iOS chief Scott Forstall profiled as a 'maddeningly political' mini-Steve Jobs - Page 2

Could not agree more. Why do the sociopathic douchebags always seem to rise to the top? I guess because humans somehow appreciate those traits? Me, those are the people I tell to F off and would fire if I were running a company.

I'm not saying Forstall is necessarily like this because I'm only going off the article as well...

But it sure seems like most middle and upper management of most companies are douchebags.

Note to Forstall: practice your talks more and be humble, so you can eliminate the pregnant pauses; yes, we're all looking at you, but that's no excuse for the deer-in-headlights look; the iOS software is just one piece of iOS which is just one piece of the Apple pie.

Possibly. But they are really both essential. A lot of their conflict may well come from the roles they have had. Frankly, there isn't a lot for an industrial designer to do with the iDevices five buttons, a speaker, a mic and a camera. The whole front is a flat surface. With a multitouch device there is little opportunity for form finding and haptic interaction. The software on the screen is the interface. Any slight changes in the form and hardware selection and placement really do need to go through the iOS leader. This has to be far more frustrating than working on the design of a Mac.
Anyway, Steve really was a jerk in his early days. I think he matured and learned a great deal about sustainably working with people at Next and Pixar. He came back to Apple a far better leader than he was when he left. Scott probably needs similar seasoning. I'm most concerned about the taking credit for collaborative efforts and deflecting blame thing. That's the sort of thing I think Steve tempered later in his career. It's an ego issue. You need enough of an ego to expect and dare to do great things, but also a strong enough ego to bend and enable your colleagues to do great things too. Otherwise you just end up being a sociopath, like many of the typical overpaid executives out there.

True, but he's the best choice for now. When he is ready to move on Scott may be ready for the CEO role (but not yet.) Scott has been my long term pick for a while. Interesting to hear more about his strengths and shortcomings.

So his kids are going to be super mutants?

I'll agree with you on spooky

Hmmm.......

While the article paints a picture of iPod guru Tony Fadell being crushed by Forstall's machinations during the competition to come up with the iPhone's OS, Fadell sent this note to Businessweek (now appended to the end of the article):


Which completely contradicts the story. I guess he might be trying to protect Apple, but he hasn't worked there for a while and really doesn't have much motivation for covering for Forstall (particularly if they had the kind of bad relationship depicted in the article).

Stories that are sourced from a lot of anonymous former employees have to be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.

Vision is a trait a person has or not. It can't really be taught or learned, only honed.


Nope. Not really. He did have a great understanding of and sensitivity for design though. Which is why he has been so successful for 30 years at the executive level of a design centric companies (not so much actual *design* though, but definitely some.) Johnny Ive has been lucky. Being a designer/design manager for Steve Jobs at Apple has probably been the best, most productive and enjoyable design job ever.


Great mythology, but I not very likely. I'm sure he was key to the process though.


Possibly, but really I think overall, you confuse heading up a design effort or managing design with being a designer. They really are two different things, although they do both require design thinking.


"intricate" ?


In other words, he was a user of design services, like many executives. He was definitely the most sophisticated and design savvy CEO in the business. An aficionado and very experienced and knowledgable user of design. It just so happens he also used engineering, software, marketing and manufacturing in the same way. Most CEO's are just good at managing one thing, usually money or people.

When I think of CW I think of the Deer Hunter

I had no idea that Forstall was from Washington.

I'm glad he's an A-hole. That's the way things get done.

NO WAY! The only person that could follow into jobs footsteps (with a lot of training) is JONATHAN IVE. and guess what: looking at all the patents, he must have been involved behind th scenes quite strong. Ive is the new jobs!

I imagine it's all politics once you reach the upper echelons. The surprising thing to me is people at that level who are down on all the product details.

And I don't think he looks spooky at all. In the Apple product videos he sometimes looks a little mad-scientisty, but in keynotes he looks perfectly normal.

Someone above asked if Scott Forstall is a visionary, like Steve Jobs- yes- the guy created the f'ing app store- I would say that is a visionary action.

"Maddeningly political!?!?" That's the intellectual way for the guy who sucks to vent his frustration at the guy who likely pointed out the fact that he sucks.

Look, I just do not buy this democratic mentalliity that gets applied to Apple's leadership. Guys like Jobs, Cook, Forstall, Ives, Mansfield, Schiller- they do what they do because they are brilliant, and if you work for them, you are lucky, as you don't have to worry about the company you work for going under... The egotistical ones are the ones who are mad they are not being listened to when really, they should shut up.

RIM, on the other hand, is SOL because they do not have leadership and the people who are supposed to lead... Suck.

I never met this guy, but I like his style.

Someone got to be in charge, and he is. He is a go getter. Apple needs him now more than he needs Apple.

And Apple better keep him, or he might start his own company. Managers need to be knowledgeable about the product they manage. This guy knows his products and runs them well.

We are looking at a future CEO of Apple Inc.

Why "unfortunately"?

Feeling inadequate in comparison?

Why should it matter?

What are we, back in Jr. High?

