or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bob Mansfield agreed to 2-year deal at Apple because of Scott Forstall's ouster - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bob Mansfield agreed to 2-year deal at Apple because of Scott Forstall's ouster - report

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 

Bob Mansfield only agreed to take on the new position of senior vice president of Technologies at Apple after the company decided to part ways with its former iOS chief, Scott Forstall, according to a new report. Unnamed sources who spoke with John Paczkowski of All Things D indicated that Mansfield agreed to a two-year contract with Apple thanks, in part, to the ouster of Forstall. One person said the timing of Mansfield's return was "not coincidental." It's been a strange few months for Mansfield's tenure at Apple, as the longtime executive announced in June that he would retire from the company. But just a month later, Apple announced that Mansfield would stay in an advisory role to CEO Tim Cook. Cook allegedly persuaded Mansfield to stay by offering him a big payday. The Apple chief executive "nearly witnessed an insurrection" after Mansfield retired and his replacement, Dan Riccio, was announced, sources told Bloomberg last month.

Bob Mansfield
Apple's Bob Mansfield. | Source: Apple

Employees at Apple reportedly felt that Riccio was "unprepared for the magnitude of the role." To keep Mansfield at Apple, Cook was said to have offered him around $2 million per month in cash and stock. But even with that payday, Mansfield was still at Apple in an advisory role only, until this week, when Apple announced that Forstall would be leaving the company. Forstall was a forceful presence at Apple that was said to have rubbed some employees the wrong way, and apparently Mansfield was among those. "Mansfield was not a fan of Forstall's confrontational management style, and sources said he generality tried to avoid the iOS exec," Paczkowski wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Forstall "if Cook was present to mediate." One source reportedly said that Mansfield was "much more willing to commit two more years once he knew (Forstall) was on his way out." Mansfield is now in charge of Apple's new Technologies division, which combines all of Apple's wireless teams across the company in one organization. The group will also include Apple's semiconductor teams, which the company says has "ambitious plans for the future."

post #2 of 56

" To keep Mansfield at Apple, Cook was said to have offered him around $2 million per month in cash and stock."

 

I hope most of that is in stock, or he'll need a lot of help just getting that much cash to the bank safely. "Here comes Mansfield with his weekly satchel stuffed with hundred dollar bills; let's get him!"

post #3 of 56
Conflicts are present in every company. I think the bigger question here is why Tim Cook was not able to keep everyone happy and mediate between both parties as did Jobs.
By taking sides and a strong position, Cook is making a big gamble.
For the sake of Apple, I hope he is right. Regardless of his shortcomings, Forstall was a huge contributor and Jobs felt strongly enough to keep him around.
post #4 of 56

"Paczkowski wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

 

Poor Mansfield, must be difficult to have multiple personalities unwilling to work together! They should add some mental health to his "retirement" package.

post #5 of 56
The advisory role was likely or the same reason as Forstall. In Cali, no compete agreements are totally non enforceable once someone has left the company. Making either man an advisor keeps them on the books but away from anything real. So by the time they are gone anything they knew about is over and there's zero risk they could slip up on anything. It is a common practice here

The talk that Riccio couldn't handle the job is likely hyped up for the most part.

Mansfields bigger role likely is due to Forstall, but not personality wise as much as the restructure of divisions. This isn't a time to hire out and Mansfield is the best man for the job.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #6 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
....Paczkowski wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

I understand. I feel the same way. Paxman v Paxman is a bitch. Happens every day.

post #7 of 56
Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

Apple has invented the Matrix!!!
post #8 of 56
As a shareholder, this is now a better organizational chart. iOS will be better for sure with Ivy directing Human UI, and who wouldn't want Mansfield there; he just looks like a hardware engineer you would want driving that.
post #9 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Conflicts are present in every company. I think the bigger question here is why Tim Cook was not able to keep everyone happy and mediate between both parties as did Jobs.
By taking sides and a strong position, Cook is making a big gamble.
For the sake of Apple, I hope he is right. Regardless of his shortcomings, Forstall was a huge contributor and Jobs felt strongly enough to keep him around.

 

Cook isn't taking a big gamble at all. He's doing what needs to be done moving forward. Apple needs to have a single arbiter of design, someone with the vision to carry the company's products forward. Forstall wasn't that person, but he thought he was and wanted to be. In short, he was an obstacle that had to be removed. Jony Ive was the right person for that roll, and the only person at Apple who could fill Steve Job's shoes in that regard. Tim Cook simply did the sensible thing that needed to be done. You can't design by committee, and you can't design with competing camps at war.

post #10 of 56
You can be forceful and confrontational only if you are the owner of the company.
post #11 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Conflicts are present in every company. I think the bigger question here is why Tim Cook was not able to keep everyone happy and mediate between both parties as did Jobs.

