I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Cook can not operate as Jobs. He can only operate as he is. The point is people who wants Cook to do everything as Jobs did doesn’t put their brains to do the job. From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
If that was the case considering the bolded part, why didn't Cook delegate that ID situation to Williams in the FIRST place, knowing that he didn't have the creative background? Why did he wait so long to do this now? It means one thing. He wasn't the right guy in the first place. If he were this operationally smart, he would've done so originally years ago. I'm not suggesting Cook is like Jobs but rather he isn't the right guy. Apple needs a 'products' guy right now, not a bean counter. The CEO's job is to 'green light' the final versions of the products way in advance and if there are flaws, he needs to call it out and get them back to the drawing board. That's what Jobs did.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
Interesting that “other executives” consented to the announcement of an unfinished, vaporware project as the “AirPower” wireless charging pad.
It is unbelievable that Apple couldn’t sell that Edition watch. Apple might sell it if they wanted that. While it is also true that the industry cannot tolerate such niche products, the Edition is only a fraction of Apple’s business and with such a power Apple could succeed with the Edition and obviously not go out of business like Vertu. There are a lot of VIPs in the world that would crave for such a watch. Apparently Ive has been left alone on the Marketing issues regarding Edition. The first Watch came in a luxurious box, with 2 m charging cable and a very high quality polycarbonate case. Watch 4 comes in a paper envelope, without case and with 70 cm charging cable unexpectedly short causing the Watch to slip from the hand and drop. The rationale of the Edition was not wrong, that spot on the wrist is very special and there are a lot of people that would decorate themselves on that spot with luxurious things. From high to low that would create demand for the less expensive variants as well.
Ive’s departure is a loss for Apple.
No it's not. They were $10,000 and with no prospect of upgrading the CPU, so it was well known it'd be outdated in a year. $10,000 non-smart watches don't get outdated in a year. The lack of interest shown was proven by the number of celebrities who were given an Edition Watch only to wear it with the pairing screen still showing...
I agree somewhat with the packaging, it's certainly less premium feeling now but the original box with the watch housed in a thick plastic case inside another cardboard box was unnecessarily wasteful for something that's going to go straight in the bin. I was disappointed to find the short charging cable too, it meant I had to get an extension cable to use it was I was before. More nickel and diming from Cook & co.
No prospect of upgrading the CPU? They would just exchange with the new model at the expense of internal cost. They manage millions of trade-ins each year, couldn’t they manage the trade in of $10.000 item?
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Cook can not operate as Jobs. He can only operate as he is. The point is people who wants Cook to do everything as Jobs did doesn’t put their brains to do the job. From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
If that was the case considering the bolded part, why didn't Cook delegate that ID situation to Williams in the FIRST place, knowing that he didn't have the creative background? Why did he wait so long to do this now? It means one thing. He wasn't the right guy in the first place. If he were this operationally smart, he would've done so originally years ago. I'm not suggesting Cook is like Jobs but rather he isn't the right guy. Apple needs a 'products' guy right now, not a bean counter. The CEO's job is to 'green light' the final versions of the products way in advance and if there are flaws, he needs to call it out and get them back to the drawing board. That's what Jobs did.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.
I think the problem more likely comes from some of his works goes nowhere, like Apple Car than Cook physically has to be in the studio. Ive is a veteran designer. I trust him to know how things work. If he’s just dispirited because CEO who isn’t good at design doesn’t come to his room even when that CEO always have time for him and his idea, then he has some strange problem himself.
You think it's okay for the CEO to rarely visit one of the top executives? That'd dispirit anyone who was in that position. It'd make them feel like they aren't worth the time of the CEO. I have no idea what else Cook does though, since he doesn't seem to be involved in the products anymore. Probably trying to find ways to increase services revenue more.
This explains an awful lot about the cringeworthy sight of Apple pushing Apple Watch at haute couture events - absolutely ridiculous. Ive lost his marbles years ago
I think the problem with the fashion approach lies in with Cook, Angela and Ive. Those three should be blamed for it. Cook recruited her initially, she didn't approach the company for the job. Cook thought she was an A-list hire which eventually backfired over time, whereas Ive wanted to make the Watch a fashion product. I suspect Ive wanted a far simpler Apple Watch that didn't have 'feature overkill' with iOS apps but a simple screen telling the time and with some notifications. That's all on Cook for not keeping Ive in check when he should've done so in the first place. EDIT: and then having the guts to put his foot down and say " we gotta go the health route, not fashion ' in the first place.
And yes, Ive went over the line with his design visions but Cook should have never said 'Okay, Jony. We'll do it your way and make the Watches purty while I go get Angela for our fashion marketing plans. bla bla bla'.
Cook, Ive and Angela were the problem. Guess who's next to go out the window? Yep. It's Cook. I strongly believe he's got his one foot out the door while giving the creative responsibilities to Williams. He knows he's about to get huge backlash due to the Ive departure. In short, when the dung hits the fan, Cook's hopping onto his escape pod because he wants to keep his "political" image clean.
