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.
" 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!"
It reminds me of pitchers getting $20M/yr contracts. Every pitch is worth $5k. I can see someone chitchatting with Mansfield as Tim Cook walks by, looks at his watch and says "nice to know your kids are doing well but that update just cost the company $10k".
On a slightly different note, wouldn't this be the business story of all time if Apple slides and needs Forstall to return to right it? (Not that I expect or wish it. But think about that as a sequel to the Jobs movie.)
I believe that we are seeing a flaw in the Apple management system: It was held together (amazingly and amazingly well) by a single personality. People who couldn't stand each other continued to not only work together under Jobs but did so to make Apple the most valuable company in the world, all the while reshaping the computing and telecom industries repeatedly. The fact that it took a year for the fracture to be visible may be due to the personal integrity of the individuals. For example, Bob Mansfield could have "retired" earlier but half a year. Perhaps Tim Cook twisted his arm into staying. Perhaps he wanted to finish his job on iPhone 5 and iPad Mini.
If the $20M lure is not a rumor but fact, this may sow the seed for more discontent. What is Ive getting? Federighi? Tim Cook knows what he is doing. But throwing a big carrot in front of one player does not work in business anymore than it does in team sports. Somehow, I think there is exaggeration in this story.
I also cannot help but wonder if Bertrand Serlet left because of the same eyesore that affronted Mansfield. If so, can he be enticed back if the twin loads of iOS and MacOS prove too heavy for Federighi?
You can be forceful and confrontational only if you are the owner of the company.
I disagree. You can only be forceful and confrontational if people respect you enough to allow you to do so. Jobs had the respect of the company, even when he came back in '96. He could do it, Forstall wasn't liked, so he can't.
There's also a difference between being successfully forceful or horrendously forceful. I suspect Jobs was the former, Forstall the latter.
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.
[...]
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.
I think this is very close to the actual situation. During his tenure, Steve Jobs was the final arbiter on design. Cook gave it time to let the existing management team work through collaboration but apparently that wasn't working. In such a situation, something has to give. If the rumors are true, this wasn't a breakdown between a couple of the management team members. This was a common problem that was connected to Forstall.
None of this, even if it's true, takes away from Forstall's contribution to both Apple and to the mobile market as a whole. He likely has many years of great contributions ahead of him.
You can't design by committee, and you can't design with competing camps at war.
No offense, but you can. Design by committee happens all the time, both in software and hardware. There is even software developed to facilitate it. Even decisions can be made by committee, although there are those firmly opposed to this approach. A single arbiter of design is in fact the rarer occurrence. Arguably, it does not happen except in one-person jobs. Despite many stories highlighting how Jobs picked winners and sent losers back to the drawing board, design by committee is how Apple does it too.
Was there any info stating that Scott wasn't there by Steve as well? I'm sure it hit them both hard, but differently.
All I read was that Jony Ive was with Steve' family when he passed away. It came from an interview with Marc Newson (one of Ive's friends). Ive called him to let him know about Steve's death and mentioned how moving it was to be in the room with Steve's family. In Adam Lashinsky' book 'Inside Apple' he mentions that the only Apple employees present at Steve's burial were Cook, Ive, Eddy Cue and Katie Cotton. So my guess is Forstall was not in the room when Steve died. Also I believe Ive was the only SVP not present at the iPhone 4S keynote. At the time it was thought he wasn't there because there were no design changes to the phone. But I think it's more likely he wasn't there because he was with Steve and family.
No offense, but you can. Design by committee happens all the time, both in software and hardware. There is even software developed to facilitate it. Even decisions can be made by committee, although there are those firmly opposed to this approach. A single arbiter of design is in fact the rarer occurrence. Arguably, it does not happen except in one-person jobs. Despite many stories highlighting how Jobs picked winners and sent losers back to the drawing board, design by committee is how Apple does it too.
Indeed. Rare is the person who know electrical and mechanical engineering equally well. In fact, even mechanical engineering and mechanical/industrial design require different training and talents. So too are semiconductor design and motherboard layout. And what about manufacturing which Apple has revolutionized too? Lest we forget, software is the genie in the electromechanical bottle. You cannot create an integrated system like a MacBook or an iPhone without a committee. Sure, it is exciting to recite legends about a genius wagging his finger to say nay to certain features. But reality is that many design decisions are made by different individuals. Macs and iDevices are sums of parts, and sums of individuals.