 

How do you know they were happen when Jobs was there? You don't.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #12 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post

Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."
Apple has invented the Matrix!!!

No, they reinvented it.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #13 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

You can be forceful and confrontational only if you are the owner of the company.

It's a public company, btw. But yes, I can see you mean Jobs.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #14 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadgarrison View Post

"Paczkowski wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

 

Poor Mansfield, must be difficult to have multiple personalities unwilling to work together! They should add some mental health to his "retirement" package.

Why do you seem to be down on Mansfield when it seems to be Scott who was acting like an asshole? There are two solutions to that kind of a situation where one personality is an overbearing asshole ..... either he can try to be more accommodating ...i.e. co-operative, not combative or .... find a work-around .... which is what Bob, not Scott, apparently did. In my books, that makes Bob the adult and Scott the child.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #15 of 56
"adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "... Is it reporting on dual personality disorder, or just that Ai sucks at writing?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #16 of 56

Good point but why is Forstall an obstacle that should be removed only now? That is my question and my point is that this situation also speaks to Cook's management abilities as well.

Is Forstall easy to work with? Probably not. But is he the best person to lead iOS development? Most likely since he started it. Cook could have named Ive as the head of UI and the "arbiter of design" while keeping Forstall as head of iOS development. UI/UX design is not the same thing as software development. Forstall was a developer. I agree that you can't design with competing camps at war but as the leader your role is to make sure people work together and if they don't then you will have the final decision.

post #17 of 56
anonymouse has it right imo. Ive is the guy who will be leading iOS forward in terms of interface design. Forstall was in the way. From what I've read about their respective relationships with Jobs, I think Ive is the better candidate to move everything forward. I don't think I'm alone when I say that skeuomorphism was getting stale. I would much prefer if the OS took its cues from the hardware designs. The iPhone 5 and iPad mini look very stealth until you turn them on. Then it's all gum drops and corinthian leather. It concerned me looking to the future of the OS. I have the utmost faith in Mr. Ive to fill Jobs' shoes and take the OS in a new direction.
post #18 of 56
Going forward, it will be super important for colaboration to be done.
The iPhones and iPads have shown what they can do. And with the stronger ARM chips making them more powerful and capable, it will be interesting to see the progress.
BUT
Those ARM chips will be available to Apple's competitors, so it will be hard for them to stay ahead of the pack.

What needs to happen is Apple will have to come up with the next great thing. And with no spies from Google that will help.

But everyone at Apple will have to colaborate for that.
post #19 of 56
Time will tell if Scott was the genius behind it all or a hindrance to innovation. So much of what people are saying about Scott could easily apply to Steve Jobs during his departure in 1985.
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
post #20 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Good point but why is Forstall an obstacle that should be removed only now? That is my question and my point is that this situation also speaks to Cook's management abilities as well.

Is Forstall easy to work with? Probably not. But is he the best person to lead iOS development? Most likely since he started it. Cook could have named Ive as the head of UI and the "arbiter of design" while keeping Forstall as head of iOS development. UI/UX design is not the same thing as software development. Forstall was a developer. I agree that you can't design with competing camps at war but as the leader your role is to make sure people work together and if they don't then you will have the final decision.

 

Cook made the final decision, and he made the right one. There's no point in trying to "manage" someone like Forstall when all indications were that the problem was that he wasn't manageable any longer. You just get rid of him. You have to. You have no choice.

post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Conflicts are present in every company. I think the bigger question here is why Tim Cook was not able to keep everyone happy and mediate between both parties as did Jobs.
By taking sides and a strong position, Cook is making a big gamble.
For the sake of Apple, I hope he is right. Regardless of his shortcomings, Forstall was a huge contributor and Jobs felt strongly enough to keep him around.

After reading many articles, I get the impression that during the Steve years, many execs left because of personal conflict, probably also with Forstall -- especially Jon Rubinstein, Avie Tevanian and Tony Fadell. So Cook's choice is keep Forstall and bleed out. Or keep everyone else happy and keep the team.

 

Also, Forstall doesn't seem like a teamplayer. I've read that he regarded his team kind of as pirates within the Apple campus :-). Yes, he was Steve's man, probably a clone in work ethic, but for Apple without Steve to move forward, more is probably needed.

 

Steve probably kept Forstall, because he believed this sort of conflict would eventually bring about the best in people. And Steve probably thought he needed someone young for Apple's future. But there's always a tipping point -- Rubenstein, Tevanian and Fadell leaving was already proof during the Steve years.