Having the Watch be a fashion accessory doesn’t mean it can only be an expensive gold watch. One of the best things about the Watch IMO is how easy it is to swap out bands.
This article claims other executives were iffy on the Watch because they didn’t think it had a killer app. and they wanted it to be an extension of the iPhone. To me that’s just as damming as wanting to position it as a fashion accessory. And many of the initial Watch complaints were that it was trying to be an iPhone on your wrist.
Of course it’s a perfectly normal product development to release something, iterate over time when you have real world feedback on what works, what doesn’t. What people like, what they don’t. That’s what’s happened with the Watch.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.
I think the problem more likely comes from some of his works goes nowhere, like Apple Car than Cook physically has to be in the studio. Ive is a veteran designer. I trust him to know how things work. If he’s just dispirited because CEO who isn’t good at design doesn’t come to his room even when that CEO always have time for him and his idea, then he has some strange problem himself.
Your last sentence doesn’t square with the balance of the piece. But we shouldn’t assume this piece accurately portrays the situation from all sides. Take it with a grain of salt like all gossip.
It is unbelievable that Apple couldn’t sell that Edition watch. Apple might sell it if they wanted that. While it is also true that the industry cannot tolerate such niche products, the Edition is only a fraction of Apple’s business and with such a power Apple could succeed with the Edition and obviously not go out of business like Vertu. There are a lot of VIPs in the world that would crave for such a watch. Apparently Ive has been left alone on the Marketing issues regarding Edition. The first Watch came in a luxurious box, with 2 m charging cable and a very high quality polycarbonate case. Watch 4 comes in a paper envelope, without case and with 70 cm charging cable unexpectedly short causing the Watch to slip from the hand and drop. The rationale of the Edition was not wrong, that spot on the wrist is very special and there are a lot of people that would decorate themselves on that spot with luxurious things. From high to low that would create demand for the less expensive variants as well.
Ive’s departure is a loss for Apple.
No it's not. They were $10,000 and with no prospect of upgrading the CPU, so it was well known it'd be outdated in a year. $10,000 non-smart watches don't get outdated in a year. The lack of interest shown was proven by the number of celebrities who were given an Edition Watch only to wear it with the pairing screen still showing...
I agree somewhat with the packaging, it's certainly less premium feeling now but the original box with the watch housed in a thick plastic case inside another cardboard box was unnecessarily wasteful for something that's going to go straight in the bin. I was disappointed to find the short charging cable too, it meant I had to get an extension cable to use it was I was before. More nickel and diming from Cook & co.
No prospect of upgrading the CPU? They would just exchange with the new model at the expense of internal cost. They manage millions of trade-ins each year, couldn’t they manage the trade in of $10.000 item?
But did they? No. So your point is moot.
No they didn’t. Apparently someone, most probably “other executives” as stated in the article, didn’t want to market the Edition that way, with the trade-in incentive or an AppleCare like upgrade agreement. We know that the Edition was sold by face-to-face personal appointment. They may have promised the trade-in during these demo sessions, but that is not enough. A marketing statement is required to establish a ”whole product” image in the public opinion.
What's happening with Apple is all part of the evolution of a long lived organization. Long term survival can be interpreted as being an implicit measure of success, so it's important to consider what it takes for a company to survive long term. For a company founded by a charismatic and driven founder, or team of founders like Apple, long term survival means transforming from a small company that personifies its founder's motivations to a company that institutionalizes the core values needed to sustain the company with a much larger set of stakeholders.
Like it or not, Tim Cook has played a very large part in this (personification -> institutionalization) transformation and Steve Jobs ensconced Tim in the transformative stewardship role to ensure that Apple would survive and thrive after he was gone. If Jobs/Wozniak was Apple 1.0, Sculley et al being Apple 1.5, Steve's return being Apple 2.0, then Tim Cook is Apple 3.0. For the hundreds of thousands of Apple stakeholders it's been all about survival and continuing to thrive. Nobody, and especially Steve Jobs, wanted Apple to roll up its bags and pack up its tent after Steve passed on. Steve surely knew that Apple 3.0 would be different than Apple 2.0, as did Tim Cook, but you can't just pull the plug when there are so many stakeholders, i.e., people, who have everything riding on the continued success of Apple.
The same exact thing can be said about Jony Ive and the survival and continued success of the Apple design organization that he personally created, mentored, and coached. It's always hard to get over the emotional aspects of change but it was imperative that Jony Ive slowly disengage himself from a lot of the day to day and hands-on activities within his team and to ensure that those who are left holding the reins are prepared to move forward on their own and without the need for affirmation from their former mentor and coach. I'm sure that Tim Cook is already taking an active role in helping with the transition since he's lived through it and came out on top.
You always have to take stories like these with caution (and Rene Ritchie claims he’s heard different though he doesn’t go into details). BUT if any of it is true it’s kind of depressing, especially the part about Tim Cook rarely showing up in the design studio. Going from someone who was there every day and very interested in what you were doing to someone who doesn’t really care must be dispiriting. I also wonder if some of the design staff departures the past few years were because Ive wasn’t around as much.If he’s sort of checked out and Tim Cook never comes around I can see where that wouldn’t be a great environment.