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.
Of course. That's why Apple introduced the iPhone Mini last year. And why they introduced the iPhone 5 a year earlier (instead of the 4S).
You've been around long enough to know how this works. Someone starts a rumor and it doesn't take long before everyone is spewing the same rumor.
No offense, but you can. Design by committee happens all the time, both in software and hardware. There is even software developed to facilitate it. Even decisions can be made by committee, although there are those firmly opposed to this approach. A single arbiter of design is in fact the rarer occurrence. Arguably, it does not happen except in one-person jobs. Despite many stories highlighting how Jobs picked winners and sent losers back to the drawing board, design by committee is how Apple does it too.
By "design by committee" I mean a group of equals hashing out final design decisions. That is not how things have worked at Apple since SJ returned, unless we are to disregard everything we've heard about how these things did work at Apple. Design by committee is how they do things at Microsoft, and we've all seen how well that's worked. A single arbiter of design, of style, of taste -- Steve Jobs before his death, now Jony Ive -- which is the opposite of design by committee, is one of the keys, perhaps the key, to Apple's success. A single vision driving the company's product development is what got Apple to where they are, and a single vision, even if it's a new one, is what will keep them there in the future. Design by committee is a recipe for mediocrity based on compromised design decisions. That it may be a common occurrence is not an endorsement of it, and may explain why so much design actually sucks.
That it may be a common occurrence is not an endorsement of it, and may explain why so much design actually sucks.
Agree, to an extent. But there are also many cases where it is a real advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
By "design by committee" I mean a group of equals hashing out final design decisions. That is not how things have worked at Apple since SJ returned, unless we are to disregard everything we've heard about how these things did work at Apple. Design by committee is how they do things at Microsoft, and we've all seen how well that's worked.
I disagree. As mentioned, we hear stories of how Jobs nixed this or pushed that. I believe most of them to be roughly, if not entirely true. But these are complex products with myriad design decisions. Jobs did NOT make the final call in all cases. Some of them are in fact decided by a group of "equals" hashing out details. Say you are the software guy and I am the processor guy. Are iOS 7, 8 and 9 dictated by my processor roadmap? Or am I to design to your iOS whims? We (more than the two of us, probably) need to come together to deliver a coherent roadmap based on feasibility, ambition and Apple principles. Jobs or Ive now would get to see our roadmap. They might poopoo some details but we would have made critical decisions that they either don't understand, appreciate or cannot change. It's trendy to simplify topics du jour. But engineering is a team sport. These products are too complex for there to be only a "single arbiter" on all features. I believe with total conviction that Apple does design by committee. Of course, Microsoft does it differently but not because of the lack of a single arbiter. After all, was Bill Gates any less willful than Steve Jobs?
Anybody wonder if Scott Forstall pushed iMap to be released in iOS when recommended by others to wait until it was flushed out more?
If it got significantly heated and Scott threw a hissy fit against all others' advice (including Cook)... then I could see that as a breaking point (on top of the attitude and difficulty he was in working with others.)
Anybody wonder if Scott Forstall pushed iMap to be released in iOS when recommended by others to wait until it was flushed out more?
Nope. The timing was driven by the expiring deal with Google. They had, I think, 6 more months left? Surely they couldn't introduce the new Maps in Jan 2013. And they sure weren't going to extend the deal on Google's terms. This was a calculated risk. But more and more, it strikes me that the Maps pseudo-mess was only one small piece of the Forstall puzzle. Cook wants team work. Forstall wanted to be a prima donna.
When Apple forced its mobile software leader Scott Forstall out of the company, it pushed out the most prolific inventor at the company, as measured by recent patent filings. Forstall's name is on 166 pending patent applications. That's more than anyone at the company, according to data from investment bank MDB Capital.
"He's one of, if not the most prolific inventors at Apple," says Erin-Michael Gill, Managing Director and Chief Intellectual Property Office at MDB. "If this guy is who the data seems to imply he is, letting him leave is a huge deal."
MDB specializes in analyzing patent filings. It has its own database of patent information. Gill sent us a table of Apple patents filings by employees. Gill warns that it's difficult to be completely accurate about pending patents, but MDB's data is the "best data available publicly."
