not always - sometimes people leave a workplace for personal reasons).
It's important to remember people who really love their job and do well don't tend to leave so you almost always get stories from people who don't fit that description (though not always - sometimes people leave a workplace for personal reasons).
People leave all the time, for all sorts of reasons, e.g. to get side-promoted, to work on something different, to get more money.
I've seen the opposite of your thesis -- that people who have opportunities and actively work on their careers tend to change jobs often so whoever does not must be stagnating.
I've seen the opposite of your thesis -- that people who have opportunities and actively work on their careers tend to change jobs often so whoever does not must be stagnating.
Street cred!
More realistically, interviewers delve into specifics. Applied to a computer security position? Well, you'll get interview questions that touch those.
You don't have to hide your knowledge - you just have to hide what exactly you worked on at Apple.
More realistically, interviewers delve into specifics. Applied to a computer security position? Well, you'll get interview questions that touch those.
You don't have to hide your knowledge - you just have to hide what exactly you worked on at Apple.
They say "I worked at Apple".
Probably not enough to get a better position in another FAANG.
It largely worked for me, though I did have some external websites I could point to. I think there interviewing parties probably thought I worked on cooler projects than I did, honestly.
Not better, but people move laterally then get promoted. FAANG game is about doing what you need to get that cushy 300k a year senior sde salary in any of the companies, and after that you do whatever.
If you can brandish a business card that says "User Interface Inventor" or something equally high level at the best technology company in the world, you can pretty much write your own ticket at any of the other FANGs, which are also-rans in comparison.
It opens avenues for abuse though - for example, you can say that you were the UX lead on something big, while omitting that it was an internal HR app or something else where UX is an afterthought. Even better, you can claim that you were in fact a senior product manager of let's say iCloud and who can say otherwise (it's not easily verifiable on Linkedin or in any other way).
>> Even better, you can claim that you were in fact a senior product manager of let's say iCloud and who can say otherwise
I guess that's a hypothetical risk, but in reality they'll ask you a few behavioral/situational questions and if your caliber is off they'll know pretty easily.
I guess that's a hypothetical risk, but in reality they'll ask you a few behavioral/situational questions and if your caliber is off they'll know pretty easily.
They can call your previous employer and confirm your claims, you know.
All pretty much any company will say about you is the dates you worked and the title you had. They’re not going answer anything beyond that by policy. I would also say this happens pretty rarely.
As such, I assume they will say you were not in fact an iCloud lead but were actually an ICT2 engineer. Plus, there’s always the risk that your former coworker is on your interviewer team.
This absolutely happens in my (anecdotal) experience. But it's not a problem that affects Apple really.
So the tradition of hijacking web browser history navigation (back and forward), started from Apple?
I interviewed at Apple and talked with 8 engineers. Some had been working there for 6 years and none of them could tell me anything that they had worked on. They couldn’t even tell me if anything they had worked on had shipped. Sounded like a really interesting place to work, but if you can’t tell anyone about it, does it matter?
> Sounded like a really interesting place to work, but if you can’t tell anyone about it, does it matter?
...yes? I like working on interesting stuff so that my days aren't boring.
...yes? I like working on interesting stuff so that my days aren't boring.
In other companies, you can build a personal + professional goodwill by inventing things and making breakthroughs. At Apple, the brand encapsulates your achievements without anything to show for it. You're dust at the end of your career in exchange for a salary and a stack of non-disclosure agreements that expire on upon your death.
I think that's a pretty hardcore exaggeration. The last couple of times I talked to people from Apple (about getting a job there) they were pretty open about what they did and the tech they were using - and what they were looking for in terms of the person they wanted to hire. Unfortunately I wasn't quite the person they needed in either case. I came REALLY CLOSE last time, so I was sad to find out I still didn't have quite the amount of experience he wanted.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Counter point: Chris Lattner.
He started LLVM before going to Apple. Likewise Michael Sweet created CUPS and went to work on it at Apple at some point.
The whole WebKit team is another example.
