The guy has no charisma and ruins Apple's presentation each time!! He only invites people showing stupid game demos... talk about a CEO... rather a PR, nothing more.
Back when this question was first discussed, and while we hoped that Steve Jobs would be around for a while longer, I spent some time thinking about which member of the current "team" was the best replacement. I came to the conclusion that, on a "like-for-like" basis, Forstall was the nearest equivalent to Steve Jobs, i.e. the guy with vision that could carry the company foreword.
But when Steve Jobs died last year was not the time for "the guy with vision". Apple already has a few year's worth of Steve Jobs' vision to work through, and they don't need a new guy disrupting that now. They may need it in a few years' time, as Steve Jobs' vision gets worked through.
In the meanwhile, we will see how things at Apple will work out, with Tim in charge, Sir Jony Ive as designer and the others. I have no doubt that Ive could have taken over the company if he had wanted to, but as a designer myself, I can understand why he would not want to. When he retired, Steve Jobs referred to "a succession plan", not just "a succession", so it may well have had a timeline.
Over time, Apple will work on implementing and delivering the products that Steve Jobs has already contributed to, and eventually will need some newer vision. By that stage, we will see how well the current leaders work together. If all goes well, Cook will have lead Apple to deliver great new products, Ive will have lead Apple to deliver great new designs, but they may both be unsure of the best directions to lead the company towards. If they still trust Forstall then, that might be the time for the next vision guy to come up with direction ..........
Doesn't it seem way to early to be talking about CEO in waiting? I wonder if this isn't just for book sales. Just because Cook isn't this flashy personality and maybe isn't the best presenter doesn't mean he's just a bean counter with no vision for the future.
I don't know the guy personally, but from what was presented in the article - he is political and doesn't get along with Ive and leaves a trail of destruction behind him - he sounds like a volatile personality.
My gut reaction from watching keynotes is he's probably a software genius and best left in a position where he can guide iOS to greater heights.
Not often does someone have multiple gifts. Nerds don't often make great CEOs. Vision is important. But so is the recognition of who your A players are. Steve Jobs and Ive got along famously because Steve loves and nurtures brilliance. It's a good CEO trait to have.
This is so far ahead of the curve, that it is silly. It does not bode well that the book makes such a prediction.
This guy seems to assume a little pre-Apple experience and face time on Apple events translates into the management skills to operate a soon to be $500B+ business that sells hardware. How much hardware experience and supply chain experience does he have or conversely does he need?
Does this mean he won't or couldn't be next CEO no, but it sure isn't foregone conclusion. Again this is not a ding on Scott, but the author is leaping far ahead of data and I suspect the board as well.
Forstall is the nearest to Jobs, who none of you would like either if he came up through the ranks ( the number of bridges burned there would be immense). On the way up you burn bridges, at the top you repair them.
I think he is a perfectionist when it comes to the software design, at least, and thats a Good Thing. Tim is a operations guy, and probably is not ever going to drop an iPod in water, see bubbles and say to the engineers and designers that there was still room to add more internals. Ive didnt do that, because it took Jobs to say it.
( thats from the book).
Forstall might, however. Or the software equivalent.
This Forstall "thing" was raised a few months ago. He should be a keeper. The question is how, given Cook is there for a while.
Perhaps, Forstall should take over as the main man at the show-n-tells. The fact is that he is the best presenter of the entire executive team - true technical knowledge plus confidence, and oozing with passion on stage. Neither Cook nor Schiller can match Forstall's knowledge or passion because they don't actually develop or design the products. Ive can't do it because he has never demonstrated any grasp of software (or even how the products are used?).
Apple does not want or need an imitation of Steve Jobs for its CEO. The Board has quite wisely made its decision by choosing a very low key, coldly rational and brilliant business strategist, Tim Cook, to lead the Company for the next ten years. The last thing the Company needs at this point is a CEO with a big ego to disrupt what is clearly a very talented and well functioning executive team.
Steve was such a one-of-a-kind leader that the leadership model he left?a calm organizer on top supervising a team of mercurial A players?is probably the best for Apple. Somebody trying to out-Steve Steve would lead to a disaster.
Apple does not want or need an imitation of Steve Jobs for its CEO. The Board has quite wisely made its decision by choosing a very low key, coldly rational and brilliant business strategist, Tim Cook, to lead the Company for the next ten years. The last thing the Company needs at this point is a CEO with a big ego to disrupt what is clearly a very talented and well functioning executive team.