The two people that are filling his role combined have less than half as many patents pending. Craig Federighi, who will lead OSX and iOS, has 16 patents pending. Jony Ive, who will lead interface design, has 51 pending. It's important to note there's a key difference between patents from Ive, and Forstall. Ive's patents are design patents, which cover the look and feel of Apple's products. Forstall's are product patents that are at the core of how iOS works, according to Gill. For instance, Forstall's name is second on the patent that lays out exactly how the iPhone and iPad work. The first name on that patent is Steve Jobs, Apple's late cofounder, who died last year. Now, Apple will have to carry on without either of them.
Forstall was a divisive character inside Apple. When he left, there was a spin that it was good for Apple because it was getting rid of a jerky manager. However, Forstall also had a lot of people who were loyal to him at Apple. And if some of the people he collaborated with decide to leave with him, Gill warns Apple could easily lose 5-6 of its most important inventors. mdb table
The table of Apple's inventors Now, one could argue that just because Forstall's name is on a patent, doesn't necessarily mean he invented something. He had a reputation of managing up, and stealing credit for other people's work. Even if that's true, and somehow he managed to unfairly attach his name to half of these patents, he's still one of the most important people in Apple.
Reading over the patents with Forstall's name attached to them makes it clear he has his fingers in everything Apple is doing in mobile, says Gill. mdb table
Forstall's top collaborators There was also a report that Forstall was out of ideas, and that's part of the reason he's out. Gill thinks that's laughable. He says Forstall was a "font of innovation at Apple."
When Apple forced its mobile software leader Scott Forstall out of the company, it pushed out the most prolific inventor at the company, as measured by recent patent filings.
Forstall's name is on 166 pending patent applications. That's more than anyone at the company, according to data from investment bank MDB Capital.
"He's one of, if not the most prolific inventors at Apple," says Erin-Michael Gill, Managing Director and Chief Intellectual Property Office at MDB. "If this guy is who the data seems to imply he is, letting him leave is a huge deal."
MDB specializes in analyzing patent filings. It has its own database of patent information. Gill sent us a table of Apple patents filings by employees. Gill warns that it's difficult to be completely accurate about pending patents, but MDB's data is the "best data available publicly."
The two people that are filling his role combined have less than half as many patents pending. Craig Federighi, who will lead OSX and iOS, has 16 patents pending. Jony Ive, who will lead interface design, has 51 pending.
It's important to note there's a key difference between patents from Ive, and Forstall. Ive's patents are design patents, which cover the look and feel of Apple's products. Forstall's are product patents that are at the core of how iOS works, according to Gill.
For instance, Forstall's name is second on the patent that lays out exactly how the iPhone and iPad work. The first name on that patent is Steve Jobs, Apple's late cofounder, who died last year. Now, Apple will have to carry on without either of them.
Forstall was a divisive character inside Apple. When he left, there was a spin that it was good for Apple because it was getting rid of a jerky manager. However, Forstall also had a lot of people who were loyal to him at Apple. And if some of the people he collaborated with decide to leave with him, Gill warns Apple could easily lose 5-6 of its most important inventors.
mdb table
The table of Apple's inventors
Now, one could argue that just because Forstall's name is on a patent, doesn't necessarily mean he invented something. He had a reputation of managing up, and stealing credit for other people's work. Even if that's true, and somehow he managed to unfairly attach his name to half of these patents, he's still one of the most important people in Apple.
Reading over the patents with Forstall's name attached to them makes it clear he has his fingers in everything Apple is doing in mobile, says Gill.
mdb table
Forstall's top collaborators
There was also a report that Forstall was out of ideas, and that's part of the reason he's out. Gill thinks that's laughable. He says Forstall was a "font of innovation at Apple."
Business Insider? Now that's NOT a font of reliable information.
Steve Jobs and Apple have long talked about the intersection of Hardware and Software. What%u2019s new is Apple%u2019s recognition of services as a peer that%u2019s equal in importance to Hardware and Software, something that%u2019s been clearly acknowledged in the recent earnings call and the iPad Mini keynote. This executive shake-up is Apple%u2019s yet another signal of Apple%u2019s goal to create a single universal operating system across all of its devices. Here%u2019s more on my take: http://ow.ly/f4LT5
Steve Jobs and Apple have long talked about the intersection of Hardware and Software. What%u2019s new is Apple%u2019s recognition of services as a peer that%u2019s equal in importance to Hardware and Software, something that%u2019s been clearly acknowledged in the recent earnings call and the iPad Mini keynote. This executive shake-up is Apple%u2019s yet another signal of Apple%u2019s goal to create a single universal operating system across all of its devices. Here%u2019s more on my take: http://ow.ly/f4LT5
Comments
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
" 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!"
