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.
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.
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"
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
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.
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"
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadgarrison
"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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
...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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
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.
Originally Posted by Commodification
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.
Thank you TIm....
thanks FOR STALLing the departure of Mansfield.
Like what I did there? ;-) Me either, i'm just bored.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
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.
Hilarious typo! Only now recovering from an uncontrollable fit of laughter - man that was funny!
Was there any info stating that Scott wasn't there by Steve as well? I'm sure it hit them both hard, but differently.