Forstall is a true computer science. That alone does not make him an imitation of Jobs. This talk about him aping Jobs is pure punditry and not worth any attention. Nothing wrong with Forstall and anyone else vying for the top job. After all, a true product visionary is a good thing and Cook ain't that person, as he'd be the first to admit. Forstall may well be the only qualified individual on the executive team for that mantle.
After all, a true product visionary is a good thing and Cook ain't that person, as he'd be the first to admit. Forstall may well be the only qualified individual on the executive team for that mantle.
What exactly are you basing that on? What makes him a 'true product visionary' over say, Cue, Schiller or Ive? I think they all contribute to it in different ways. Steve told Walter Isaacson that Ive understood Apple at its core better than anyone.
I don't think Tim Cook needs to be a product visionary. If Steve felt that was necessary he would have groomed someone else to be CEO. I think it would be a mistake to groom someone to be like Steve. There will never be another Steve. Anyway Tim Cook probably isn't going anywhere for a long while so it seems silly for Lashinsky (or anyone else) to speculate on the next CEO.
The guy has no charisma and ruins Apple's presentation each time!! He only invites people showing stupid game demos... talk about a CEO... rather a PR, nothing more.
Ex-fucking-cuse me? As much as this rumor is bogus, you're saying a lot of shit.
Scott ALWAYS talks in detail about the upcoming iOS release. He's actually the most useful talker now that Steve is gone. He is delighted to talk about the platform, unlike Schiller who just goofs around trying to pull jokes no one likes or the "iDon't Give A Damn About This Announcement" vibe of Cook.
And what's up with "stupid game demos"? Because of how Apple loves a smooth UI, GPUs are a priority in new iPhone hardware, hence the iPhone 4S being literally TWICE as powerful graphically as the "oh-so-awesome" Galaxy Nexus, while losing on the CPU side by 12%
And the best way to leverage that GPU power and show at a product announcement something that your competitors can only DREAM of doing? Games. Hence the Infinity Blade 2 demo.
Steve was such a one-of-a-kind leader that the leadership model he left?a calm organizer on top supervising a team of mercurial A players?is probably the best for Apple. Somebody trying to out-Steve Steve would lead to a disaster.
That's why Cook is perfect for the job. He probably will allow others to do most of the presentations, but there's more to being CEO than giving good keynotes.
All Lashinsky did was flesh out a bunch of speculation he published in past Fortune articles. He ran around to a bunch of pundits and former Apple employees (note - not executives for example). Considering its all speculation and largely bottom-up views (which are seldom revealing at the executive level anyway) with which he pads his original thesis, this is designed to coattail on Isaacson's work, and take advantage of the impact of Jobs death. he has fished as many sources as he can - re-dressing and padding out his "Inside Apple" Fortune feature story.
This apparently is his first book, and having read his articles, I'm betting heavily that I already know 99% of the content already. That he targets Forstall is because Forstall has some controversy attached to his reputation. That sells books.
Apple does not want or need an imitation of Steve Jobs for its CEO. The Board has quite wisely made its decision by choosing a very low key, coldly rational and brilliant business strategist, Tim Cook, to lead the Company for the next ten years. The last thing the Company needs at this point is a CEO with a big ego to disrupt what is clearly a very talented and well functioning executive team.
You mean the Board wisely picked Jobs hand picked replacement?
What exactly are you basing that on? What makes him a 'true product visionary' over say, Cue, Schiller or Ive? I think they all contribute to it in different ways. Steve told Walter Isaacson that Ive understood Apple at its core better than anyone.
I don't think Tim Cook needs to be a product visionary. If Steve felt that was necessary he would have groomed someone else to be CEO. I think it would be a mistake to groom someone to be like Steve. There will never be another Steve. Anyway Tim Cook probably isn't going anywhere for a long while so it seems silly for Lashinsky (or anyone else) to speculate on the next CEO.
Yes, they all contribute. But, IMO, visioneering is not about teamwork or group-think. While input from all sources are helpful and sometimes necessary, it takes an imaginary and strong-minded individual with interest and knowledge of different aspects of a product to pull it off.
Most of the time, what makes a vision successful is not so much how amazing the vision is, but rather the passion of the individual behind it and his drive to make it happen.
If you look at the CVs of the executive teams and what each individual has done before and at Apple, Forstall is easily the most qualified if not the only qualified individual.
And I wasn't talking about another Jobs or Cook going anyhow. So I don't know WTF you mentioned all that in response to my post.