It reminds me of pitchers getting $20M/yr contracts. Every pitch is worth $5k. I can see someone chitchatting with Mansfield as Tim Cook walks by, looks at his watch and says "nice to know your kids are doing well but that update just cost the company $10k".
On a slightly different note, wouldn't this be the business story of all time if Apple slides and needs Forstall to return to right it? (Not that I expect or wish it. But think about that as a sequel to the Jobs movie.)
I believe that we are seeing a flaw in the Apple management system: It was held together (amazingly and amazingly well) by a single personality. People who couldn't stand each other continued to not only work together under Jobs but did so to make Apple the most valuable company in the world, all the while reshaping the computing and telecom industries repeatedly. The fact that it took a year for the fracture to be visible may be due to the personal integrity of the individuals. For example, Bob Mansfield could have "retired" earlier but half a year. Perhaps Tim Cook twisted his arm into staying. Perhaps he wanted to finish his job on iPhone 5 and iPad Mini.
If the $20M lure is not a rumor but fact, this may sow the seed for more discontent. What is Ive getting? Federighi? Tim Cook knows what he is doing. But throwing a big carrot in front of one player does not work in business anymore than it does in team sports. Somehow, I think there is exaggeration in this story.
I also cannot help but wonder if Bertrand Serlet left because of the same eyesore that affronted Mansfield. If so, can he be enticed back if the twin loads of iOS and MacOS prove too heavy for Federighi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
You can be forceful and confrontational only if you are the owner of the company.
I disagree. You can only be forceful and confrontational if people respect you enough to allow you to do so. Jobs had the respect of the company, even when he came back in '96. He could do it, Forstall wasn't liked, so he can't.
There's also a difference between being successfully forceful or horrendously forceful. I suspect Jobs was the former, Forstall the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
[...]
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.
I think this is very close to the actual situation. During his tenure, Steve Jobs was the final arbiter on design. Cook gave it time to let the existing management team work through collaboration but apparently that wasn't working. In such a situation, something has to give. If the rumors are true, this wasn't a breakdown between a couple of the management team members. This was a common problem that was connected to Forstall.
None of this, even if it's true, takes away from Forstall's contribution to both Apple and to the mobile market as a whole. He likely has many years of great contributions ahead of him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You can't design by committee, and you can't design with competing camps at war.
No offense, but you can. Design by committee happens all the time, both in software and hardware. There is even software developed to facilitate it. Even decisions can be made by committee, although there are those firmly opposed to this approach. A single arbiter of design is in fact the rarer occurrence. Arguably, it does not happen except in one-person jobs. Despite many stories highlighting how Jobs picked winners and sent losers back to the drawing board, design by committee is how Apple does it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
No offense, but you can. Design by committee happens all the time, both in software and hardware. There is even software developed to facilitate it. Even decisions can be made by committee, although there are those firmly opposed to this approach. A single arbiter of design is in fact the rarer occurrence. Arguably, it does not happen except in one-person jobs. Despite many stories highlighting how Jobs picked winners and sent losers back to the drawing board, design by committee is how Apple does it too.
Indeed. Rare is the person who know electrical and mechanical engineering equally well. In fact, even mechanical engineering and mechanical/industrial design require different training and talents. So too are semiconductor design and motherboard layout. And what about manufacturing which Apple has revolutionized too? Lest we forget, software is the genie in the electromechanical bottle. You cannot create an integrated system like a MacBook or an iPhone without a committee. Sure, it is exciting to recite legends about a genius wagging his finger to say nay to certain features. But reality is that many design decisions are made by different individuals. Macs and iDevices are sums of parts, and sums of individuals.
Of course. That's why Apple introduced the iPhone Mini last year. And why they introduced the iPhone 5 a year earlier (instead of the 4S).
