I am still hoping Tim Cook changes his mind and retains Scott Forstall at Apple.
The fact of the matter is that Forstall and his team have delivered an extraordinary operating system in iOS release after release and he was not responsible for the iOS Map issues.
Forstall might not be solely to blame for Maps as much of it was data nd Tom Tom et al are equally if not more culpable there.
But he was in charge of iOS 6 in general and it was NOT up to Apple quality at release. Sure it had lots of pretty faux buttons with shadows that moved when you tilt your device. But it also had a major bug that bricked wifi completely on a noticeable amount of iPhone 4 and 4s phones, there's still a serious and noticeable flaw with track skipping in Music, numerous folks had their cell data charges go up as much as 5 fold because the devices were saying they were using wifi and they weren't. Sound was getting bricked on numerous devices. And so on. And THAT was Forstall's fault as QC from his team is part of his position. But he was too busy with the cute to be bothered.
Add to this the reports that he was a total jerk who wouldn't take feedback from anyone, including Tim Cook, that he had no issue with being critical and condescending to everyone that didn't kiss his ass because he was at NeXT with Jobs 'back in the day', had no respect for Tim Cook etc even though jobs picked them because Forstall thought he could do much better and apparently had no issue with sending emails to his team blasting said other folks.
Well it's easy to see how Forstall was viewed at not enough of a super genius to let him get away with being an asshat (hey even
Steve Jobs was will to take feedback and loved folks challenging his options if they could firmly back up the opposing view). And unlike some others, Fadell was at Apple with Forstall and would have seen his attitude first hand so while making the comment might be tacky and hit fodder to get mentions of Newt out there at least he's not as totally off base as asking some ex exec that hasn't been in the company since Jobs was kicked out
Probably the less said the better. Tony should keep his opinions on Scott to himself, there is nothing to gain kicking the guy when he's down.
Absolutely.
First, Tony doesn't know why Scott was fired - he was long gone by then.
Second, he apparently holds a grudge against Scott, so his opinions are biased.
Finally, there's absolutely nothing to be gained and potentially a great deal to be lost in badmouthing former co-workers. You never know when you might need to work with them again. You also don't earn respect from potential partners by badmouthing people you used to work with.
A controlled Scott Forstall is a brilliant engineer assigned to a position where he can not clash with other managers and his talent can be harvested.
.
There might be no such place at Apple. Controlling him etc would mean kicking him out of a leadership position but if the reports are even half true, he won't take comment or instruction from anyone which means he's not going to accept being in any position with someone over his head. Which might be what Cook tried to do, wanting to move Ive into his current role putting him as 'Forstall's boss' and giving Ive power to veto the cute crap Forstall was so fond of adding rather than focusing on QC with the base functions and so on. Forstall may have said no way, as he reportedly despises Ive for getting all the attention and for disliking the skeuromorphic touches as unneeded nonsense. Forstall may have been told his choices were this shift or he could stay until the release of iOS 7 as an advisor to give comment with no vote and then be gone all together and he choose the latter (which would allow him to be around for his bigger stock grant next summer)
Geez, I wonder what Forstall did to generate so much hate. Was he that big of a jerk?
I was thinking that watching the video. Fadell really made that tough for the interviewer and made it clear he didn't want to talk about it. 3 separate times he was asked about it and he just reiterated about Scott getting what he deserved.
The fact he references an online rumour suggests he doesn't have inside info but he's bound to keep in contact with some of the other Apple staff.
It's a bit cryptic but there are probably hundreds of little events that took place for the other execs to have that impression of Forstall and it wouldn't be worth their effort recounting them to everyone else.
There's no way we could determine if Apple will be better off with or without him. The highest profile staff will know better than anyone and they seem to think it will be better so as of 2013, he's gone. Serlet, Rubinstein, Steve and Fadell are all gone from the company and it has survived pretty well so far. Maybe the upper management don't actually do that much work. When they start laying off their engineers in droves, then we should worry.
It would be hard to have a "controlled" Forstall with all the money and success that he has.
