What I Learned at Apple about Making Great Products
An unsentimental approach to product development
Here is a picture of the main circuit board of the 4th generation iPad:
Let’s zoom in on the middle section of the board:
We see two Apple branded custom chips here. Did you notice the Apple logos on the two ICs are oriented in the same direction? Most customers will not see, let alone notice, this detail. But it didn’t happen by accident.
And that is the WRONG lesson to learn from Apple. This little detail does not contribute directly to customer value. Nor is it the reason reason Apple products command premium prices. The electrical engineers at Apple did not set out to design a board where logos line up.
It is important to clarify this perspective is my own and I certainly do not speak for Apple. Apple is a vast organization with many different aspects. I am only speaking from my experience as an engineering manager.
AFter over a decade at Apple, including time on the iPad team before its launch, I know this: Apple is not about indiscriminate obsession with detail. Some mistakenly believe that adopting a perverted form of perfectionism elevates them to the level of Apple's product developers. That’s getting it backwards. While attention to detail and being demanding are characteristics of good product developers, they don’t make you one.
There are numerous half-truths in product development. They are right enough to sound plausible but wrong enough to be, um, wrong. These concepts warrant further clarification:
Attention to detail. One of the board’s most critical details is invisible to the naked eye: the precise size and shape of each soldering pad, as well as the exact amount of solder used. These specifications often deviate from the component vendor’s recommendations, having been meticulously tuned by Apple engineers to enhance solder joint reliability. Such meaningful details are grounded in rigorous science and engineering, rather than mere aesthetics. Crucially, they deliver tangible value to the customer. The Apple Pencil’s pixel-perfect performance ia another example of how precision engineering translates into superior user experience.
The culture. Ensuring that no detail is overlooked is a complex endeavor, supported by theories, processes, and heuristics. One such process is Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), which I highly recommend. However, this approach boils down to a bunch of people sitting around a table, brainstorming different ways things can go wrong. For this to be effective, every team member must not only be proficient in their roles but also possess a strong sense of ownership. This ownership fosters an environment where individuals hold each other to high standards and engage in candid, rigorous discussions.
A cornerstone of Apple’s culture is the concept of the Directly Responsible Individual (DRI). This principle assigns clear ownership of each issue to a specific person, who is simultaneously accountable and empowered to make decisions. It’s a culture of transparency and responsibility that is far from mere window dressing; it reflects the collective behavior and ethos of the team. I have witnessed firsthand how new hires are often transformed into high performers by this culture.
Don't waste money on artificial team building events. The most effective team-building activity is collaborating to solve a difficult problem. The second best? Spontaneous gatherings to vent about the boss.
Hiring. There is no secret formula for hiring the right people, and certainly no silver bullet that guarantees success. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and a one-hour interview is a notoriously unreliable way to assess a candidate. Poor hires typically don’t last long. Good people, although may initially be taken aback by the pressure and high standards, often come to appreciate that the culture is designed to help them reach their full potential.
The only advice I can offer, aside from recommending the excellent book The Effective Hiring Manager by the inimitable Mark Horstman, is to carefully manage the size of your team. It’s crucial to ensure that new hires do not undermine the culture you’ve worked hard to build. While it’s unrealistic to expect perfect hires every time, you can strive to create an environment that elevates everyone to their best selves.
Team growth, however, is like a flywheel—it can easily gain momentum independent of business needs when you are not paying attentioin. Middle managers are particularly prone to the misconception that a larger team equates to greater power and status. It’s up to upper management to disabuse them of that notion.
Focus. A hallmark of well-managed growth is that you are consistently short of manpower. This constraint forces a product development team to sharpen its focus, which is essential for success. Thre things must be understood about focus:
- Focus involves sacrifice: True focus doesn’t mean simply skipping tasks you don’t want to do. It requires you to give up something that you really want to do. This is perhaps the hardest aspect of focus—saying no to promising ideas or projects that are not the absolute priority.
- Focus requires courage, not just willpower: It’s not enough to resist distractions; you also need the courage to make tough decisions and let go of projects that don’t align with your core objectives. Many companies struggle with this, clinging to everything out of fear of missing out. The courage, in this context, comes from a depp understanding of what you are capable of and what you are trying to achieve.
- High standards simplify focus: When your standards are high, focus becomes easier because there are fewer ideas that truly meet the bar. Steve Jobs exemplified this when he famously streamlined Apple’s product line upon his return, recognizing that only a handful of products were worth pursuing. By narrowing the focus, he ensured that Apple’s resources were concentrated on those that could truly excel.
In essence, focus is about making deliberate choices, informed by a clear understanding of your goals and underpinned by uncompromising standards.
Innovation. Innovations are rarely the result of a sudden flash of brilliance. The celebrated Eureka moment, after all, only resolved a minor problem. True innovation in modern technology demands far more: deep scientific knowledge, exceptional engineering resources, relentless hard work, perseverance, and, occasionally, a spark of inspiration.
At its core, innovation is built on the back of meticulous and often grinding engineering work. Take, for example, Apple’s M1 chip—a breakthrough that was years in the making. The development process was neither dramatic nor glamorous. Instead, it was the result of countless small victories accumulated over time. The final product, though revolutionary, stands as a testament to sustained effort and incremental progress rather than a single moment of genius.
Empathy. Good product design begins with empathy for the customer—genuinely understanding their world and their problems. But be careful: don't let your customers design your products. While customer feedback is invaluable, they often lack the technical expertise and the commitment necessary to create truly effective designs.
Take the iPhone as an example. It wasn’t the first smartphone with a touchscreen. Before its debut, I owned an HP iPAQ, a touchscreen smartphone running embedded Windows. To operate it, you had to hit a tiny section of the screen with a stylus to access the start button. I remember being constantly worried about losing that stylus. A typical user might suggest shipping the device with a backup stylus as a solution. But when the iPhone introduced multi-touch technology, it eliminated the need for a stylus entirely. That was a transcendent design solution that addressed the core problem, not just the symptoms.
Similarly, meal tracking is a problem with many existing, but often frustrating, solutions. The key isn’t just to build a better user interface; it’s to rethink the problem entirely—much like how a car isn’t just a faster horse. By fundamentally addressing the underlying issues, you can create solutions that truly transform the user experience.
Passion. Joe Torrey once remarked, “Winning created chemistry, as opposed to the other way around. I have been on a lot of friendly teams that couldn’t win. Trust me.” The lesson here is clear: sustained success fosters team passion, not the other way around. If your team continues to ship successful products, enthusiasm will naturally follow. However, too much excitement about an idea before it’s validated by the market can be perilous. Passion, while valuable, is not a prerequisite for a strong product team. What you truly need are individuals who can collaborate effectively, make rational decisions, and consistently deliver results.
Process. Effective engineering teams rely on processes, and when none exist, they create them. Processes, at their core, are simply codified best practices. However, it’s important to recognize that best practices are not infallible; there are always exceptions that prove the rule.Sooner or later you will make a mistake if you follow a process you do not understand.
Processes are tools that help good engineers work more efficiently, but they do not make bad engineers good. An averae idiot can screw up the process designed by the most brilliant minds. Ultimately, the value of a process lies in the hands of those who implement it.
The bad news is that everything mentioned so far amounts to little more than a collection of sound bites. While they might make for an entertaining read, they fall short of offering a comprehensive system for developing a successful product. The good news, however, is that this process is not an unfathomable mystery. The most effective way to learn is by observing and working within a team that is already excelling in this area.
Of course, I cannot dissect Apple’s development process without breaching proprietary information, but I can share how I’ve applied similar principles in my own projects. Below are a couple of examples that illustrate a small part of my approach to research and development.