At least they're consistent
Giving senior roles to people because they're available rather than a good fit.
A bit like replacing an inspirational salesman and ideas guy with the soulless man from operations and supply chain management.
Apple has entrusted consumer sales as well as the horcrux that contains its "soul" to company veteran Deirdre O'Brien, who adds the retail and online division to a job sheet that already included heading up global HR. The rejig is due to Angela Ahrendts leaving her post as senior veep of retail in April for "new personal and …
I wonder who in actuality was responsible for the poor market analysis, sales projections and pricing.
Easier question : who was not responsible? Given the breadth of such executive failures I nominate the tea boy, the janitor and night-shift security. Maybe a coder or two. They are the only ones justified in wearing a “Worn’t me” badge. Pretty much everyone else should do the mea culpa thingy.
Oh forget it. Nobody resigns in shame these days.
Sure, but to be honest, a good manager will not necessarily be a subject expert. I always thought that Jean-Louis Gassée (once of Apple) got it right when said that managers are their to serve employees. Establishing trust with employees and listening to their issues and suggestions while being able to explain (and of course) develop company strategy (the sort that doesn't depend upon "waste" or "synergies") is the key attribute.
It's a bit dated but Lou Gerstner knew fuck all about computers before he took over IBM and he didn't do a bad job.
Sure, but to be honest, a good manager will not necessarily be a subject expert.
Whilst I agree with that comment, I've NEVER seen anybody competent emerge from HR's management ranks in my fairly lengthy career. Cook is burnishing his brown-stained credentials if believes that an HR tosser is going to turn round their retail arm when somebody who really, really knows the subject can't. The problems are down to Cook and the product/price proposition.
The world's best retailer will struggle trying to sell a $1,500 device in volume when a savvy buyer can get something as good for a quarter of the price elsewhere. I can't speak for you, but I've bought a number of working cars for less than Apple think their latest iTat is worth. Faced with a choice of a shitty ten year old Peugeot or the latest iPhone, I'd still see the knackered old car as better value. Cook is like our politicians - out of touch, and out of his depth.
I can't speak for you, but I've bought a number of working cars for less than Apple think their latest iTat is worth
No need to, FWIW I'm on my second, second-hand Samsung S5 but I do have a full-fat 2016 MacBook Pro (before the stupid touch thing was introduced). I agree that the move to turn everything premium was a mistake – didn't they bring in someone for Burberry to do just that? But, obviously a lot of people are still prepared to pay a substantial premium for the perceived value of the Apple brand.
The worry for Apple has to be, that, spirals can be both vicious as well as virtuous: more suppliers are reporting big reductions in orders.
I was just making a general point about managers. Apple need ones with vision to drive innovation because even with the best branding in the world, Apple isn't going to become LVHM.
It's not the person running retail to blame but the people running engineering and the people deciding on what useful ports to remove.
Premium Apple pricing now only gets you nice design, the reliability and quality of engineering has declined massively in the name of greed and their obsession with slim devices.
Before everyone jumps on the HR angle. She was heavily involved in operations and the opening of the Apple Stores. Sounds like a really good person to head retail.
...I always viewed the transition from 'Personnel' to 'Human Resources' as a backward step, since the phrase 'Human Resources' could apply equally to a sweatshop or a Soylent Green cannery. So actually hats off to Apple for at least making a show of remembering who HR is supposed to be for.
I sit on disciplinary panels with HR etc. The number of employees (And oddly union reps) who assume HR is there to "help" is astonishing. I make a point now of stating at the start of meetings that HR are there to "ensure due process is correctly followed" and nothing more - they are essentially there to ensure that if a recommendation to fire someone is made, it can be followed through.
@AC, "the transition from 'Personnel' to 'Human Resources' as a backward step".
You're right. I've seen it said, by others of this parish, that "Personnel" comes from "Person" i.e. someone you work with; whereas "Human Resources" comes from "Resource" i.e. something you use.
That's just marketing speak for 'They have a job and we are paying them.'
Of course, if you think of them emulating Steven Paul Jobs, then the passion that they are exuding in every interaction takes on a whole new light. I would pay to go and watch Apple retail teams treat addi.. customers the way SJ treated people.
"Passion" means lots of things. It's not so long ago that it still meant "uncontrollable fury", which I honestly would pay a small ticket price to witness at an Apple Store.
But the original meaning of the word "Passion" was as a contrast to "action". It meant to be uncontrollably subjected to something unpleasant by an external power*. Actually, now I say that...
* this older meaning is why the "Passion of Jesus Christ" is so called in Christian theology.
Assumes that this move will be permanent. Being in charge of retail is a big promotion from being in charge of HR, and it doesn't make sense for one person to do both jobs. I'll bet they announce a new head of HR by April. Everyone is reading the announcement seeing it doesn't say that she is a temporary fill-in running retail, but ignoring that she might now be exactly that in her old job.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019