A lot of things are secret at Apple, others not so much
A lot of things are secret at Apple, others not so much
[deleted]
So, any of those Google, Amazon, Facebook guys that are famous for what they've done there, and/or have built "personal + professional goodwill"?
(And not after-the-fact hires of already famous people like Rob Pike, Dan Abramov, etc).
(And not after-the-fact hires of already famous people like Rob Pike, Dan Abramov, etc).
They said professional goodwill not fame. But Jeff Dean is famous for work he did for Google. Dave Cutler, Anders Hejlsberg, Jeff Bonwick, Bryan Cantrill, and Shigeru Miyamoto are famous for work they did for other famous companies.
People used to get famous working for Apple too. Jony Ive? Andy Hertzfeld? Susan Kare?
People used to get famous working for Apple too. Jony Ive? Andy Hertzfeld? Susan Kare?
Good point and agree, its the same at other contemporary corporations. I am kind of looking at 1970-2000 era when companies used people as part of their brand / face - Bell Labs, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Fairchild Semiconductor, IBM and many others that made great engineers feel-like they weren't replaceable, but actually part of the ethos of the company. Their personal goodwill was coupled with the company's image and success. We've stopped doing that I believe.
Yeah, ironically I think for Apple there's Jonathan Ive, which did rose to higher C-levels but was a mere designer in some Apple team in 1997.
For Google, dunno, maybe Yegge?
For Google, dunno, maybe Yegge?
Google - I can think of Ray Kurzweil and Peter Norvig.
That would fit of the "after-the-fact hires of already famous people" I mentioned though -- not people becoming famous for what they did at Google.
> but if you can’t tell anyone about it, does it matter?
Some people need to be publicly associated with work for it to matter to them. Others don’t. It’s just a personal choice. If you work on a lifesaving drug inside a big pharmaceutical company and never get any extra money or accolades for it, you still saved those lives. Your work still definitely matters.
Some people need to be publicly associated with work for it to matter to them. Others don’t. It’s just a personal choice. If you work on a lifesaving drug inside a big pharmaceutical company and never get any extra money or accolades for it, you still saved those lives. Your work still definitely matters.
The work matters, no question, just not enough to be compensated proportionally to its value. No, the money and prestige don't belong to the people who actually make the things we use and enjoy, it all goes to the top where it belongs. If you're obedient they'll keep you around, but certainly some other slave could have done the same work for cheaper so don't get too comfortable.
Now my company is very different, we have respect for our workers and let no part of the employee go to waste. When you've outlived your usefulness your ulna will be fashioned into a long spoon for serving gruel, and the dome of your skull becomes a fine bowl. We actually use half of my former cofounder's pelvis as a frisbee during offsites!
Your work will outlive you, and continue to aid the company for many years after you've been decommissioned. That should be enough to comfort you in your final moments, as you await incineration.
Now my company is very different, we have respect for our workers and let no part of the employee go to waste. When you've outlived your usefulness your ulna will be fashioned into a long spoon for serving gruel, and the dome of your skull becomes a fine bowl. We actually use half of my former cofounder's pelvis as a frisbee during offsites!
Your work will outlive you, and continue to aid the company for many years after you've been decommissioned. That should be enough to comfort you in your final moments, as you await incineration.
You have a very cynical perspective on white collar corporate work. Mine is the exact opposite. I make several hundreds of thousands of dollars for working about six hours a day indoors in a nice chair with air conditioning. I don’t care about the company’s success nor do I need to care. If my kid is sick or I’m having an off day I just don’t come in. I can afford basically anything I genuinely want. It’s a very good bargain from my side.
Congrats on achieving useless corporate parasite status, it's everyone's dream, but I was responding to your comment, not your life.
Found the MBA.
> but if you can’t tell anyone about it, does it matter?
This is also the case for folks that work on classified projects such at the NSA. There’s more to working than bragging about it to others.
This is also the case for folks that work on classified projects such at the NSA. There’s more to working than bragging about it to others.
Good luck getting your next job when your resume has a 6 year blank spot.