Exactly what success has Forstall had, on his own. Yes he's had some nice work come out of his time at Apple but he did not do that alone. And he has been more or less captain of his own ship with iOS and at least this year blew it hard. He rammed that ship into the iceberg head on. Not just Maps but major flaws all over the dang thing. Some of which still aren't fixed.
First, Tony doesn't know why Scott was fired - he was long gone by then.
Second, he apparently holds a grudge against Scott, so his opinions are biased.
Finally, there's absolutely nothing to be gained and potentially a great deal to be lost in badmouthing former co-workers. You never know when you might need to work with them again. You also don't earn respect from potential partners by badmouthing people you used to work with.
First,Tony was a senior VP at Apple until late 2008. I would imagine he is still plugged in.
Second. He does not like Scott, apparently neither does anyone at Apple.
Third, he is expressing the opinion of people at Apple (who are not at liberty to talk), with whom he probably would not mind working again. He obviously has no interest in working with Scott Forstall, and will never have to, given that he probably has a couple of bucks in the bank and a reasonably successful startup. As for earning respect for badmouthing people -- apparently many people have "badmouthed" Forstall, since it is common knowledge that he is a corporate infighting little weasel.
I recently got the chance to chat with a couple of people who've worked with Forstall. They said that he was a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Everyone hated him and eventually lost all respect for him - and it's that loss of respect that's key. No-one ever lost their respect for Jobs.
I was thinking that watching the video. Fadell really made that tough for the interviewer and made it clear he didn't want to talk about it. 3 separate times he was asked about it and he just reiterated about Scott getting what he deserved.
Fadell likely came to that interview to talk about Nest, not Apple which he likely does have inside info on. His answer was an attempt to end that thread without dragging out all the gory details or seem like an ass himself by refusing to say anything (which would probably still be dragged into any articles etc).
First, Tony doesn't know why Scott was fired - he was long gone by then.
Second, he apparently holds a grudge against Scott, so his opinions are biased.
Finally, there's absolutely nothing to be gained and potentially a great deal to be lost in badmouthing former co-workers. You never know when you might need to work with them again. You also don't earn respect from potential partners by badmouthing people you used to work with.
Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Tony does know exactly why Scott was fired, assuming he still has friends and contacts back at Apple.
Forstall might not be solely to blame for Maps as much of it was data nd Tom Tom et al are equally if not more culpable there.
But he was in charge of iOS 6 in general and it was NOT up to Apple quality at release. Sure it had lots of pretty faux buttons with shadows that moved when you tilt your device. But it also had a major bug that bricked wifi completely on a noticeable amount of iPhone 4 and 4s phones, there's still a serious and noticeable flaw with track skipping in Music, numerous folks had their cell data charges go up as much as 5 fold because the devices were saying they were using wifi and they weren't. Sound was getting bricked on numerous devices. And so on. And THAT was Forstall's fault as QC from his team is part of his position. But he was too busy with the cute to be bothered.
Add to this the reports that he was a total jerk who wouldn't take feedback from anyone, including Tim Cook, that he had no issue with being critical and condescending to everyone that didn't kiss his ass because he was at NeXT with Jobs 'back in the day', had no respect for Tim Cook etc even though jobs picked them because Forstall thought he could do much better and apparently had no issue with sending emails to his team blasting said other folks.
Well it's easy to see how Forstall was viewed at not enough of a super genius to let him get away with being an asshat (hey even
Steve Jobs was will to take feedback and loved folks challenging his options if they could firmly back up the opposing view). And unlike some others, Fadell was at Apple with Forstall and would have seen his attitude first hand so while making the comment might be tacky and hit fodder to get mentions of Newt out there at least he's not as totally off base as asking some ex exec that hasn't been in the company since Jobs was kicked out
News flash: in order to be in senior management of most dynamic companies like Apple, you have to have a strong personality. You have to have strong opinions and a certain amount of overall leadership ability to rally people to want to work for you and execute your ideas. It's not that Scott Forstall is a jerk...there's probably plenty of them at Apple and other companies. It's the fact that he played the political game poorly over time. At the Sr. VP level at Apple, you pretty much run a vast organization on your own that is a viable company in its own right. All of Apple's Sr. VPs think that they could run Apple if Tim Cook decided to retire. But the questions the board has to ask themselves are, "Who has the unique skills to be CEO" and "Who would the rest of the management team want to work for?" Forstall might have the skills for the top job. I figure someone soon is going to give him that chance once his Apple contract expires. But it was clear that the number of senior executives who wanted to work in a Scott Forstall regime were few, mainly because Scott wasn't good about playing in proverbial sandbox with the rest of them.
