苹果公司的组织的十字路口

Apple is unique, and I mean that objectively.

暂时忘记产品,合理的人可以不同意撇开财务结果,当然是前所未有的而忽略你的人知道这么好:人们喜欢强尼杰夫·威廉姆斯或者菲尔席勒,和下面的许多有才华的员工相反,苹果公司的结构——那些工人对齐的方式来创建这些产品驱动这些异常结果——是不同于几乎所有大公司同行。

单一组织形式

Apple employs what is known as a “unitary organizational form” — U-form for short — which is also known as a “functional organization.” In broad strokes, a U-form organization is organized around expertise, not products: in the case of Apple, that means design is one group (under Ive), product marketing is another (under Schiller), and operations a third (under Williams, who is also Chief Operating Officer)其他专业领域由成员代表Apple的执行团队包括软件工程(Craig Federighi)、硬件工程(丹·里奇奥)和硬件技术(约翰尼Srouji)。

关于该清单最引人注目的是它的作用包括:单词iPhone,iPad的,苹果电脑,或苹果的产品而不是削减整个组织的方式执行协调不同团队中:

功能

The benefits of this approach are well-known at this point, and captured in the name itself: “unitary” is a synonym for “integrated”首席执行官蒂姆·库克(Tim Cook)多次赞扬苹果创造出能够提供产品的综合产品的能力优秀的用户体验,前首席执行官史蒂夫乔布斯明确表示他的最后一个主题演讲之一要做到这一点需要的不仅仅是一厢情愿的想法:

(ipad)后PC设备,需要比个人电脑更直观和更容易使用,软件和硬件和应用程序需要交织在一个无缝的方式甚至比他们在电脑我们认为我们拥有合适的架构,而不仅仅是硅片,但在我们的企业中,建立这类产品。

This is why the very first thing that Jobs did when he returned to Apple, even before he famously pared the product line down, was to reorganize the company functionally; then again, perhaps the distinction is meaningless — a functional organization and a simplified product line go hand-in-hand.

发明多部门表格的原因

回到2013年,当微软公司重组史蒂夫·鲍尔默(Steve Ballmer)(更)功能,我批评此举在一篇名为为什么微软的重组是一个坏主意;1作为一个介绍我描述了“multi-divisional形式”——M-form或部门组织——是:

着名的化学公司杜邦实际上是建立在火药上的DuPont成立于19世纪初,直到20世纪初,当时皮埃尔·杜邦(Pierre DuPont)对公司进行现代化和组织,主要负责销售和制造业务。这个结构很好地服务于杜邦,特别是在第一次世界大战中,为了应对杜邦公司垂直整合其供应链的压倒性需求,并成长为世界上最大的公司之一。

战争结束后,杜邦公司需要多样化,油漆,涉及类似的复合火药,是他们选择关注的地区然而,尽管杜邦可能是美国最专业的公司,但损失飙升最终,销售和生产之间的脱节的根本原因,和治疗是一个新的组织在两个单独的火药和油漆部门。

The deeper details of Dupont are quite interesting, and worth getting into: in short, the entire reason Dupont started making paint was that the manufacturing process was very similar to gunpowder; the problem is that gunpowder sold on a tonnage basis to huge buyers (like the army), while paint was sold to individual customers in stores该产品可能非常相似,但商业模式完全不同The end result was that Dupont was using a sales and marketing organization that was built around selling to large customers to get their paint into retail stores, and it was massively inefficient; the more paint Dupont sold, the more money they lost.

The solution was, as noted in the excerpt, divisions organized around gunpowder and paint, each with their own sales and marketing teams, their own manufacturing heads, and their own quasi-CEOs with their own profit-and-loss responsibilities而且,正如您可能怀疑的那样,这是一次巨大的成功,此后几乎每个大型组织都被复制了。

当然,除了苹果。

苹果公司的服务

一月,在他们的2016年第一季度财报电话准备讲话的苹果公司首席执行长库克(Tim Cook)和首席财务官卢卡大音乐家了令人惊讶的转:大量的时间是花了,苹果是一个服务公司库克说:

特别是在经济不确定的时期,我们认为重要的是要认识到Apple的大部分收入会随着时间的推移而重现......我们收入的增长部分直接由我们现有的安装基础驱动由于我们的客户非常满意和参与,他们会花费大量时间在他们的设备上并购买应用,内容和其他服务。

Maestri更重要的是 - 这是他口中的第一句话:

每个季度,我们报告结果为我们的服务类别,其中包括收入从iTunes App Store,梦,iCloud,苹果支付、许可、和其他物品今天,我们想强调经济增长的主要动力在这一类,我们总结了我们的三页补充材料。

,补充材料在这里甚至它存在的事实强调了苹果对这种叙述的严肃态度坦白说,他们有理由:尽管iPhone仍在一个非常强大的立场,我相信下个财年恢复增长,不温不火的增长将远远超过它是日期:所有的“唾手可得”——新的市场,新的航空公司,新屏幕尺寸了,真正的苹果竞争仍然很好的iphone顾客已经有了为此,从这些先前存在的客户那里赚取越来越多的钱是苹果公司发展的自然下一步。

