2007-10-26 12:46:44
How is this possible? (Score:5, Interesting)
by ShooterNeo (555040) on Thursday October 25, @08:31PM (#21122217)
How is this possible? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to google for exactly how MANY developers Microsoft has versus how many apple has....but Microsoft had at least 5000 developers that worked on Windows Vista. While they must have lowered their standards in the last few years, originally microsoft was only hiring top graduates from top schools like MIT and CMU.
They have a gigantic number of some of the best people they can buy.
So why does their stuff suck so much by comparison to a small corporation? Apple cannot afford nearly the resources Microsoft has...I wouldn't be surprised if their OS X team had 1/5 the people.
I know that skill matters...but surely the top of the class people at Microsoft are no worse than the hippies at apple?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:How is this possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Kent Recal (714863) on Thursday October 25, @09:05PM (#21122605)
It's all about the vision. And the people in charge.
Just compare Steve Jobs to Steve Ballmer (or Billy, fwiw).
Which of these personalities do you think is more
likely to design an OS that you would like?
Ofcourse it doesn't boil down to individuals but looking
at the heads of a company gives you a good idea of the
companies mindset.
Apple is "cool and hip" because the people working
there *know* what "cool and hip" is.
Microsoft is not cool and hip because, well, it is
driven by people like Steve Ballmer.
The sheer headcount, on the other hand, means
nothing in the world of software developement.
Small and well focussed (on the right goals)
teams will outperform large teams everytime.
You can read up on that in "the mythical man month"
and just about any other ressource about project
management in the software industry.
In fact, developing "good" software (by any metrics)
becomes much harder the larger your team gets.
Programming is not like selling cars. It's more
comparable to an orchestra. More instrumentalists
don't necessarily improve the result but definately
increase the effort to manage them.
Re:How is this possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
by wodgy7 (850851) on Thursday October 25, @09:33PM (#21122885)
I won't comment on the quality of the programmers -- both companies draw from similar pools -- but the way they manage those programmers is significantly different. Probably the biggest beef I have with Microsoft's management is their devotion to Jack Welch's (of General Electric management fame) idea of doing a company reorganization ("reorg") roughly every 16 months. Not everyone moves around, since certain people don't make sense to move, but there is disruption. This kind of management "theory" makes sense when everyone is viewed as unskilled, interchangeable production units, but it doesn't make sense in software where the value is in slowly acquired knowledge of the source code base, and knowledge of how to interact with everyone on the team to minimize team issues. Reorgs flush some of that away, every time. I realize they teach from Jack Welch's playbook in most MBA programs, but Microsoft needs to abandon this practice. There are other major differences between the two companies attitudes and group
dynamics as well. You really have to have worked inside one (or preferably both) to get a good comparison.
Another, more minor beef, is Microsoft's philosophy that others will put up with things that they wouldn't personally put up with. For instance, internal to Office, Clippy is known as TFC_* in function names... based on a comment from Bill Gates that "I don't want to have to deal with That F*cking Clip every time I want to print." Bill hates it, but he nevertheless still shipped it. In contrast, Jobs would never ship a feature he hated; he'd view it as a personal affront. This attitude pervades Microsoft. For instance, everyone at MS realizes the overly tiered pricing scheme is customer hostile -- they know many customers realize they're being either nickle and dimed or had -- but they still ship it because it maximizes revenue in the short term, regardless of damage to long-term company goodwill. Jobs won't dish out something he wouldn't personally put up with. Perhaps it's ego, or perhaps he understands that Apple's success depends almost entirely on goodwill. This all sounds handwavy, but it's another
major difference in the the two company philosophies.
I could spend all day comparing the two companies; it's fascinating. And no, not everything about Apple's culture is superior.