More like a salt lick

I could complain we are becoming a tabloid society - but really we always have been - just look at old newspapers. One of the more disgusting traits of humanity, really.

What about the Prom King & Queen marrying each other? That's also cringe-worthy.

Now, I was pipped in a number of classes by my high school valedictorian but she was a decent enough person. I managed to top "IT" class because the top programmer-geek-dude was too busy making his own 3D engine (remember, this is mid-90s) to bother with assignments. As for somehow getting into "advanced" Maths I got burned pretty bad in that one by the (other?) "nerds".

Nerds, geeks, cheerleaders, jocks, emos, musos, and everyone in-between, it's not so much what they were part of but what they were like as a person, and what they became after that. As Steve says, you can only connect the dots looking backwards.

My prom "date" was a cute but hardcore religious fanatic. I've learned much since then... She had her heart in the right place, but her fanaticism was somewhat scary upon reflection in my later years.

The difference is that iOS has both the polish and curation characteristic of Jobs. If this is also largely due to Forstall, that's a good thing. Politics is always a dirty game but those who can squeeze in some actual product management are worthwhile. Scott might be an a-hole to some or many but at least he doesn't seem to be any kind of typical Dilbert manager.

Interesting. While we give Steve credit for all kinds of things (which, IMHO, is correct), mourn his loss (I do, too), admire how he managed the "public" part of his own final departure in the most appropriate way imaginable (I think he did, taking the right steps at the right time), why don't we give hime some credits and trust his ability to assemble talent to carry on the torch? Besides the obvious capabilities of Scott and some of the other people in Apple's management team, to me it doesn't look like Steve was one of those people that only "use" other's skills to just look better themselves. He helped all those guys to gain strength, be more public than they would typically be, yet still reserved enough to not become a media figure instead of doing actual work, went on to be high on his own standards of work ethics as a role model to the others and brought together a world class team.

He knew quite well that he himself could not easily be replaced by a single person, and he also knew that there's no actual need to do that, and not even trying actually reduces dependency on a single human being (whose time would naturally be limited, too) and that's what he seems to have carried out as one of the final duties to the company and customers. A lot has been said about Apple's "lack" of a succession plan; my personal opinion is that those statements are as bad as they could be - there's probably no company in a better shape than this one (anybody know any other name @Oracle at all, besides Larry? Or *any* name @ Sony? Or ....) - at Apple, we probably know about 10 other names, because they *are* indeed visible.

The only thing left to be proven is whether that "vision" part can also come out of a team instead of a genius person; I think the answer is yes, if the team is build on common DNA, gets along in some way or the other, and enables the creative energy to float. I personally think that, at this time and at this company, currently that's clearly the case and, while I'll too miss Steve's personal presence around all this, looking forward to see the results of it!

I'll have my 4S in the mail today, and I'm excited as hell. :-)

Cheers from Germany,
Florian.

I just pointed out your statement was incorrect and cited several examples. Then again, if you asked Ive how he perceived Jobs and his design credentials from what you said he'd call you a fool and tell you you know nothing about industrial design in the Computing Industry.

Unlike any other CEO in recent history, Jobs was the only one who envisioned markets and devices for those markets.

Steve could have amassed several degrees over his life, if he wanted to do so. You won't get one person at NeXT, PIXAR or Apple in Engineering and Design to support your comments about design and Steve Jobs. They'd laugh at you.

I find it truly ironic that Bill Gates who has his name on 32 patents is often referred to as Chief Software Architect. The guy hasn't touched crap for decades and people still perpetuate the myth that he was some world class developer/architect.

Jobs has his name on 312 currently and you mock him for not being a designer or having any background in it. You bet I'll call you out on such a myopic comment.

Gates primarily has one skill: Business. The man would have been thrown in jail today with the crap he pulled. He screwed over more people in the IT industry and he admits it. He admits freely that the crap they pulled at Microsoft then would be illegal today.

The problem is, unless Cook takes as much control as Jobs used to, Forstall will piss them off. To be fair Steve Jobs would piss peers off on the way up, too ( had he done that), and would garner loyalty only when on top. Forstall might be better running the place than being amongst equals as VP because clearly he is already annoying some people just as important to the business as he is. Or more so.

It's possible that was all about garnering favour with Jobs, until now. If so, Steve - by not making Scott CEO - has taken the wings out of that sail. Forstall is not going to be CEO for a decade, and he needs to make friends, not enemies.

And that's exactly what has happened, minus an actual blender. Plus add Schiller, Mansfield and Cue. Jobs isn't replaceable, and even while most writers are saying so, their next sentence is some form of "but who will replace him?" Apple can function just fine with diversified leadership. Cook is the boss, but at the moment he doesn't know enough to put his fingers in every pot. Jobs' best invention is Apple itself, Apple the machine. His arsenal of VPs know how to drive it.

Articles like this will attempt to tear Apple apart from the inside. Nothing would please the media and Apple's competitors like an internal struggle, narrated by them like some reality tv show.