A "6 year blank spot" working for Apple or NSA?
Doesn't sound like you'd need any luck...
Doesn't sound like you'd need any luck...
Simply working at Apple for 6 years carries it’s own weight.
"Bob worked at GCHQ between month/year and month/year".
Lots of places understand that there are strict confidentiality agreements (whether those are by convention, contract like NDA, or law like Official Secrets) and they often welcome this.
Lots of places understand that there are strict confidentiality agreements (whether those are by convention, contract like NDA, or law like Official Secrets) and they often welcome this.
Not sure if this is a reference to Charles Stross's Laundry series (whose protagonist is named Bob and works at GCHQ as an occult computer scientist) or if just a coincidence.
Recommended reading either way!
Recommended reading either way!
Oh, no, just a coincidence.
The Laundry series is very good!
The Laundry series is very good!
I worked at Apple, and they told me when I left I could not put anything about my work on LinkedIn. I didn't work on anything that would be considered remotely classified to any other companies. Apple treats EVERYTHING as super secret. It sort of worked for me, because when my current company asked what I worked on I just said "sorry I can't talk about it ;)" instead of "I was paid almost 200k a year to make one spreadsheet look like another"
Which one of following levels of information you can put in your public resume?
1. I worked at Apple. 2. I worked I’m MacOS division. 3. I worked on MacOS UX. 4. I worked on MacOS dock enhancements.
1. I worked at Apple. 2. I worked I’m MacOS division. 3. I worked on MacOS UX. 4. I worked on MacOS dock enhancements.
There are normal engineers at Apple that can and do tell people about what they’re working on like anyone else would.
https://webkit.org/blog/5852/introducing-the-b3-jit-compiler...
https://webkit.org/blog/5852/introducing-the-b3-jit-compiler...
I wouldn't call that "like anyone else would". Those blog posts are planned in advance and get approval before being put online, as they are essentially considered to be official statements from the WebKit team.
Sounds like you may have interviewed with engineers working on an upcoming product that hadn't been announced.
I worked there and my friends and family knew what product team I was on. I couldn't tell anyone anything specific about the work, but it wasn't a total mystery.
I worked there and my friends and family knew what product team I was on. I couldn't tell anyone anything specific about the work, but it wasn't a total mystery.
[deleted]
yeah, it does. I don't tell other people much about my work.
[deleted]
There were countless of individuals that worked on breaking Enigma encryption machine employed by the Nazi’s during WW2.
You can rest assured that their work mattered, even if they couldn’t talk about it.
You can rest assured that their work mattered, even if they couldn’t talk about it.
Yeah so far I don’t think Apple has done anything equivalent in importance to the Enigma code breakers to warrant the comparison so when someone from Apple says they can’t tell me what they’re working on it just sounds like corporate arrogance or paranoia, smoke and mirrors to play up a carefully crafted and managed corporate image, not something I’m counting on for the future of society.
>Yeah so far I don’t think Apple has done anything equivalent in importance to the Enigma code breakers
That's probably because the Enigma code breaking has been mythologized. The war would have won without it (and it mostly was on the Eastern front anyway).
That's probably because the Enigma code breaking has been mythologized. The war would have won without it (and it mostly was on the Eastern front anyway).
Okay, then replace the Enigma reference with the Manhattan Project, an operation so secret the military built a city isolated from the world for it.
Yeah, while that was even less important in winning WWII (the Germans were done for, and the Japs were just grasping at straws, uterly defeated), it was hugely important for the cold-war period, and probably forever.
It’s easy to say that in retrospect but to anyone working on it I’m sure it felt more important for the outcome of the war than being able to put 1000 songs in your pocket or whatever.
> The war would have won without it
And then without the next advantage, and then without the next one, etc.? At some point everything counts.
And then without the next advantage, and then without the next one, etc.? At some point everything counts.
I would say the creation of the iPhone was at least as impactful.
I've also heard they are very strict on what employees can and can't do in their free time. Most of the stuff is not allowed even though it's completely separate from day job from what I've heard, which keeps me away from applying at Apple.