Edited by John F. - 11/1/12 at 9:33am
post #22 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Good point but why is Forstall an obstacle that should be removed only now? That is my question and my point is that this situation also speaks to Cook's management abilities as well.
Is Forstall easy to work with? Probably not. But is he the best person to lead iOS development? Most likely since he started it. Cook could have named Ive as the head of UI and the "arbiter of design" while keeping Forstall as head of iOS development. UI/UX design is not the same thing as software development. Forstall was a developer. I agree that you can't design with competing camps at war but as the leader your role is to make sure people work together and if they don't then you will have the final decision.

great thing about being CEO, when the problem is Recognized... the solution is Immediately Implemented.

so it seems that the iOS design was Scott Forstalls... of course that means that Steve Jobs aggreed with it... Jon ivie's Distancing himself from Scott Forstall (in effect) means that Scott did not/would not use/remember Jon ivie's suggestions... when Steve Jobs was around, Jon Ivie, perhaps, would tell Steve Jobs about his idea's for software design, and they would be Implemented via Scott Forstall, but when Steve Jobs passed away, Scott Forstall Ego/Personality prevented him from getting suggestions from Jon Ivie... and with Jon ivie in effect the same as Steve Jobs, Scott Forstall Causing any problems wth Employees became a problem because Scott Forstall did not have the "Juice" that he had by Association With Steve Jobs...


TL;DR... after Steve Jobs passed away... For Scott Forstall, everything went "to hell in a hand basket"
post #23 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by thadgarrison View Post

"Paczkowski wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

 

Poor Mansfield, must be difficult to have multiple personalities unwilling to work together! They should add some mental health to his "retirement" package.

Why do you seem to be down on Mansfield when it seems to be Scott who was acting like an asshole? There are two solutions to that kind of a situation where one personality is an overbearing asshole ..... either he can try to be more accommodating ...i.e. co-operative, not combative or .... find a work-around .... which is what Bob, not Scott, apparently did. In my books, that makes Bob the adult and Scott the child.

You really can't spot a humorous comment when you see one?  There's nothing "down on Mansfield" there - he's teasing the lack of proofreading (hardly a rarity in these pages).

post #24 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

...as the leader your role is to make sure people work together and if they don't then you will have the final decision.

 

That is what Tim Cook did -- he made the final decision regarding Forstall. Bye Forstall.

 

Note: I see anonymous beat me to this.

post #25 of 56
Lets not forget Jony Ive who Steve said had more operational power at Apple than anyone besides himself. Jony's still there and has expanded his portfolio. Obviously he must be someone who works well with others and isn't s polarizing figure. My guess is Forstall was shielded by Steve and now that Steve is no longer around other execs felt they could voice their displeasure with Cook. And from Cook's perspective losing Mansfield and/or Ive was worse than losing Forstall.
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Conflicts are present in every company. I think the bigger question here is why Tim Cook was not able to keep everyone happy and mediate between both parties as did Jobs.
By taking sides and a strong position, Cook is making a big gamble.
For the sake of Apple, I hope he is right. Regardless of his shortcomings, Forstall was a huge contributor and Jobs felt strongly enough to keep him around.

Cook is not SJ. I doubt SJ needed to mediate anything. SF couldn't outmuscle SJ, and perhaps SF became emboldened after SJ's death, and became more unbearable. Cook (and Board?) couldn't control SF, and SF couldn't control himself, so he was fired. 

post #27 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

You really can't spot a humorous comment when you see one?  There's nothing "down on Mansfield" there - he's teasing the lack of proofreading (hardly a rarity in these pages).

Ahhhh ... See, they already fixed it by the time I read it to read ...... Mansfield would only meet with Forstall ....etc ....  I missed it in the quote, my bad.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #28 of 56
When Steve Jobs died, it was like Scott lost his dad. He's was raised and mentored by Steve nearly his whole life in business and the loss of Steve would most likely have hit Scott the hardest. He's most likely struggling trying to live up to the impossible expectations set by his hero.
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
post #29 of 56
Originally Posted by Commodification View Post
When Steve Jobs died, it was like Scott lost his dad. He's was raised and mentored by Steve nearly his whole life in business and the loss of Steve would most likely have hit Scott the hardest. He's most likely struggling trying to live up to the impossible expectations set by his hero.

 

Throw in a few more "may have"s and I think this might be partially right.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

great thing about being CEO, when the problem is Recognized... the solution is Immediately Implemented.
so it seems that the iOS design was Scott Forstalls... of course that means that Steve Jobs aggreed with it... Jon ivie's Distancing himself from Scott Forstall (in effect) means that Scott did not/would not use/remember Jon ivie's suggestions... when Steve Jobs was around, Jon Ivie, perhaps, would tell Steve Jobs about his idea's for software design, and they would be Implemented via Scott Forstall, but when Steve Jobs passed away, Scott Forstall Ego/Personality prevented him from getting suggestions from Jon Ivie... and with Jon ivie in effect the same as Steve Jobs, Scott Forstall Causing any problems wth Employees became a problem because Scott Forstall did not have the "Juice" that he had by Association With Steve Jobs...
TL;DR... after Steve Jobs passed away... For Scott Forstall, everything went "to hell in a hand basket"
My guess is when Steve was around Ive kept his nose out of software. Now that Steve is gone he feels like he can involve himself in this area. But I have to believe its more than just Ive complaining about the software. Cook wouldn't put him in that position if he was the only one who voiced his dislike. Clearly more people felt Apple needed to get its hardware and software in harmony design wise.
post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification View Post