At the end of the day, the executive that can truly be a jerk and treat people like Forstall was alleged to have done is only the founder of the company. Just think about the personalities of the founders of some of the tech industry's most successful companies...most of them are/were supreme jerks too. But that's hard to get away with when you are not the founder. Tim Cook and the board had a real problem here. Keep Forstall who by all accounts is an extremely talented executive with a lot of success to his credit. Or begin a leadership exodus that began with Tony Fadell and looked like it would continue with other executives like Bob Mansfield and who knows who else. Apple's strength is in the core of its leadership team and Jobs could convince people to put up with a lot of crap to work for him. With Jobs gone, executives were probably openly saying, "Do I really have to put up with Scott when I've turned down lots of CEO positions to work at Apple?"
On a side note, it looks like if Tony Fadell is giving interview in the U.K. that a Nest for European countries can't be far off.
You mean not what YOU wanted. You haven't been granted the royal we to declare your opinion as universal, so please don't.
Okay, point taken. Based on the outcry, MANY people wanted a better iOS with fewer bugs, that was moving forward over Scott's version of a "prettier" iOS. I am not the only one to say this, so it's NOT just me.
Edit: At the end of the day Charlituna, I think that you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who feels that the addition of realistic note paper, leather and green felt takes precedence over fixing existing bugs, performance and usability issues or the addition of innovative new features. That was really what I was saying, but feel free to slap my wrists anyway, I can take it.
Okay, point taken. Based on the outcry, MANY people wanted a better iOS with fewer bugs, that was moving forward over Scott's version of a "prettier" iOS. I am not the only one to say this, so it's NOT just me.
I can't remember... was that outcry #256 or outcry #257. There's been so many of them lately that it's hard to keep track of them all.
There might be no such place at Apple. Controlling him etc would mean kicking him out of a leadership position but if the reports are even half true, he won't take comment or instruction from anyone which means he's not going to accept being in any position with someone over his head. Which might be what Cook tried to do, wanting to move Ive into his current role putting him as 'Forstall's boss' and giving Ive power to veto the cute crap Forstall was so fond of adding rather than focusing on QC with the base functions and so on. Forstall may have said no way, as he reportedly despises Ive for getting all the attention and for disliking the skeuromorphic touches as unneeded nonsense. Forstall may have been told his choices were this shift or he could stay until the release of iOS 7 as an advisor to give comment with no vote and then be gone all together and he choose the latter (which would allow him to be around for his bigger stock grant next summer)
Forstall probably hated Ive because of how close Ive was to Steve. Lets not forget when Steve was demoing the iPhone the first call he made was to Ive, not Forstall. Same with the first FaceTime call. Plus Steve told Walter Isaacson his spiritual partner at Apple was Ive, not Forstall (or anyone else).
No doubt in my mind that he thought he was the heir to Steve. And probably felt he deserved to be CEO. But the question is, if Scott was THE guy, how come Steve didn't recommend Scott as his replacement? I also find it interesting that we've never really heard anything bad about the other SVP's. No stories about Schiller or Ive or Mansfield being jerks that are difficult to work with, or taking credit for other people's work while shifting blame on to others etc. And not many (if any) stories from former employees or "insiders" defending Forstall.
Because certainly Forstall was not ready. I've always said he's very likely the one but not immediately. Maybe Forstall got antsy or others got threatened.
I recently got the chance to chat with a couple of people who've worked with Forstall. They said that he was a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Everyone hated him and eventually lost all respect for him - and it's that loss of respect that's key. No-one ever lost their respect for Jobs.