You've been around long enough to know how this works. Someone starts a rumor and it doesn't take long before everyone is spewing the same rumor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course. That's why Apple introduced the iPhone Mini last year. And why they introduced the iPhone 5 a year earlier (instead of the 4S).
You've been around long enough to know how this works. Someone starts a rumor and it doesn't take long before everyone is spewing the same rumor.
They aren't those kind of "rumors".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
No offense, but you can. Design by committee happens all the time, both in software and hardware. There is even software developed to facilitate it. Even decisions can be made by committee, although there are those firmly opposed to this approach. A single arbiter of design is in fact the rarer occurrence. Arguably, it does not happen except in one-person jobs. Despite many stories highlighting how Jobs picked winners and sent losers back to the drawing board, design by committee is how Apple does it too.
By "design by committee" I mean a group of equals hashing out final design decisions. That is not how things have worked at Apple since SJ returned, unless we are to disregard everything we've heard about how these things did work at Apple. Design by committee is how they do things at Microsoft, and we've all seen how well that's worked. A single arbiter of design, of style, of taste -- Steve Jobs before his death, now Jony Ive -- which is the opposite of design by committee, is one of the keys, perhaps the key, to Apple's success. A single vision driving the company's product development is what got Apple to where they are, and a single vision, even if it's a new one, is what will keep them there in the future. Design by committee is a recipe for mediocrity based on compromised design decisions. That it may be a common occurrence is not an endorsement of it, and may explain why so much design actually sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
That it may be a common occurrence is not an endorsement of it, and may explain why so much design actually sucks.
Agree, to an extent. But there are also many cases where it is a real advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
By "design by committee" I mean a group of equals hashing out final design decisions. That is not how things have worked at Apple since SJ returned, unless we are to disregard everything we've heard about how these things did work at Apple. Design by committee is how they do things at Microsoft, and we've all seen how well that's worked.
I disagree. As mentioned, we hear stories of how Jobs nixed this or pushed that. I believe most of them to be roughly, if not entirely true. But these are complex products with myriad design decisions. Jobs did NOT make the final call in all cases. Some of them are in fact decided by a group of "equals" hashing out details. Say you are the software guy and I am the processor guy. Are iOS 7, 8 and 9 dictated by my processor roadmap? Or am I to design to your iOS whims? We (more than the two of us, probably) need to come together to deliver a coherent roadmap based on feasibility, ambition and Apple principles. Jobs or Ive now would get to see our roadmap. They might poopoo some details but we would have made critical decisions that they either don't understand, appreciate or cannot change. It's trendy to simplify topics du jour. But engineering is a team sport. These products are too complex for there to be only a "single arbiter" on all features. I believe with total conviction that Apple does design by committee. Of course, Microsoft does it differently but not because of the lack of a single arbiter. After all, was Bill Gates any less willful than Steve Jobs?
...
Anybody wonder if Scott Forstall pushed iMap to be released in iOS when recommended by others to wait until it was flushed out more?
If it got significantly heated and Scott threw a hissy fit against all others' advice (including Cook)... then I could see that as a breaking point (on top of the attitude and difficulty he was in working with others.)
Just wondering......
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78
...
Anybody wonder if Scott Forstall pushed iMap to be released in iOS when recommended by others to wait until it was flushed out more?
Nope. The timing was driven by the expiring deal with Google. They had, I think, 6 more months left? Surely they couldn't introduce the new Maps in Jan 2013. And they sure weren't going to extend the deal on Google's terms. This was a calculated risk. But more and more, it strikes me that the Maps pseudo-mess was only one small piece of the Forstall puzzle. Cook wants team work. Forstall wanted to be a prima donna.
[B][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]When Apple Fired Scott Forstall, It Fired Its Most Prolific Inventor[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-forstall-apples-inventor-2012-11#ixzz2B3v0bkre
When Apple forced its mobile software leader Scott Forstall out of the company, it pushed out the most prolific inventor at the company, as measured by recent patent filings.
Forstall's name is on 166 pending patent applications. That's more than anyone at the company, according to data from investment bank MDB Capital.
"He's one of, if not the most prolific inventors at Apple," says Erin-Michael Gill, Managing Director and Chief Intellectual Property Office at MDB. "If this guy is who the data seems to imply he is, letting him leave is a huge deal."