If Forestall takes the helm, it will not return Steve Jobs to Earth or Apple, and it might do more Harm than good if they attempt such a move. Apple is best keeping things running they way they are, following Jobsian principles and policies. The leadership structure is strong and stable provided everyone keeps their egos in check.

Edit: one more thing- Businessweek's integrity in journalism is questionable lately, to say the least. According to some Daring Fireball-linked sources, this article is chock full of speculation and misquotes, to put it mildly.

The Bussinessweek story doesn't ring true at all. If Forstall was really this uber political hack as portrayed by anonymous sources, Jobs would have seen right through his bullshit and tossed his ass to the curb in a second. That obviously didn't happen.

I was thinking the same thing


.....Team, I need ....more marketshare

deleted

That suggests to me that Ive and Forstall can't stand each other. Cook's challenge will be to manage their egos while giving them the space to do their respective things. He's like a football or basketball coach in that respect. We'll find out soon enough whether he's closer to Dennis Green or Phil Jackson.

I think the amount of focus and concentration that it takes to be a genius frequently doesn't leave much room for the niceties. Maybe because it takes a great deal of ego to become such a success. Such geniuses as Picasso and John Lennon (and reportedly, even Gandhi) frequently treated the people around them like crap.

My theory is that people like Jobs, Gates and Zuckerberg actually have a mild form of autism or Asperger's syndrome. That syndrome gives them the focus to concentrate on the things that make them successful, but they seem to frequently lack the ability to recognize feelings in other people. That and their egos (because they know they're smarter than everyone else) combine to make them treat other people badly (sometimes to the extent of crossing the line into "hostile working environment", which can drive a lawsuit). Both Jobs and Gates had some "personal hygiene" issues when they were younger and Steve's later obsession with the outfit of black turtleneck and the same model ugly jeans always seemed strange to me, but it's also symbolic of those syndromes. (But I'm not a doctor, so if you disagree with my analysis, that's fine...it's just my opinion.)

It's one thing to insist on the best and, "the buck stops with me and therefore, I'm going to make the final decision" and quite another to treat people so badly that they want to leave. I've worked for companies who wanted financial rationalizations when I was pushing for higher quality. Obviously, Apple isn't such a company. I think treating people decently is a lesson that Steve eventually learned because I've read interviews where he's said that you have to give people enough responsibility and freedom to do their jobs. According to this article (if accurate) Forstall hasn't learned that yet and that's unfortunate. An exec should do the opposite of what this article claims Forstall does: they should use the word "we" when their team is successful and use the word "I" when they fail. When I was a senior exec and congratulated for some success by an even more senior executive, I would always say something like, "Oh, that was Laura's responsibility. She did a great job with that." But I'm not a genius who has changed the world.

If Forstall feels that with Steve being gone that he has even more power and is determined to exert it in negative ways, you could have a lot of people leaving Apple, especially the higher-level managers who have large amounts of stock.

deleted

what, ran out of people to fuss and complain about after jobs

deleted

This comment is full of win.

The next iPhone will definitely have more cow bell.

That doesn't necessarily mean that at all. It could be that it takes someone in the position of Tim Cook to make sure Forstall stay in line.

Overall, I say Forstall is an ahole for sure. But visionary like Job? No evidence of that yet.

Lets not get too ahead of ourselves here and blame Scott for everything. Apple's structure is not what is reported in this article. Scott, before heading iOs was head of the AppKit division, not OS X, and not design. Bertrand Serlet ran OS X reporting to Avie Tevanian. The UI design team reported to Serlet, but in reality to Jobs. S Jobs was heavily involved in Aqua, which - to my mind - served it's purpose. Scott might, or might not, have been involved in Aqua meetings.

i know he did write the NSTableView though, the precursor of the UITableView, mainstay of the iPhone.

Or that Cook is a moderating influence on Forstall (in addition to being his boss), so that Forstall doesn't try to overpower or belittle people in Cook's presence.

deleted

They're quoting from Business Insider, which is wrong.The aqua guy was Don Lindsay - well he was the manager.

See here:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...indsay-815949/

EDIT: to explain why I know. I've seen and met Scott, Don and Bertrand Serlet back when WWDCs were smallish events. Never saw steve outside of the keynote, though.

I like him speaking better than Cook. I always thought he'd end up getting the big chair after Jobs left. He certainly seems most capable of carrying Jobs' vision forward.

It's inevitable that people look to fill the Steve-shaped hole at Apple's core but you don't replace a mould-breaker by fitting someone else into their image. Scott has his own personality and his own way of working and he'll define his own place in Apple.

I think he'd make a good leader because he has an understanding of the operating system down to the very base level and having this understanding helps with important decisions and timeframes. He also seems to have an interest in gaming and is passionate about things young people are passionate about.

He also seems like a really genuine person. Obviously the people who have suffered as a result of his leadership will have criticisms but he seems like a strong member of Apple's team and hopefully he will stay a long time at the company.

I don't think there's any reason to think he needs to replace Cook or anything like that but more stage presence would be welcome. I could watch a whole hour of just him and guest speakers and I couldn't say the same for any other presenter. There are other good presenters but I think Scott is the best and he has a good sense of humour.