If this is true, then maybe Forstall got ahead of himself and had to reap the consequences.
Forstall probably hated Ive because of how close Ive was to Steve. Lets not forget when Steve was demoing the iPhone the first call he made was to Ive, not Forstall. Same with the first FaceTime call. Plus Steve told Walter Isaacson his spiritual partner at Apple was Ive, not Forstall (or anyone else).
Forstall is mentioned many times in early 00's Apple keynotes by Jobs. Of course, Ive is the most closest compatible dude to Steve, others no doubt would have been jealous about this. As for Phil, he's probably the most loyal companion Jobs had in terms of marketing, demos, presentations, and probably a ton of other stuff. Ive is visionary and on a different plane to others (usually for the better) while Phil is dyed-in-the-wool breathe-Apple-sleep-Apple kind of guy. So as for Forstall, hmm... sounds like things kinda imploded. If what people say is true, big If.
Forstall probably hated Ive because of how close Ive was to Steve. Lets not forget when Steve was demoing the iPhone the first call he made was to Ive, not Forstall. Same with the first FaceTime call. Plus Steve told Walter Isaacson his spiritual partner at Apple was Ive, not Forstall (or anyone else).
Definitely sounds like a love triangle. How bromantic.
... but if Apple is going to keep anyone happy it better be Ive. Otherwise they are Cooked!
Comments
Forstall might not be solely to blame for Maps as much of it was data nd Tom Tom et al are equally if not more culpable there.
But he was in charge of iOS 6 in general and it was NOT up to Apple quality at release. Sure it had lots of pretty faux buttons with shadows that moved when you tilt your device. But it also had a major bug that bricked wifi completely on a noticeable amount of iPhone 4 and 4s phones, there's still a serious and noticeable flaw with track skipping in Music, numerous folks had their cell data charges go up as much as 5 fold because the devices were saying they were using wifi and they weren't. Sound was getting bricked on numerous devices. And so on. And THAT was Forstall's fault as QC from his team is part of his position. But he was too busy with the cute to be bothered.
Add to this the reports that he was a total jerk who wouldn't take feedback from anyone, including Tim Cook, that he had no issue with being critical and condescending to everyone that didn't kiss his ass because he was at NeXT with Jobs 'back in the day', had no respect for Tim Cook etc even though jobs picked them because Forstall thought he could do much better and apparently had no issue with sending emails to his team blasting said other folks.
Well it's easy to see how Forstall was viewed at not enough of a super genius to let him get away with being an asshat (hey even
Steve Jobs was will to take feedback and loved folks challenging his options if they could firmly back up the opposing view). And unlike some others, Fadell was at Apple with Forstall and would have seen his attitude first hand so while making the comment might be tacky and hit fodder to get mentions of Newt out there at least he's not as totally off base as asking some ex exec that hasn't been in the company since Jobs was kicked out
Absolutely.
First, Tony doesn't know why Scott was fired - he was long gone by then.
Second, he apparently holds a grudge against Scott, so his opinions are biased.
Finally, there's absolutely nothing to be gained and potentially a great deal to be lost in badmouthing former co-workers. You never know when you might need to work with them again. You also don't earn respect from potential partners by badmouthing people you used to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
From a commenter on Mac Rumors regarding Scott's ouster:
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Remember the proverb: They laughed at Newton... They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
There might be no such place at Apple. Controlling him etc would mean kicking him out of a leadership position but if the reports are even half true, he won't take comment or instruction from anyone which means he's not going to accept being in any position with someone over his head. Which might be what Cook tried to do, wanting to move Ive into his current role putting him as 'Forstall's boss' and giving Ive power to veto the cute crap Forstall was so fond of adding rather than focusing on QC with the base functions and so on. Forstall may have said no way, as he reportedly despises Ive for getting all the attention and for disliking the skeuromorphic touches as unneeded nonsense. Forstall may have been told his choices were this shift or he could stay until the release of iOS 7 as an advisor to give comment with no vote and then be gone all together and he choose the latter (which would allow him to be around for his bigger stock grant next summer)
Apparently yes.