MDB specializes in analyzing patent filings. It has its own database of patent information. Gill sent us a table of Apple patents filings by employees. Gill warns that it's difficult to be completely accurate about pending patents, but MDB's data is the "best data available publicly."
The two people that are filling his role combined have less than half as many patents pending. Craig Federighi, who will lead OSX and iOS, has 16 patents pending. Jony Ive, who will lead interface design, has 51 pending.
It's important to note there's a key difference between patents from Ive, and Forstall. Ive's patents are design patents, which cover the look and feel of Apple's products. Forstall's are product patents that are at the core of how iOS works, according to Gill.
For instance, Forstall's name is second on the patent that lays out exactly how the iPhone and iPad work. The first name on that patent is Steve Jobs, Apple's late cofounder, who died last year. Now, Apple will have to carry on without either of them.
Forstall was a divisive character inside Apple. When he left, there was a spin that it was good for Apple because it was getting rid of a jerky manager. However, Forstall also had a lot of people who were loyal to him at Apple. And if some of the people he collaborated with decide to leave with him, Gill warns Apple could easily lose 5-6 of its most important inventors.
mdb table
The table of Apple's inventors
Now, one could argue that just because Forstall's name is on a patent, doesn't necessarily mean he invented something. He had a reputation of managing up, and stealing credit for other people's work. Even if that's true, and somehow he managed to unfairly attach his name to half of these patents, he's still one of the most important people in Apple.
Reading over the patents with Forstall's name attached to them makes it clear he has his fingers in everything Apple is doing in mobile, says Gill.
mdb table
Forstall's top collaborators
There was also a report that Forstall was out of ideas, and that's part of the reason he's out. Gill thinks that's laughable. He says Forstall was a "font of innovation at Apple."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima Kingu
When Apple Fired Scott Forstall, It Fired Its Most Prolific Inventor
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-forstall-apples-inventor-2012-11#ixzz2B3v0bkre
When Apple forced its mobile software leader Scott Forstall out of the company, it pushed out the most prolific inventor at the company, as measured by recent patent filings.
Forstall's name is on 166 pending patent applications. That's more than anyone at the company, according to data from investment bank MDB Capital.
"He's one of, if not the most prolific inventors at Apple," says Erin-Michael Gill, Managing Director and Chief Intellectual Property Office at MDB. "If this guy is who the data seems to imply he is, letting him leave is a huge deal."
MDB specializes in analyzing patent filings. It has its own database of patent information. Gill sent us a table of Apple patents filings by employees. Gill warns that it's difficult to be completely accurate about pending patents, but MDB's data is the "best data available publicly."
The two people that are filling his role combined have less than half as many patents pending. Craig Federighi, who will lead OSX and iOS, has 16 patents pending. Jony Ive, who will lead interface design, has 51 pending.
It's important to note there's a key difference between patents from Ive, and Forstall. Ive's patents are design patents, which cover the look and feel of Apple's products. Forstall's are product patents that are at the core of how iOS works, according to Gill.
For instance, Forstall's name is second on the patent that lays out exactly how the iPhone and iPad work. The first name on that patent is Steve Jobs, Apple's late cofounder, who died last year. Now, Apple will have to carry on without either of them.
Forstall was a divisive character inside Apple. When he left, there was a spin that it was good for Apple because it was getting rid of a jerky manager. However, Forstall also had a lot of people who were loyal to him at Apple. And if some of the people he collaborated with decide to leave with him, Gill warns Apple could easily lose 5-6 of its most important inventors.
mdb table
The table of Apple's inventors
Now, one could argue that just because Forstall's name is on a patent, doesn't necessarily mean he invented something. He had a reputation of managing up, and stealing credit for other people's work. Even if that's true, and somehow he managed to unfairly attach his name to half of these patents, he's still one of the most important people in Apple.
Reading over the patents with Forstall's name attached to them makes it clear he has his fingers in everything Apple is doing in mobile, says Gill.
mdb table
Forstall's top collaborators
There was also a report that Forstall was out of ideas, and that's part of the reason he's out. Gill thinks that's laughable. He says Forstall was a "font of innovation at Apple."
Business Insider? Now that's NOT a font of reliable information.
And what is a product patent?
Quote:
...Mansfield wrote, adding that Mansfield would only meet with Mansfield "if Mansfield was present to Mansfield."
there, i Mansfield that for you.