Comments
What ? CEO ? Seriously ?
The guy has no charisma and ruins Apple's presentation each time!! He only invites people showing stupid game demos... talk about a CEO... rather a PR, nothing more.
Well done, totally agree!
Back when this question was first discussed, and while we hoped that Steve Jobs would be around for a while longer, I spent some time thinking about which member of the current "team" was the best replacement. I came to the conclusion that, on a "like-for-like" basis, Forstall was the nearest equivalent to Steve Jobs, i.e. the guy with vision that could carry the company foreword.
But when Steve Jobs died last year was not the time for "the guy with vision". Apple already has a few year's worth of Steve Jobs' vision to work through, and they don't need a new guy disrupting that now. They may need it in a few years' time, as Steve Jobs' vision gets worked through.
In the meanwhile, we will see how things at Apple will work out, with Tim in charge, Sir Jony Ive as designer and the others. I have no doubt that Ive could have taken over the company if he had wanted to, but as a designer myself, I can understand why he would not want to. When he retired, Steve Jobs referred to "a succession plan", not just "a succession", so it may well have had a timeline.
Over time, Apple will work on implementing and delivering the products that Steve Jobs has already contributed to, and eventually will need some newer vision. By that stage, we will see how well the current leaders work together. If all goes well, Cook will have lead Apple to deliver great new products, Ive will have lead Apple to deliver great new designs, but they may both be unsure of the best directions to lead the company towards. If they still trust Forstall then, that might be the time for the next vision guy to come up with direction ..........
Doesn't it seem way to early to be talking about CEO in waiting? I wonder if this isn't just for book sales. Just because Cook isn't this flashy personality and maybe isn't the best presenter doesn't mean he's just a bean counter with no vision for the future.
exactly. Tim is young. He's not going anywhere.
Oh and Steve Jobs was old?! Just saying, youth has nothing to do with what may happen to you, be it health or some other opportunity-wise...
Now is Scott CEO material versus others at Apple or outside of Apple, that is another question I am not going to even try to debate the merits.
But as I said..., and Steve Jobs was old?!
/
/
/
My gut reaction from watching keynotes is he's probably a software genius and best left in a position where he can guide iOS to greater heights.
Not often does someone have multiple gifts. Nerds don't often make great CEOs. Vision is important. But so is the recognition of who your A players are. Steve Jobs and Ive got along famously because Steve loves and nurtures brilliance. It's a good CEO trait to have.
This guy seems to assume a little pre-Apple experience and face time on Apple events translates into the management skills to operate a soon to be $500B+ business that sells hardware. How much hardware experience and supply chain experience does he have or conversely does he need?
Does this mean he won't or couldn't be next CEO no, but it sure isn't foregone conclusion. Again this is not a ding on Scott, but the author is leaping far ahead of data and I suspect the board as well.
I think he is a perfectionist when it comes to the software design, at least, and thats a Good Thing. Tim is a operations guy, and probably is not ever going to drop an iPod in water, see bubbles and say to the engineers and designers that there was still room to add more internals. Ive didnt do that, because it took Jobs to say it.
( thats from the book).
Forstall might, however. Or the software equivalent.
Why wouldn't it be available on iBooks? Is it because you think Apple would censor this book because of content it might not agree with?
FYI, it is available for pre-order on iBooks.
The Second Coming isn't available, despite having been a huge seller. Yes, Apple does censor based on content.
Perhaps, Forstall should take over as the main man at the show-n-tells. The fact is that he is the best presenter of the entire executive team - true technical knowledge plus confidence, and oozing with passion on stage. Neither Cook nor Schiller can match Forstall's knowledge or passion because they don't actually develop or design the products. Ive can't do it because he has never demonstrated any grasp of software (or even how the products are used?).
http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/17/adam-l...g/#more-132273
Nice shirt.
Steve was such a one-of-a-kind leader that the leadership model he left?a calm organizer on top supervising a team of mercurial A players?is probably the best for Apple. Somebody trying to out-Steve Steve would lead to a disaster.
The Second Coming isn't available, despite having been a huge seller. Yes, Apple does censor based on content.
Do you have a proof that Apple refused to sell it in iBookstore?
Isn't available does not mean Apple refuses to sell it.
Do you have a proof that Apple refused to sell it in iBookstore?
Isn't available does not mean Apple refuses to sell it.
Apparently, it's available now. But if I recall correctly, I remember Jobs commenting and saying it would never be available through Apple.
