6 ms·

I worked at Apple relatively briefly, in a lead role on an Important Project that required its own form to be disclosed on it (besides the general agreement you

by skuhn 4y ago

I worked at Apple relatively briefly, in a lead role on an Important Project that required its own form to be disclosed on it (besides the general agreement you sign to begin employment). A truly toxic work environment that I couldn't get out of fast enough once I shipped the project. All kinds of projects at Apple have their own disclosure forms, and you are only given one to sign if it's deemed necessary to your work. My responsibilities on this project didn't entitle me to be disclosed on it, which led to all manner of hilariously frustrating guessing games as I tried to deliver on the requirements without actually being told what they were. Conversations regularly went like this: "I can't tell you that that approach won't satisfy the requirements, but I would think twice if I were you." Ultimately I think that I puzzled out what was needed and successfully delivered it, but the method was pure madness. This wasn't even some new silver gadget launch, it was an infrastructure component to a future product launch down the road. Yet everything and anything can be given the top secret treatment. Why is that? Running a disclosure-required project is prestigious. Being disclosed on projects is a badge of honor, almost even a high score board, and not being disclosed is used as a weapon in big or small ways. Anything that Apple manages to ship (in my experience) is in spite of their corporate culture, not because of it.

urthor 4y ago
Keep in mind this attitude makes total sense to hardware engineers. The hardware business is... Let's just say that the difficulties you face definitely exist for hardware engineers. But, difficulties involving negotiations plus recalcitrant South Korean factory owners are WORSE. In "South Korean factory owner negotiations," secrecy is paramount. Particularly if said South Korean factory owner is the biggest supplier of iPhone screens. And also makes an entire line of competitor phones to your products. Apple's CEO, COO and "head of services" all have degrees from Duke University and 30 year careers in supply chain management. The company is widely regarded as being run by a Gang of 4, those 3 plus the general counsel. From the outside, Apple is very much a hardware company that knows nothing about software. The software is only good because Mac fans join the company and slave hard enough to make it that way.
- jlarocco 4y ago
  > The software is only good because Mac fans join the company and slave hard enough to make it that way. The software hasn't been good for years now.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Compared to what? Android? windows? Linux?
- skuhn 4y ago
  I agree that there is an element of logic in the process, but I also think that it's being done today to a large extent because "this is how we do things at Apple" rather than because it fits the needs of that particular project. To your example, imagine that the full-time Apple employee responsible for negotiating with that SK factory owner also doesn't know that Apple wants the factory to produce iPhone screens. Just go sign a factory that satisfies our hundreds of requirements, none of which you know, and by the way we need it in a month and everyone else knows what is required but they can't / won't tell you. There is just no way to get the best results when you operate that way internally.
  - urthor 4y ago
    Yes, absolutely. Keep in mind as well, all corporate policies follow a normal distribution. Most of the time, I find corporations never aim for 90th percentile high performance. Perfect is the enemy of cost effective. They want "works pretty well 80% of the time. And the 20% that's balls up, make sure it's not so bad." In your case I suspect the reason is they think "too much secrecy" has much less downside than "too little secrecy." Now, whether that's incompetence or malice, we can never know. But those are the gears turning in the head of the Director/VP who's classifying these projects.
    - skuhn 4y ago
      You're exactly right that companies don't want pure efficiency, and they shouldn't -- there will always be competing priorities to be weighed. Here's the rub for me, in this particular role at this particular time in this particular company: the workload was extremely heavy, the deadlines were extremely unrealistic, the threat of failure was extreme (up to and including terminating the entire org for failure to meet objectives), and yet it must be done blindfolded and with both hands tied behind our backs. I'm sure it isn't always like that at Apple, but that was toxic and it contributed to all sorts of toxic behaviors throughout the org. It's no wonder to me that this behavior leads to burnout across the company.
buildbot 4y ago
Don’t most most big tech companies have these? At Microsoft it is pretty common for most people to be in a few “tents” (project specific NDAs). What is more rare are agreements _outside_ the in place system…
- changoplatanero 4y ago
  At fb/google the code for almost all projects is in one giant open repo that any engineer can browse.
  - amir734jj 4y ago
    But good luck figuring out how that code works. Disclosure I work at Microsoft and I work with ropes with millions of lines of code.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      I think the best skill I learned at Google was figuring out how other people's code works. You read the documentation, and then you make some RPC. It doesn't work as documented. You go read the other service's logs and see an error message, but it doesn't make any sense. You search the codebase for that error message. You find that the super deprecated do not include field is mandatory; it's sent to some other service that thinks it's important. 10 minutes later, you fix your code, the RPC works, and you're on to the next thing. No meetings, no calls, no emails, no time zone coordination, no bugs languishing in some queue that you're not even sure it's the right one... just a solution! I was really surprised how uncommon this is outside of Google. People will hit an issue with a library, file a bug, and just sit there blocked without ever opening up the malfunctioning code and reading through it. Why turn a one player game into a multiplayer game unless you really have to? Reading code is what you do for a living! Like anything, it's a skill that you need to develop, but it's one that will make you really productive.
      - kqr 4y ago
        I find this difference also between people who grew up on open source vs proprietary software. I'm nervous about running in production software I can't open up and look at how it works under the hood. I often use that ability to understand my systems better. Some people just don't care about that. They're used to paying a support agreement and opening a ticket or calling a support rep instead. I will never get it but clearly that's how some people like to, or are at least used to, operate.
menzoic 4y ago
I wonder if Zero Knowledge Proofs can help this situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Why would it?
kanbara 4y ago
lots of stuff isn't disclosed that isn't important. sure some things may be secret or require that not everyone can be added but that's the same as top secret projects. it's not toxic in and of itself. i think there are a lot of toxic teams but not every team and not every org are that way. if you can't get disclosed on something that you manage then you have some toxic issues but i wouldn't shit on the entire concept because of that, i would question why the org and company are that way as a whole and fix the root issues
flatiron 4y ago
I’ve been “ultra violet” on a bunch of projects there and it’s more hassle than it’s worth. I too was very happy when I left. Even though I met a ton of wonderful and brilliant people the company itself is insufferable.
marcinzm 4y ago
>Anything that Apple manages to ship (in my experience) is in spite of their corporate culture, not because of it. You can say this about probably every large company out there and yet in the end they deliver. The saying "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" applies to corporate cultures as well imho. Once the target becomes to optimize against the culture then the culture ceases to be a good culture. In some ways I can see secrecy diluting the usual backstabbing politics of larger corporations since different groups lack as much information with which to wage such politics against each other.
birdyrooster 4y ago
I’m disclosed on many many projects at the fruit company and I don’t think there is any prestigiousness. What happened to you is super super rare and that’s what makes it entertaining to read about.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I'm not sure. There was a time certainly, when Jobs was alive, where the big bonuses and options grants went to the "disclosure circle".
- closedloop129 4y ago
  To me as an outsider, this sounds like the Apple pendent to white privilege. I don't really want to doubt your experience but how do you know that there is no prestigiousness when you seem to be in a position with an abundance of disclosures?
  - birdyrooster 4y ago
    Maybe there is this prestige somewhere in Apple, like the people who work at Apple Park are isolated from the rest of us, but I am such a pleb that I never got the memo. Almost everyone has to be disclosed on stuff to work at all.
raverbashing 4y ago
It's ironic when they talk about "office collaboration" and "bumping into colleagues" but in reality you can't even talk about what you're doing to most (internal) people
- bombcar 4y ago
  I take that to mean that “office collaboration” is letting people know what they need to know “off the record” and you don’t want any chat logs showing it.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Apple seems to have a very strange way of doing things when it comes to secrecy. When I was working for the defense industry, we would just vet people more extensively than needed to give us some margins and while things were on a need to know basis, you would never have been impaired on requirements like that, it’s just too costly. You have be very rich to be that inefficient.

