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

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014


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."

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member


    " 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!"

  • Reply 2 of 59
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 59


    "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.

  • Reply 4 of 59
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    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.
  • Reply 5 of 59
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,602member

    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.

  • Reply 6 of 59
    Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Cook was present to mediate."

    Apple has invented the Matrix!!!
  • Reply 7 of 59

    removed
  • Reply 8 of 59
    axualaxual Posts: 244member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 59

    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.

  • Reply 10 of 59
    You can be forceful and confrontational only if you are the owner of the company.
  • Reply 11 of 59
    irelandireland Posts: 17,614member

    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.

  • Reply 12 of 59
    irelandireland Posts: 17,614member

    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.

  • Reply 13 of 59
    irelandireland Posts: 17,614member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff View Post

    removed


    Forstall?

  • Reply 14 of 59
    irelandireland Posts: 17,614member

    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.

  • Reply 15 of 59
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member

    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.

  • Reply 16 of 59
    "adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "... Is it reporting on dual personality disorder, or just that Ai sucks at writing?
  • Reply 17 of 59


    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.

  • Reply 18 of 59
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 59
    juandljuandl Posts: 228member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 59
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.