Apple does not want or need an imitation of Steve Jobs for its CEO. The Board has quite wisely made its decision by choosing a very low key, coldly rational and brilliant business strategist, Tim Cook, to lead the Company for the next ten years. The last thing the Company needs at this point is a CEO with a big ego to disrupt what is clearly a very talented and well functioning executive team.
Forstall is a true computer science. That alone does not make him an imitation of Jobs. This talk about him aping Jobs is pure punditry and not worth any attention. Nothing wrong with Forstall and anyone else vying for the top job. After all, a true product visionary is a good thing and Cook ain't that person, as he'd be the first to admit. Forstall may well be the only qualified individual on the executive team for that mantle.
After all, a true product visionary is a good thing and Cook ain't that person, as he'd be the first to admit. Forstall may well be the only qualified individual on the executive team for that mantle.
What exactly are you basing that on? What makes him a 'true product visionary' over say, Cue, Schiller or Ive? I think they all contribute to it in different ways. Steve told Walter Isaacson that Ive understood Apple at its core better than anyone.
I don't think Tim Cook needs to be a product visionary. If Steve felt that was necessary he would have groomed someone else to be CEO. I think it would be a mistake to groom someone to be like Steve. There will never be another Steve. Anyway Tim Cook probably isn't going anywhere for a long while so it seems silly for Lashinsky (or anyone else) to speculate on the next CEO.
What ? CEO ? Seriously ?
The guy has no charisma and ruins Apple's presentation each time!! He only invites people showing stupid game demos... talk about a CEO... rather a PR, nothing more.
Ex-fucking-cuse me? As much as this rumor is bogus, you're saying a lot of shit.
Scott ALWAYS talks in detail about the upcoming iOS release. He's actually the most useful talker now that Steve is gone. He is delighted to talk about the platform, unlike Schiller who just goofs around trying to pull jokes no one likes or the "iDon't Give A Damn About This Announcement" vibe of Cook.
And what's up with "stupid game demos"? Because of how Apple loves a smooth UI, GPUs are a priority in new iPhone hardware, hence the iPhone 4S being literally TWICE as powerful graphically as the "oh-so-awesome" Galaxy Nexus, while losing on the CPU side by 12%
And the best way to leverage that GPU power and show at a product announcement something that your competitors can only DREAM of doing? Games. Hence the Infinity Blade 2 demo.
Clueless...
Nice shirt.
Steve was such a one-of-a-kind leader that the leadership model he left?a calm organizer on top supervising a team of mercurial A players?is probably the best for Apple. Somebody trying to out-Steve Steve would lead to a disaster.
That's why Cook is perfect for the job. He probably will allow others to do most of the presentations, but there's more to being CEO than giving good keynotes.
This apparently is his first book, and having read his articles, I'm betting heavily that I already know 99% of the content already. That he targets Forstall is because Forstall has some controversy attached to his reputation. That sells books.
Apple does not want or need an imitation of Steve Jobs for its CEO. The Board has quite wisely made its decision by choosing a very low key, coldly rational and brilliant business strategist, Tim Cook, to lead the Company for the next ten years. The last thing the Company needs at this point is a CEO with a big ego to disrupt what is clearly a very talented and well functioning executive team.
You mean the Board wisely picked Jobs hand picked replacement?
What exactly are you basing that on? What makes him a 'true product visionary' over say, Cue, Schiller or Ive? I think they all contribute to it in different ways. Steve told Walter Isaacson that Ive understood Apple at its core better than anyone.
I don't think Tim Cook needs to be a product visionary. If Steve felt that was necessary he would have groomed someone else to be CEO. I think it would be a mistake to groom someone to be like Steve. There will never be another Steve. Anyway Tim Cook probably isn't going anywhere for a long while so it seems silly for Lashinsky (or anyone else) to speculate on the next CEO.
Yes, they all contribute. But, IMO, visioneering is not about teamwork or group-think. While input from all sources are helpful and sometimes necessary, it takes an imaginary and strong-minded individual with interest and knowledge of different aspects of a product to pull it off.
Most of the time, what makes a vision successful is not so much how amazing the vision is, but rather the passion of the individual behind it and his drive to make it happen.
If you look at the CVs of the executive teams and what each individual has done before and at Apple, Forstall is easily the most qualified if not the only qualified individual.
And I wasn't talking about another Jobs or Cook going anyhow. So I don't know WTF you mentioned all that in response to my post.