I was thinking that watching the video. Fadell really made that tough for the interviewer and made it clear he didn't want to talk about it. 3 separate times he was asked about it and he just reiterated about Scott getting what he deserved.
The fact he references an online rumour suggests he doesn't have inside info but he's bound to keep in contact with some of the other Apple staff.
It's a bit cryptic but there are probably hundreds of little events that took place for the other execs to have that impression of Forstall and it wouldn't be worth their effort recounting them to everyone else.
There's no way we could determine if Apple will be better off with or without him. The highest profile staff will know better than anyone and they seem to think it will be better so as of 2013, he's gone. Serlet, Rubinstein, Steve and Fadell are all gone from the company and it has survived pretty well so far. Maybe the upper management don't actually do that much work. When they start laying off their engineers in droves, then we should worry.
Exactly what success has Forstall had, on his own. Yes he's had some nice work come out of his time at Apple but he did not do that alone. And he has been more or less captain of his own ship with iOS and at least this year blew it hard. He rammed that ship into the iceberg head on. Not just Maps but major flaws all over the dang thing. Some of which still aren't fixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Absolutely.
First, Tony doesn't know why Scott was fired - he was long gone by then.
Second, he apparently holds a grudge against Scott, so his opinions are biased.
Finally, there's absolutely nothing to be gained and potentially a great deal to be lost in badmouthing former co-workers. You never know when you might need to work with them again. You also don't earn respect from potential partners by badmouthing people you used to work with.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
First,Tony was a senior VP at Apple until late 2008. I would imagine he is still plugged in.
Second. He does not like Scott, apparently neither does anyone at Apple.
Third, he is expressing the opinion of people at Apple (who are not at liberty to talk), with whom he probably would not mind working again. He obviously has no interest in working with Scott Forstall, and will never have to, given that he probably has a couple of bucks in the bank and a reasonably successful startup. As for earning respect for badmouthing people -- apparently many people have "badmouthed" Forstall, since it is common knowledge that he is a corporate infighting little weasel.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Fadell likely came to that interview to talk about Nest, not Apple which he likely does have inside info on. His answer was an attempt to end that thread without dragging out all the gory details or seem like an ass himself by refusing to say anything (which would probably still be dragged into any articles etc).
Basically he was doomed no matter what
... and I always wonder what would have happened had Apple let that other obnoxious prick stay rather than the sugar water salesman.
You mean not what YOU wanted. You haven't been granted the royal we to declare your opinion as universal, so please don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Absolutely.
First, Tony doesn't know why Scott was fired - he was long gone by then.
Second, he apparently holds a grudge against Scott, so his opinions are biased.
Finally, there's absolutely nothing to be gained and potentially a great deal to be lost in badmouthing former co-workers. You never know when you might need to work with them again. You also don't earn respect from potential partners by badmouthing people you used to work with.
Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Tony does know exactly why Scott was fired, assuming he still has friends and contacts back at Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Forstall might not be solely to blame for Maps as much of it was data nd Tom Tom et al are equally if not more culpable there.
But he was in charge of iOS 6 in general and it was NOT up to Apple quality at release. Sure it had lots of pretty faux buttons with shadows that moved when you tilt your device. But it also had a major bug that bricked wifi completely on a noticeable amount of iPhone 4 and 4s phones, there's still a serious and noticeable flaw with track skipping in Music, numerous folks had their cell data charges go up as much as 5 fold because the devices were saying they were using wifi and they weren't. Sound was getting bricked on numerous devices. And so on. And THAT was Forstall's fault as QC from his team is part of his position. But he was too busy with the cute to be bothered.
Add to this the reports that he was a total jerk who wouldn't take feedback from anyone, including Tim Cook, that he had no issue with being critical and condescending to everyone that didn't kiss his ass because he was at NeXT with Jobs 'back in the day', had no respect for Tim Cook etc even though jobs picked them because Forstall thought he could do much better and apparently had no issue with sending emails to his team blasting said other folks.