by skuhn 4y ago

urthor 4y ago

Keep in mind this attitude makes total sense to hardware engineers. The hardware business is... Let's just say that the difficulties you face definitely exist for hardware engineers. But, difficulties involving negotiations plus recalcitrant South Korean factory owners are WORSE. In "South Korean factory owner negotiations," secrecy is paramount. Particularly if said South Korean factory owner is the biggest supplier of iPhone screens. And also makes an entire line of competitor phones to your products. Apple's CEO, COO and "head of services" all have degrees from Duke University and 30 year careers in supply chain management. The company is widely regarded as being run by a Gang of 4, those 3 plus the general counsel. From the outside, Apple is very much a hardware company that knows nothing about software. The software is only good because Mac fans join the company and slave hard enough to make it that way.

jlarocco 4y ago
> The software is only good because Mac fans join the company and slave hard enough to make it that way. The software hasn't been good for years now.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Compared to what? Android? windows? Linux?
skuhn 4y ago
I agree that there is an element of logic in the process, but I also think that it's being done today to a large extent because "this is how we do things at Apple" rather than because it fits the needs of that particular project. To your example, imagine that the full-time Apple employee responsible for negotiating with that SK factory owner also doesn't know that Apple wants the factory to produce iPhone screens. Just go sign a factory that satisfies our hundreds of requirements, none of which you know, and by the way we need it in a month and everyone else knows what is required but they can't / won't tell you. There is just no way to get the best results when you operate that way internally.
- urthor 4y ago
  Yes, absolutely. Keep in mind as well, all corporate policies follow a normal distribution. Most of the time, I find corporations never aim for 90th percentile high performance. Perfect is the enemy of cost effective. They want "works pretty well 80% of the time. And the 20% that's balls up, make sure it's not so bad." In your case I suspect the reason is they think "too much secrecy" has much less downside than "too little secrecy." Now, whether that's incompetence or malice, we can never know. But those are the gears turning in the head of the Director/VP who's classifying these projects.
  - skuhn 4y ago
    You're exactly right that companies don't want pure efficiency, and they shouldn't -- there will always be competing priorities to be weighed. Here's the rub for me, in this particular role at this particular time in this particular company: the workload was extremely heavy, the deadlines were extremely unrealistic, the threat of failure was extreme (up to and including terminating the entire org for failure to meet objectives), and yet it must be done blindfolded and with both hands tied behind our backs. I'm sure it isn't always like that at Apple, but that was toxic and it contributed to all sorts of toxic behaviors throughout the org. It's no wonder to me that this behavior leads to burnout across the company.

