Does anyone track the apple criticism for the ipod, the iphone, the watch etc etc?
Apple takes some risks, not everyone is fan, it costs a lot, but they have the money to burn, I don't get why they aren't allowed to try this stuff out.
I'm a fan of two monitors, my main horizontal (though I got one with much more vertical resolution than most 4:3), and one in portrait somewhat to the side.
So many big wins. I can do a zoom screen share on my main window and have notes, private stuff on the side window, I can read documents that often are vertically formatted on the side window.
I do a fair bit of comparing type work where I need a reference index doc on the side, then I got through the individual docs for tieback on the main.
It's game changing to have multiple monitors and particularly have one portrait and one vertical.
My immediate thought was working on a flight. This guy is like he's got some big curved monitor on his flight. No he doesn't, he's hunched over a laptop screen.
If I could work on a flight on a big screen I'd be thrilled. I really don't like the ergonomics of hunching over a laptop screen.
Techcrunch concluded "The price reveal turned any ‘would buy’ in the room into a ‘definitely not’ without hesitation."
Anyways, bookmark the threads of folks calling an Apple product dead on arrival for a revisit in a few years.
The ipod, the iphone, the watch, the airpods... they've had a pretty good record and almost all these have had harsh criticism out the gate (while then going on to absolutely PRINT money for apple).
Apple is sitting on lots of cash and investment with operating cash flow of something like another $100B a year? Why aren't they allowed to take some risks on products like this. Facebook certainly has burnt billions in a similar space.
Totally not a problem. If you are in the f-off frame of mind then probably for the best!
You won't be pushed that hard for an exit interview if it was pretty clearly not a good fit. Some of these transitions are a relief for all concerned (employee AND manager).
If a manager has someone with leadership / significant upside potential I do think a discussion is worth doing if possible.
As someone who has done exit interviews on both sides some quick notes:
1) I would dial back dramatic sweeping criticism. Now is not the time to relitigate every grievance, claim doom will befall company etc.
2) Treat it as any other feedback cycle. Here's what was working well, here some areas I might look at improving. Keep it light and friendly.
3) Do a slight "I" perspective. I'm moving for higher pay and to have a bit of a bigger role / influence on decisions etc. I'm moving in part because progression options were unclear to me. I'm moving in part to be able to do a masters program with an EAP program, start a retirement plan match (401K) etc.
I had great references from all my former employers AND I did the exit interviews they wanted. They were friendly.
I left one very very cushy job, did a very friendly exit interview, they hired me back on as a consultant at x times my normal rate. It really worked out better. I'd had a split reporting structure internally (nightmare), and when I came back consulting each project had a clear "customer" I could work with / manage against. Everyone was happier. When I left I just said, One area that was tricky for me was the split reporting structure which made it harder to prioritize my work. When I consulted I had a point of contact clearly defined.
Apple takes some risks, not everyone is fan, it costs a lot, but they have the money to burn, I don't get why they aren't allowed to try this stuff out.