The problem for Apple is that while iPhones may be gunpowder — the growth was certainly explosive! — services are paint而且,就像杜邦了解到类似的制造过程没有导致类似的商业模式一样,我的脑海中的证据非常清楚,拥有iPhone的客户并不意味着苹果必须有能力为这些客户提供引人注目的服务至少目前还没有。

设备和服务之间的区别

我建议一开始的这一块客观地声称,苹果是独一无二的你需要超越产品,但事实上我相信苹果的产品——手机无论如何优越,特别是如果你重视工业设计的细节,UI构建质量和小细节就像滚动和响应能力看起来很简单但是很难以得到正确的。2坦率地说,这并不奇怪,苹果擅长这些东西确切上面列出的原因:公司设计生产集成设备的一切,不要牺牲完美为了模块化。

问题在于,创建这些类似珠宝的设备所做的一切都与擅长服务有关:

  • 你只有一次机会得到一个设备,所以苹果的内部节奏和流程都是围绕提供尽可能完美的一个产品在一个特定的时刻。

    Services, on the other hand, which are subject to an effectively infinite number of variables ranging from bandwidth to device capability to hacking attempts to data integrity to power outages — the list goes on and on — can never be perfect; the ideal go-to-market is releasing a minimum viable product that is engineered for resiliency and then updated multiple times a week if not multiple times a day节奏和过程与构建出色设备所需的完全相反。

  • As Apple is happy to tell you, a superior experience on a device comes from integration: the software can be tailored to the hardware, all the way down to the component level; this is why Apple designs their own system-on-a-chip hand-in-hand with iOS但是,只有在存在静态端点时才能实现这种程度的集成:即向公众销售的设备。

    然而,对于有机和迭代开发的服务,集成方法是行不通的:你不能每天多次从头开始构建所有东西相反,一个有效的组服务模块化的极端:不同的能力提前一起像乐高积木提供不同类型的经验,和每一个功能可以在不影响最终产品的迭代。

  • 智能手机是这样的人的生活的一个重要组成部分,结合物理对象可以有额外的消费者利益地位,使苹果出售每个iPhone与大量的利润However, not everyone values smartphones that much, or has the willingness to pay, which means Apple has to be ok with not serving the entire market; after all, to make a single iPhone costs money that has to be made up for in the purchase price.

    但是,服务具有非常不同的商业模式首先,有珍贵的证据消费者愿意支付超过名义金额服务(如果!),这意味着通过体积最有利可图的服务赚钱Secondly, services are effectively free on a marginal basis; the real costs are fixed, which means that services business have a strong economic imperative to reach as many people as possible.

这些差异的根本原因苹果挣扎与服务:这并不是说公司无能,而是公司杰出的——杰出的制造设备,需要完全不同的业务结构和激励。

苹果公司的服务问题

上周晚些时候消息爆出Apple正考虑加入搜索广告的应用商店我昨天为什么我认为详细这不是什么大不了的事 对于这个行业比主张或批评者相信,但我确实认为这是一个非常大不了是对苹果说:即该公司认真构建其服务业务。

The question, though, is how serious; App Store search ads will be a relatively easy thing to implement, just as the App Store itself was in many respects an obvious — yet still revolutionary — addition to the iPhone.3不过值得注意的是,应用商店通常运行多糟糕:苹果并不是,我估计,推导近的战略价值应该从应用程序商店iPhone和iPad应该日益复杂和高级干部的高性能应用程序选择另一个平台的想法不可思议,但不幸的是,这样的应用程序没有商业模式因为App Store政策

Apple Music is in worse shape: the extent to which the product is succeeding is largely due to its tie-in with Apple’s hardware; however, were the service held to the same ease-of-use, fit-and-finish, and profitability standards of said hardware there would be panic in Cupertino.

Cloud services, meanwhile, are still less reliable than Apple’s competition, and the integration — Apple’s supposed strength! — with Apple’s software is at best a source of irritation and at worst very worrisome from a security perspective: little things like constantly being prompted to enter one’s password are not only annoying but also corrosive when it comes to是一种健康的怀疑什么分享你的生活的关键。

在所有这些情况下的问题是,苹果根本没有设置组织上excel在这些领域:

  • 苹果值集成和完美,这导致太多的服务被泛滥的,因此更难迭代或重用
  • 服务版本(和软件)不是迭代而是与硬件版本
  • Apple’s focus on secrecy means many teams end up building new services from scratch instead of reusing components

所有这些情况下的根本问题是缺乏问责制:只要iPhone保持资金流动和俘虏客户的到来,Apple的服务是否尽可能好,这并不重要。人们仍然会使用应用商店,苹果音乐,iCloud,因为iPhone非常好。

他们不会做什么,不过,是用苹果:苹果的单一视觉的延伸(和潜在问题的另一个表现我的批判App Store)是一个斗争的有效合作,特别是巨大的生态系统受激励,不是幕后交易Apple Pay可能是实现巨大价值的基础,但是苹果并不是做繁重工作让它离开地面(iMessage适合在这里)。

与HomeKit可以看到相同的模式,或Siri:亚马逊回声安静地接管家庭自动化市场with a simple API that is easy-to-integrate with and easy-to-understand; Apple, meanwhile, has yet to announce a Siri API even as it struggles to deliver natural language interaction that is simply not what the company is good at.