buildbot 4y ago

Don’t most most big tech companies have these? At Microsoft it is pretty common for most people to be in a few “tents” (project specific NDAs). What is more rare are agreements _outside_ the in place system…

changoplatanero 4y ago
At fb/google the code for almost all projects is in one giant open repo that any engineer can browse.
- amir734jj 4y ago
  But good luck figuring out how that code works. Disclosure I work at Microsoft and I work with ropes with millions of lines of code.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    I think the best skill I learned at Google was figuring out how other people's code works. You read the documentation, and then you make some RPC. It doesn't work as documented. You go read the other service's logs and see an error message, but it doesn't make any sense. You search the codebase for that error message. You find that the super deprecated do not include field is mandatory; it's sent to some other service that thinks it's important. 10 minutes later, you fix your code, the RPC works, and you're on to the next thing. No meetings, no calls, no emails, no time zone coordination, no bugs languishing in some queue that you're not even sure it's the right one... just a solution! I was really surprised how uncommon this is outside of Google. People will hit an issue with a library, file a bug, and just sit there blocked without ever opening up the malfunctioning code and reading through it. Why turn a one player game into a multiplayer game unless you really have to? Reading code is what you do for a living! Like anything, it's a skill that you need to develop, but it's one that will make you really productive.
    - kqr 4y ago
      I find this difference also between people who grew up on open source vs proprietary software. I'm nervous about running in production software I can't open up and look at how it works under the hood. I often use that ability to understand my systems better. Some people just don't care about that. They're used to paying a support agreement and opening a ticket or calling a support rep instead. I will never get it but clearly that's how some people like to, or are at least used to, operate.

menzoic 4y ago

I wonder if Zero Knowledge Proofs can help this situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

charcircuit 4y ago
Why would it?

kanbara 4y ago

lots of stuff isn't disclosed that isn't important. sure some things may be secret or require that not everyone can be added but that's the same as top secret projects. it's not toxic in and of itself. i think there are a lot of toxic teams but not every team and not every org are that way. if you can't get disclosed on something that you manage then you have some toxic issues but i wouldn't shit on the entire concept because of that, i would question why the org and company are that way as a whole and fix the root issues

flatiron 4y ago

I’ve been “ultra violet” on a bunch of projects there and it’s more hassle than it’s worth. I too was very happy when I left. Even though I met a ton of wonderful and brilliant people the company itself is insufferable.

marcinzm 4y ago

>Anything that Apple manages to ship (in my experience) is in spite of their corporate culture, not because of it. You can say this about probably every large company out there and yet in the end they deliver. The saying "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" applies to corporate cultures as well imho. Once the target becomes to optimize against the culture then the culture ceases to be a good culture. In some ways I can see secrecy diluting the usual backstabbing politics of larger corporations since different groups lack as much information with which to wage such politics against each other.

birdyrooster 4y ago

I’m disclosed on many many projects at the fruit company and I don’t think there is any prestigiousness. What happened to you is super super rare and that’s what makes it entertaining to read about.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
I'm not sure. There was a time certainly, when Jobs was alive, where the big bonuses and options grants went to the "disclosure circle".
closedloop129 4y ago
To me as an outsider, this sounds like the Apple pendent to white privilege. I don't really want to doubt your experience but how do you know that there is no prestigiousness when you seem to be in a position with an abundance of disclosures?
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  Maybe there is this prestige somewhere in Apple, like the people who work at Apple Park are isolated from the rest of us, but I am such a pleb that I never got the memo. Almost everyone has to be disclosed on stuff to work at all.

raverbashing 4y ago

It's ironic when they talk about "office collaboration" and "bumping into colleagues" but in reality you can't even talk about what you're doing to most (internal) people

bombcar 4y ago
I take that to mean that “office collaboration” is letting people know what they need to know “off the record” and you don’t want any chat logs showing it.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

Apple seems to have a very strange way of doing things when it comes to secrecy. When I was working for the defense industry, we would just vet people more extensively than needed to give us some margins and while things were on a need to know basis, you would never have been impaired on requirements like that, it’s just too costly. You have be very rich to be that inefficient.