It's the same guy who designed Alesis Micron! The best and the funniest synth there is, still have it, and I don't even play keys.
TIL.
For the no-js peeps:
I was at Apple from August 2007 to November 2010.
My job was to play with experimental hardware platforms and input technologies, and come up with new user-interface and application concepts for them. I would then design and prototype apps to demo these ideas. These concept apps were shown around internally, presumably to inspire the people who did the real work.
A few things I became known for include pervasively direct-manipulation interfaces (where users do their thing by moving and gesturing with meaningful objects, instead of relying on verb buttons and other indirect controls), new forms of creative tools and new ways of learning information, and being easily frustrated with the realities of corporate research.
I made many, many things. The ones I cared deeply about mostly didn't catch on.
I would love to show you these things -- maybe they'll inspire you instead. In the box below, I have put all of my creations that I can show publicly:
FAQ:
Q - But that box is empty! It's an empty box!
A - Yes, exactly.
Q - Oh, okay, I thought you had made some sort of mistake.
A - Yes, exactly.
I was at Apple from August 2007 to November 2010.
My job was to play with experimental hardware platforms and input technologies, and come up with new user-interface and application concepts for them. I would then design and prototype apps to demo these ideas. These concept apps were shown around internally, presumably to inspire the people who did the real work.
A few things I became known for include pervasively direct-manipulation interfaces (where users do their thing by moving and gesturing with meaningful objects, instead of relying on verb buttons and other indirect controls), new forms of creative tools and new ways of learning information, and being easily frustrated with the realities of corporate research.
I made many, many things. The ones I cared deeply about mostly didn't catch on.
I would love to show you these things -- maybe they'll inspire you instead. In the box below, I have put all of my creations that I can show publicly:
FAQ:
Q - But that box is empty! It's an empty box!
A - Yes, exactly.
Q - Oh, okay, I thought you had made some sort of mistake.
A - Yes, exactly.
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2535606
(Former Apple engineer)
It’s funny, a friend of mine who’s been jumping around tech companies and recently joined a (non-Apple) FAANG had told me that I was taking the Apple secrecy way too seriously.
It’s kind of a unspoken rule at Apple that you just don’t talk about what you worked on while you’re there, and I just normalized that kind of behavior at future ventures for better or for worse. Every former employee I’ve spoken to agreed. HR had (and I’m sure they still do) meetings almost annually showing that leaking has serious implications, from factory checkpoints (even though we’re in SWE) to prevent parts from being leaked to post-mortems on how various HW and SW leaks that end up on MacRumors.
It’s funny, a friend of mine who’s been jumping around tech companies and recently joined a (non-Apple) FAANG had told me that I was taking the Apple secrecy way too seriously.
It’s kind of a unspoken rule at Apple that you just don’t talk about what you worked on while you’re there, and I just normalized that kind of behavior at future ventures for better or for worse. Every former employee I’ve spoken to agreed. HR had (and I’m sure they still do) meetings almost annually showing that leaking has serious implications, from factory checkpoints (even though we’re in SWE) to prevent parts from being leaked to post-mortems on how various HW and SW leaks that end up on MacRumors.
Lots of comments in this thread talk about the secrecy culture at Apple, as if it's an outlier in tech.
We still don't know how Glacier works.
We still don't know how Glacier works.
Ironically, perhaps we have Apple to thank for Bret Victor (the author) going on to make all of his work post-Apple public domain, including the non-profit https://dynamicland.org
I worked at Apple in the late 90s, they wouldn't even tell me what I'd be doing during the extensive interview process. There was so much secrecy. After all the paperwork was signed, I met with the team (on a Saturday) and found out what it was and that I'd be working 7 days a week, 14 to 16 hours a day for the foreseeable future. I wasn't disappointed, but it was a really strange way to start a job.
I worked on several contracts at Apple. Since the secrecy supports Apple's success, I don't see the secrecy as an issue. It all helps pull off that "one more thing" moment.