The key difference is that Apple (as an organization) appears to have an overarching roadmap (that spans multiple product lines). The secrecy is irrelevant as long as the leadership of each division is aligned (it hurts, but does not prevent success). Google, MS, and others are less organized at the top, so subdivisions of the overall org are left to plan for themselves and between each other, which leads to conflicts. Resolution may be achieved when things get pushed high enough, but only if it surfaces at the top for a leader (if such people exist in their org structure) to declare a resolution and focus for the groups involved.
This reads like a critique of centralized versus decentralized control, but I think it’s more about lack of clear intention.
Apple has a clear intent that allows the subsequent groups to work towards and contribute to it. Google and Microsoft don’t. They have a vague idea, but not something tangible enough for subordinate leaders to meaningfully contribute to.
Apple is odd in other ways. For example: Calculator on iPad. Once they had a few iPad releases without a calculator, they needed a sufficient _reason_ to release a calculator app for iPad. The product was gated by the narrative.
There was also likely no team on calculator at all (are there bugs that justify a maintenance team?), so it needed a big idea like 'Math Text' to be green-lit or it would simply never come. This is despite missing calculator being an obvious deficiency, and solving it via a port to be a relatively tiny lift.