When Steve Jobs died, it was like Scott lost his dad. He's was raised and mentored by Steve nearly his whole life in business and the loss of Steve would most likely have hit Scott the hardest. He's most likely struggling trying to live up to the impossible expectations set by his hero.
I can't imagine it hit him harder than Jony Ive. Jony was at Steve's bedside when he died, he attended Steve's burial and spoke at his memorial service. Of course everyone deals with grief differently....
post #32 of 56

Thank you TIm....

 

thanks FOR STALLing the departure of Mansfield.  

 

Like what I did there? ;-)  Me either, i'm just bored.

post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Cook made the final decision, and he made the right one. There's no point in trying to "manage" someone like Forstall when all indications were that the problem was that he wasn't manageable any longer. You just get rid of him. You have to. You have no choice.

I sure hope that my career is not decided by anonymous rumors on the Internet like everyone seems to want to do with Forstall.

None of you knows Forstall. None of you knows the objectives of his group. None of you knows the pipeline of new developments. None of you know the interactions between executives at Apple other than what you read in unsubstantiated rumors. Isn't it a little presumptuous to insist that Forstall was the entire problem?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I sure hope that my career is not decided by anonymous rumors on the Internet like everyone seems to want to do with Forstall.
None of you knows Forstall. None of you knows the objectives of his group. None of you knows the pipeline of new developments. None of you know the interactions between executives at Apple other than what you read in unsubstantiated rumors. Isn't it a little presumptuous to insist that Forstall was the entire problem?

 

It's natural.  Some people are bored with the OS, phone size, shape, blah blah blah. So they think the departure of SF will make things fresh again.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't. TIme will tell.

 

I like the OS as is, maybe scale back on some things and improve functionality, but i like it as is.  

post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I sure hope that my career is not decided by anonymous rumors on the Internet like everyone seems to want to do with Forstall.
None of you knows Forstall. None of you knows the objectives of his group. None of you knows the pipeline of new developments. None of you know the interactions between executives at Apple other than what you read in unsubstantiated rumors. Isn't it a little presumptuous to insist that Forstall was the entire problem?

 

No, it's not. When you have that many people saying the same thing, independent of each other, and based on multiple different sources, you can fairly confidently accept it as, at the least, probably pretty close to the truth.

 

I'm sure Forstall is a brilliant guy, but, a) based on all accounts, he couldn't play well with others and b) Apple needed a single person in charge of design, with a single vision. Ive was that Guy, Forstall wasn't, and he wasn't happy to not be top dog.

post #36 of 56
Sounds like Forstall could only really be put in place and command respect from Steve Jobs and when Steve passed Tim has had to play middle man between all the opposing SVP's. Hope Apples new restructuring works out. iOS and the App store literally propelled Apple forward past the competition the last five years. Also, Maps & Siri was no small task to integrate into iOS and push out to market as a usable product. It's unfortunate that heads had to roll at the top because there must be a big number of team heads/leaders and project managers under Scott who are just as responsible.
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Conflicts are present in every company. I think the bigger question here is why Tim Cook was not able to keep everyone happy and mediate between both parties as did Jobs.
By taking sides and a strong position, Cook is making a big gamble.
For the sake of Apple, I hope he is right. Regardless of his shortcomings, Forstall was a huge contributor and Jobs felt strongly enough to keep him around.

A senior exec's time is already strained. The last thing they want to do is continuously play mediator. That takes away time and energy for more important things. 

post #38 of 56
" Paczkowski wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

Hilarious typo! Only now recovering from an uncontrollable fit of laughter - man that was funny!
Edited by 1983 - 11/3/12 at 9:44am
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I can't imagine it hit him harder than Jony Ive. Jony was at Steve's bedside when he died, he attended Steve's burial and spoke at his memorial service. Of course everyone deals with grief differently....

Was there any info stating that Scott wasn't there by Steve as well? I'm sure it hit them both hard, but differently.
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
post #40 of 56

Jobs can handle Forstall, now that SJ's gone, nobody can control Forstall. It's unfortunate but it's not Tim's fault or Ive's fault or Forstall's fault. It's just the way it is, Tim has to deal with this, and the only way is to let Forstall go, otherwise the team would not function well.

 

People are naive to think that 'oh that means Tim is than SJ in making the team work', no, this just means SJ's gone and Tim cannot play SJ's role because he's not SJ, not because Tim is just bad at making the team work.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bob Mansfield agreed to 2-year deal at Apple because of Scott Forstall's ouster - report