[jjtheblunt]

It's possible they'll allow this on iOS once finer granularity logging of battery usage is pervasive, how fine is anyone's guess, so as to track down what apps, and of whatever provenance, degrade some kpi like user impression of battery life.

[mrandish]

This is about money not battery life. Apple makes billions of dollars in highly profitable revenue by cryptographically blocking users from controlling their own devices.

[jjtheblunt]

You could be right.

That said, i was an engineer for several years in Apple and primary internal concerns were battery life and its influence on user experience; the removal of Flash viability, favoring html5, is an example: profiling of Flash apps written in the wild showed code that routinely drained battery with aplomb...inexplicable to end users not also programmers.

[mrandish]

It's unsurprising that the internal narrative focused on the plausible user, product and technical issues which happen to align with sustaining the multi-billion dollar monopoly. Senior leadership isn't going to say the 'quiet part' out loud in all-hands meetings.

I also worked in a valley giant with a multi-billion dollar monopoly position being preserved in a similar way. But I was senior enough to see both sides - the divisional all-hands mtgs and (some of) the exec staff mtgs (my boss was an EVP reporting directly to the CEO). The instructive part was observing what happened in the senior staff mtgs when a serious user, product or technical issue emerged which directly conflicted with sustaining the multi-billion dollar monopoly. Even in small mtgs with just the CEO, a couple EVPs and a handful of their direct reports, I never witnessed any explicit collusion or overt manipulation. The reason is surprisingly simple, they don't need to. They can make "the right thing" happen without being so obvious - just by controlling the agenda, attendees and context and then asking the right questions, prioritizing certain concerns and selecting the right working group leader to "come back with options which balance these concerns". These EVPs didn't get to where they are by plainly speaking their mind, although they are masters of appearing to do so when it serves them. At that level, there are degrees of subtlety and multi-dimensional chess that make Machiavelli look like a toddler.

All those years of being "in the room where it happens" fairly frequently and there wasn't one moment where I thought, "Wow, if I leaked a tape recording of the last 60 seconds, somebody very important is losing their job." These people are far to experienced and skilled at this for it to be that simple. Which isn't to say there may not have been some very private conversations between only the CEO and an EVP or two where things were said explicitly - but I'm not even sure that was necessary. Frankly, the euphemistic language and context control is sufficient that it's probably easier for the them to "stay in character" all the time. In fact, I think some of them sort of believe it themselves - or at least prefer to avoid stewing on the more "unpleasant realities" of the job. Most of these people are, in their own minds, still the 'good guy' in the story they tell themselves.

[jjtheblunt]

we evidently both had very senior positions, but i came away with the impression that parts of Apple might operate differently than inner sanctum hw engineering (obviously) , though what i mentioned wasn't from some pep talks, but rather from hard data.

i think the last two sentences you wrote resonate, for sure, though!

[mrandish]

> i came away with the impression that parts of Apple might operate differently than inner sanctum hw engineering

I agree and I'm not at all questioning what you experienced. I saw similar things. In the case of Apple, it makes sense the iPhone business would prioritize issues like battery life etc and that the App Store business would prioritize maximizing their multi-billion dollar monopoly revenue stream. Within each business unit they're going to make decisions and allocate resources based on maximizing the metrics their business is judged on.

Where it gets 'interesting' is when two major business units have priorities which directly conflict - like one BU achieving a major objective requires the other BU to not achieve one of their major objectives. When those conflicts are things which directly impact tens of millions or more in revenue and are also high-visibility issues, the conflict gets elevated to the CEO in a small group mtg with both EVPs where they assesses the trade-offs on each side. Ultimately, the CEO is going to pick a 'winner' based on the overall impact to company-wide revenue and the stock price. If the issue is preserving (or losing) the app store monopoly worth billions - we can guess which side is very likely going to win. And maximum motivated reasoning will be deployed to highlight the many reasons that outcome is correct. Many of those reasons will even be legitimate :-).

[jjtheblunt]

definitely agree