Well it's easy to see how Forstall was viewed at not enough of a super genius to let him get away with being an asshat (hey even
Steve Jobs was will to take feedback and loved folks challenging his options if they could firmly back up the opposing view). And unlike some others, Fadell was at Apple with Forstall and would have seen his attitude first hand so while making the comment might be tacky and hit fodder to get mentions of Newt out there at least he's not as totally off base as asking some ex exec that hasn't been in the company since Jobs was kicked out
News flash: in order to be in senior management of most dynamic companies like Apple, you have to have a strong personality. You have to have strong opinions and a certain amount of overall leadership ability to rally people to want to work for you and execute your ideas. It's not that Scott Forstall is a jerk...there's probably plenty of them at Apple and other companies. It's the fact that he played the political game poorly over time. At the Sr. VP level at Apple, you pretty much run a vast organization on your own that is a viable company in its own right. All of Apple's Sr. VPs think that they could run Apple if Tim Cook decided to retire. But the questions the board has to ask themselves are, "Who has the unique skills to be CEO" and "Who would the rest of the management team want to work for?" Forstall might have the skills for the top job. I figure someone soon is going to give him that chance once his Apple contract expires. But it was clear that the number of senior executives who wanted to work in a Scott Forstall regime were few, mainly because Scott wasn't good about playing in proverbial sandbox with the rest of them.
At the end of the day, the executive that can truly be a jerk and treat people like Forstall was alleged to have done is only the founder of the company. Just think about the personalities of the founders of some of the tech industry's most successful companies...most of them are/were supreme jerks too. But that's hard to get away with when you are not the founder. Tim Cook and the board had a real problem here. Keep Forstall who by all accounts is an extremely talented executive with a lot of success to his credit. Or begin a leadership exodus that began with Tony Fadell and looked like it would continue with other executives like Bob Mansfield and who knows who else. Apple's strength is in the core of its leadership team and Jobs could convince people to put up with a lot of crap to work for him. With Jobs gone, executives were probably openly saying, "Do I really have to put up with Scott when I've turned down lots of CEO positions to work at Apple?"
On a side note, it looks like if Tony Fadell is giving interview in the U.K. that a Nest for European countries can't be far off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
You mean not what YOU wanted. You haven't been granted the royal we to declare your opinion as universal, so please don't.
Okay, point taken. Based on the outcry, MANY people wanted a better iOS with fewer bugs, that was moving forward over Scott's version of a "prettier" iOS. I am not the only one to say this, so it's NOT just me.
Edit: At the end of the day Charlituna, I think that you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who feels that the addition of realistic note paper, leather and green felt takes precedence over fixing existing bugs, performance and usability issues or the addition of innovative new features. That was really what I was saying, but feel free to slap my wrists anyway, I can take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Just curious why you think Scott is another Steve Jobs?
Because he was basically the "mini me" of Steve Jobs. Even bought the exact same car as Steve...
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/scott-forstall-the-sorcerers-apprentice-at-apple-10122011.html
I can't remember... was that outcry #256 or outcry #257. There's been so many of them lately that it's hard to keep track of them all.
The damage done...
Because certainly Forstall was not ready. I've always said he's very likely the one but not immediately. Maybe Forstall got antsy or others got threatened.
His keynote presentations, for one.
If this is true, then maybe Forstall got ahead of himself and had to reap the consequences.
Forstall is mentioned many times in early 00's Apple keynotes by Jobs. Of course, Ive is the most closest compatible dude to Steve, others no doubt would have been jealous about this. As for Phil, he's probably the most loyal companion Jobs had in terms of marketing, demos, presentations, and probably a ton of other stuff. Ive is visionary and on a different plane to others (usually for the better) while Phil is dyed-in-the-wool breathe-Apple-sleep-Apple kind of guy. So as for Forstall, hmm... sounds like things kinda imploded. If what people say is true, big If.
Definitely sounds like a love triangle. How bromantic.
... but if Apple is going to keep anyone happy it better be Ive. Otherwise they are Cooked!