当您考虑Apple Watch时,这两个例子都更令人担忧:Watch将真正实现其价值当它变得与环境互动的关键; getting there, though, means nailing services, partnerships, and APIs that are good, not perfect.

Apple如何在服务中使用Excel

The solution to all these problems — and the key to Apple actually delivering on its services vision — is to start with the question of accountability and work backwards: Apple’s services need to be separated from the devices that are core to the company, and the managers of those services need to be held accountable via dollars and cents.

最后一点肯定是苹果的诅咒:该公司着名的只有一个损益4——它提供了华尔街,我完全同意,是苹果的成功的基础取消iPod高级副总裁的职位使得它变得更加容易过时的它与iPhone,事实上没有高级副总裁的Mac推出iPad更容易苹果公司表现出的团结的目的,只有真正与一个统一的组织,可能这就是为什么恢复结构是乔布斯的比赛结束后的第一步。

但是,乔布斯的下一步行动削减了产品线,不仅关注的原因和客户困惑:事实是,统一组织不扩展到不同的商业模式,如果苹果真的是认真服务,相对便宜但功能齐全的iPhone SE的存在表明,他们需要遵循杜邦的例子。

Apple will not fix the services it already has, or deliver on the promise of the services its hardware might yet enable, unless a new kind of organization is built around these services that has a fundamentally different structure, different incentives, and different rhythms from Apple’s device teamsYou don’t make great products because you want to make great products; you make great products by creating the conditions where great products can be produced.

Apple的杜邦时刻

To be honest, I’m not sure Apple has it in them; indeed, Dupont nearly didn’t听听这些段落理查德·特德的书否认并看看他们是否熟悉:

Irenee杜邦不喜欢这个提议组织公司部门,尽管它来自他的人——经验丰富的高管它违反了“专业化原则”,这为杜邦提供了很好的服务Irenee仍执着于功能,而不是产品专业化的想法……

中层管理——男人最接近他们的问题和寻求切实可行的解决方案——感觉的一种方式最高管理层 - 创建了现代杜邦公司,并看到创造成长为无法想象的财富和规模 - 感受到另一个......

四年前,库克告诉高盛的投资会议:

它们不是我们分开[盈利和亏损]的事情,因为我们不这样做 - 我们不相信我们管理公司在顶部,只有一个[盈利和亏损],不要担心iCloud团队赚钱和Siri团队赚钱我们希望有一个很好的客户体验,我们认为在这个级别测量所有这些东西永远不会实现这样的事情......

Apple是这家独特的公司,您无法复制独特的文化而且我不会亲眼目睹或允许它慢慢消失,因为我深深地相信它史蒂夫烤在我们所有人,多年来,该公司应该围绕着伟大的产品,我们应该保持非常专注于一些事情而不是尝试做这么多,我们什么都没做。

与许多人不同,我并不担心苹果会销售多种iPhone,iPad等产品扩展到变化仅仅是金钱和经验的问题,而苹果公司也是如此但是,服务是一个根本不同的问题,需要一个根本不同的组织如果苹果是认真服务,那么库克的承诺,苹果会一直“非常关注”是一个空,和坚持一个单一类型的组织结构的变化提高苹果质量的积极影响。6

泰德洛总结说:

它是非常困难的在一个大公司带来改变有人说,领导力包括利用最少的问题来创造最大的积极变化按照这个标准,杜邦表现不错,但它本可以做得更好只有当公司在灾难的边缘,在危机中由其历史上最糟糕的一年,是它能够协调,昨天的结构作为一个障碍对而非大道向明天的策略。

Something has to give: either what makes Apple Apple, or Apple’s newfound ambitions; the measure of Cook’s leadership will be how long it takes for him to stop straddling the fence.

  1. 如果您对此主题感兴趣,还可以阅读后续内容:功能组织的不可思议的山谷[↩︎]
  2. If you disagree, that’s ok! I also believe that if you value things like flexibility and integration with services — which I’m getting to — that Android phones (which I own and use regularly) are better; furthermore, I am well aware of and have written extensively about what I and many others perceive as Apple’s declining software quality请容忍我[↩︎]
  3. 澄清一下实现of the App Store was brilliant; the idea of allowing 3rd-party apps was obvious [↩︎]
  4. 损益,衡量部门经理的指标[↩︎]
  5. 托尼法德尔左(据报道,不是努力让他)后输给了iPhone, Scott Forstall的愿景,据说苹果没有产品为中心高管成员自[↩︎]
  6. 需要注意的一件重要事项是:Apple的零售部门a separate division with its own organizational structure and own P&L; Ron Johnson knew that was necessary to make the division work [↩︎]