Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

>Microsoft conquered the world with closed offices. You can find anecdotes either way.

And to your point about anecdotes supporting either narrative: Microsoft was defeated by open-office search company (Google vs Bing), defeated by open-office smartphone company (Apple iPhone vs Windows Phone), defeated by open-office cloud services company (Amazon AWS vs MS Azure). Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Microsoft has transitioned away from private offices towards open plans in their newer buildings.[1]

I've been looking for compelling evidence that proves the superiority of private offices but haven't found any. The business case studies showing superior performance that's directly caused by private offices don't exist. Yeah, surveys of employees exist but not superior business results.

[1]http://www.geekwire.com/2014/microsoft-developer-division/

View on HN

Apple has only very recently begun to adopt open offices -- meaning in 2016. At the time the iPhone was created and soared to market dominance Apple workers were in actual offices with locks due in part to Apple's obsession with secrecy ( 1 or 2 to an office ).

At least so far as Apple has adopted the open office craze, innovation and sales have dropped with Tim Cook taking a recent pay cut for poor performance.

Yes, Apple is moving to open offices in the new Cupertino headquarters, the "spaceship," but that is not how they achieved their big success with the iPhone.

>Apple workers were in actual offices with locks due in part to Apple's obsession with secrecy ( 1 or 2 to an office )

I don't have the cites handy but my recollection is that the specific iPhone teams (hardware and software) were working long hours in the open around conference tables. That subgroup was isolated from the rest of Apple employees because of the secrecy so yes in that sense, they weren't "open" on the gigantic scale of Facebook.

I worked at Apple from 2014 to 2016 and the iPhone, iPad, etc. teams I was working with were in offices, one or two to an office, up until a big move to an open office in early 2016. They appeared to have been in offices for years.

Apple is sufficiently secretive that indeed some other teams might have been in open offices. Not the ones that I saw or interacted with. I was working on a key part of the iPhone and iPad technology.

Working in an open space with people you are actually working with is different from being crammed into one space with people you have nothing to do with.

Microsoftie in dev div, have to speak up here: (usual disclaimer, no secret info, only my own thoughts)

Many of the teams are not (or only recently) switched to open offices. I think it's quite unrealistic to try and attribute bing/mobile performance to something that wasn't even largely rolled out at the onset of those competitions, as opposed to the occams razor of well discussed strategy issues in those markets. As much as I'm a proponent of private offices, to attribute business success to one or the other (and not just as an added cost function that may move the needle slightly) seems to be focusing on the more minor of all the things that could lead to a product success/failure. In that vein I think employee satisfaction _is_ key, as a longterm trend of unhappiness (from ANY source) CAN lead to the sort of things that do disrupt key product delivery. (see sister posts on the cost of turnover discussion, etc)

The problem is the number of variables in directly comparing companies based on just financial history.

What is needed is an interventional study or a few.

I doubt that open vs private offices is a dominant factor in business results. The list of more important things is long. But, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing to give employees a pleasant working environment. Yes, you could save on office furniture by making people sit on the floor, but why would you do that to your staff?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com