The title really should be changed to reflect the actual message (or lack of one). Nowhere in the post does he say that he didn't have a good time working at Apple. Nowhere does he advise not working there (like the title suggests).
From what I infer, anyway, his actual message is that he can't show what he worked on at Apple - not that it's a bad place to work.
I declared my freedom on November 1. Apple has a depository where you drop off your soul for the duration of your employment. I went to retrieve it, and they gave it back to me scuffed, bruised, deflated, but hopefully still in working order."
That's what I also thought at first, but the second question of the FAQ on the site lends itself to the interpretation that working at Apple was a "mistake". But yeah, the title is somewhat editorializing...
Well, that, or it could also mean that the mistakes are the reasons none of his products are available on the market today, and therefore he can't show them off.
NYC guys edit your titles for you? Because I didn't strip off the "hint don't"?
I don't believe it was editorializing in any serious degree. My point stands and I do believe he looks to feel that way. I tried to capture the gist of the article in a title. For fun I'd love to hear some alternative titles.
Just to provide a counter-point, from a usability point of view I found that article terrible.
On the 1920 pixels wide screen at work, more than half the horizontal width became buttons (previous and next). As soon as the mouse pointer was outside the white background for the linked-to article, a click lead to navigating away from the article.
It took me at least two or three times of wondering where the fsck the article I was reading went, before I realized what was going on. Apparantly randomly clicking on what looks like (and ought to be) passive whitespace is a bad habit, on today's web.
Perhaps he worked on his site when he worked there? I don't know, whenever I see concept work like this I think that it is an impressive hobby, but often I feel that perhaps the efforts could've been spent elsewhere, at least for the reasons you specify. I mean it has great texture, but it works like crap on my Chrome here as well.
I'd guess he expected a 99% failure rate in exchange for a few highly polished gems that might be featured in a MacWorld keynote, or at the very least make it into a shipping product he could show off to his family and or friends.
I think anyone should be allowed to feel disappointed at a 100% failure rate over three years, no matter how many NDAs they signed.
He was working in highly conceptual R&D, he could have worked there for decades and never had anything reach the public in any recognisable form, let alone make a MacWorld keynote.
If you want public recognition it's not a great area to work in regardless of the company.
Nah, Microsoft wasn't like that. I've always joked that if you wanted to do corporate espionage, you should either ride one of the local commute lines (the 245) or just sit around pretending to drink coffee at the Redmond Town Center Borders.
I certainly used to regularly chat about bug burndown rates, joke about ship dates, and play that old game of "how many release candidates" with other managers. And I overheard more new feature discussions in public from folks on other teams than I can possibly imagine.
But, it was part of the culture. Love it or hate it, most members of the dev organization who are successful long-term at MSFT talk about their work all the time, everywhere they go. I've overheard heated arguments in public about Windows servicing patching strategies, and been in ones about such nits as whether the VS solution explorer should be on the left or the right in the default profile.
Not really a representative sample of corporate culture. It's almost three years since my last job, and maybe I can talk about what I did there or get a job in a similar industry as of November.
I'm sure for someone in this position it could get pretty frustrating to work at a place like Apple. On the one hand, you could invent something that could end up being used on a device used by hundreds of millions of people. On the other hand, that bar, purposely, is insanely high, so the likelihood that will happen is low. Corporate security aside, that just seems like the nature of the game at a company that values (and delivers) on a world class user experience.
On the other hand, I can point to portions of Mac OS X and iOS that are shipping today and say: I made that.
Not only was the experience of working at Apple incredibly valuable from a technical standpoint, but from a business standpoint it's something instantly recognizable to others.
The document linked below is easily the least important page on the whole site.
But without it, I would have never read the rest of it, so thank you. I think I just spend about 50 minutes getting schooled by Mr. Victor. Amazing concepts.
(everything I just typed feels trite after the sweeping visions imparted in the literature on that site. Seriously. I'm going to bed.)
Exactly. I'm a huge fan. He's tackling complex problems and trying his best to do something about it. Working at Apple you'd think would be a good approach. But his work for Al Gore is likely a better starting point to evangelizing his points. Especially when he's unconstrained by NDAs.
Honestly, it sounds like a pretty interesting job, but reminds me of the adage about choosing between doing something awesome and being to tell no one, and doing something (more) mainstream and telling everyone.
Sounds like he'd prefer the latter. And maybe he's right, at least from a portfolio perspective.
This is just the nature of the business. I have nothing in my portfolio from 2007 until now. None of my work is as interesting or potentially valuable as anything I might have done at Apple - mostly UIs for games then UIs for banks. But all of it is under NDA.
Somehow it comes as no surprise to me that he's been 'Inventing shit'. Carry on; get a job, create one for yourself. That apple stamp of approval on your resume helps and we know Apple is run like a death star.
I'll bite. Define the workings of the death star. Or rather, define how you see the workings of the death star in a way that helps me comprehend your definition of how Apple is run.
The things I've read all point to Apple being pretty much a great place to work, except that because of its secrecy not a lot (if anything in many projects) can be shared outside their walls. This is, if you think about it, one of the main reasons why they enter a market and lead it. One might disagree with their methods and the extreme secrecy, but it's also working out pretty darn well if we look at the numbers.
How long are such NDAs legally enforceable? If I sign the NDA and work at Apple for month am I prohibited from ever discussing ideas developed under NDA during that month? Has there been any meaningful test of this in court? What if Apple releases a product that incorporates aspects of the ideas but not all of them? Is Bret still unable to speak of his work (even if he limits it to the aspects publicly disclosed by Apple)?
I dont see the big deal. Apple is Apple. Hopefully he learned a ton and will take it with him to his next startup where he will be able to blog about it.
iPhone 4, iOS 4.3 - Site works great (well, besides the slow, initial load time...) In fact, compared to my desktop browser, I prefer the transitions on my phone! Much, much smoother!
*Edit - Commented too soon. Just crashed it playing around with the horizontal scroll area at the top. Navigating around seems to take its toll on the browser. Oh well.
Why, the beautiful all-black page I get loading it without js enabled is quite elegant. I might well not have read the page, but I certainly appreciated it.
It's just the hash-bang links that break with JavaScript disabled. If you visit the home page with JavaScript disabled (or IE-enabled, heh...), you're actually good to go: http://worrydream.com/Apple/
Personally, I think it's a gorgeous site; An amazing example of interactive front-end web development. It amazes me to think that just a few years ago, the only real option for this interactivity would have been Flash.
It's less broken, say, than Twitter, where many legacy non-#! links became redirects to #! links.
But the whole thing is like the thinking that "This site works best with IE 5.0" -and, naturally, is crippled for everyone else- is a reasonable approach to web design. And at least those sites warned us about what the pain they caused and why - this UI is more like visiting a Flash-only webpage in 1998.
Have these guys never heard of the noscript tag? No, wait: weirdly enough, Bret Victor actually uses the noscript tag to govern which CSS file is loaded. That is, no doubt, why the featureless black webpage I am presented with is so uniquely appealing a featureless black webpage.
Telling NotScripts to temporarily allow Javascript to look at the site shows a website with very nice graphic design and awful usability. Which is very much what I expected.
Javascript often offers the same usability experience as Flash. That's why I disable it by default.
From what I infer, anyway, his actual message is that he can't show what he worked on at Apple - not that it's a bad place to work.