The external shocks to a process benefit the process and make it stronger. Eg your immune system gets stronger by exposed to some amount of bugs that it needs to fight, despite your getting sick while it's fighting them.
The distinction is whether it's "This is fine, we did ok through this" which is robust vs "This is something where we are now in a stronger position from being knocked about a bit."
A well made double brick wall may be robust and survive the cyclone looking good but is not anti-fragile.
Re:Apple is now an antifragile company
by 1123581321 on Sunday August 01, 2021 @09:24PM
(#28031959)
Yes, I understand. I think they were trying hard to make that distinction in the article with the long section about robustness and the long section about antifragility, as well as the definitions up front that match yours.
I agree anti-fragile is often misused but the author takes care to define robustness first and contrasts his antifragility thesis to the robustness of the overall sound business.
That said, I would look at other companies for examples of “true antifragility” although it’s interesting to try to analyze how a top global company can still raise the limit of its performance in situations that hurt its competitors.