Ben Bajarin claims Jeff Williams is more interested in design than is publicly known. So maybe it’s a good thing these teams are reporting to him and not Cook. And perhaps promotions his number two to SVP of operations gives him the time to focus on product and the design teams.
Tim Cook has always promoted teamwork over one-man shows. He wouldn’t ridicule himself by playing the Steve-clone. He is a very loyal person to both Steve Jobs and other members of the team. If he didn’t show up in Ive’s studio this is for respect to Ive’s authority and talents.
The new endeavour of Ive appears to be entrepreneurship, not a retired-style one man show. And Tim Cook might have pushed Ive into that path, seeing him more and more alienated to the company he devoted the best years of his life, promising his personal support. We don’t know, the announcement by Tim Cook was very promising and enthusiastic, we’ll see in a couple of years. Ive’s company might have grabbed the next big thing project of Apple thanks to Tim Cook.
Sure. This is just one story. We don’t know how accurate it is or if it’s the whole story. Rene Ritchie tweeted that he’s heard different than what this story reports.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Cook can not operate as Jobs. He can only operate as he is. The point is people who wants Cook to do everything as Jobs did doesn’t put their brains to do the job. From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
If that was the case considering the bolded part, why didn't Cook delegate that ID situation to Williams in the FIRST place, knowing that he didn't have the creative background? Why did he wait so long to do this now? It means one thing. He wasn't the right guy in the first place. If he were this operationally smart, he would've done so originally years ago. I'm not suggesting Cook is like Jobs but rather he isn't the right guy. Apple needs a 'products' guy right now, not a bean counter. The CEO's job is to 'green light' the final versions of the products way in advance and if there are flaws, he needs to call it out and get them back to the drawing board. That's what Jobs did.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
Then everyone but Williams, the CFO and the head of HR/retail should be reporting into Williams not Cook. Honestly I wouldn’t mind Cook taking more of a chairman like role with Williams assuming CEO duties. Lisa Jackson could still report to Tim Cook and he would still be on the board of directors. But everyone else would report into Jeff Williams.
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
Interesting that “other executives” consented to the announcement of an unfinished, vaporware project as the “AirPower” wireless charging pad.
And Phil Schiller got up on stage at WWDC to announce the trash can Mac Pro saying “can’t innovate any more, my ass”. Sure seems the company was proud of that product when they announced it.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Cook can not operate as Jobs. He can only operate as he is. The point is people who wants Cook to do everything as Jobs did doesn’t put their brains to do the job. From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
If that was the case considering the bolded part, why didn't Cook delegate that ID situation to Williams in the FIRST place, knowing that he didn't have the creative background? Why did he wait so long to do this now? It means one thing. He wasn't the right guy in the first place. If he were this operationally smart, he would've done so originally years ago. I'm not suggesting Cook is like Jobs but rather he isn't the right guy. Apple needs a 'products' guy right now, not a bean counter. The CEO's job is to 'green light' the final versions of the products way in advance and if there are flaws, he needs to call it out and get them back to the drawing board. That's what Jobs did.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
So basically Ive reported to Williams?
You know nothing about Apple if you think that’s possible.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.
I think the problem more likely comes from some of his works goes nowhere, like Apple Car than Cook physically has to be in the studio. Ive is a veteran designer. I trust him to know how things work. If he’s just dispirited because CEO who isn’t good at design doesn’t come to his room even when that CEO always have time for him and his idea, then he has some strange problem himself.
You think it's okay for the CEO to rarely visit one of the top executives? That'd dispirit anyone who was in that position. It'd make them feel like they aren't worth the time of the CEO. I have no idea what else Cook does though, since he doesn't seem to be involved in the products anymore. Probably trying to find ways to increase services revenue more.
Why? Cook even value Ive contributions more than Jobs did, by paying him much more. The article even, cynically, provide information on that. So why does Cook has to pretend to be a design guru to show he cares when he already did?
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.
I think the problem more likely comes from some of his works goes nowhere, like Apple Car than Cook physically has to be in the studio. Ive is a veteran designer. I trust him to know how things work. If he’s just dispirited because CEO who isn’t good at design doesn’t come to his room even when that CEO always have time for him and his idea, then he has some strange problem himself.
Your last sentence doesn’t square with the balance of the piece. But we shouldn’t assume this piece accurately portrays the situation from all sides. Take it with a grain of salt like all gossip.
I think Jony Ives has been sitting on his butt not doing a whole lot for a number of years now. The overall designs of the iPhone really haven't changed much over the years. They have what I think is a UGLY camera bump that continues to get worse. The new iphones coming out later this year with 3 camera's and a even uglier square camera bump is just bad. Adding a 3rd camera looks like Apple copying!!! Google did such a Amazing job with 1 camera, and yet Apple can't do just as a Amazing job with 2 camera's and instead throws a 3rd one on?
I've been saying for years that I don't think Steve Jobs would allow Camera Bumps on the iPhone. The phones are already to thin and slippery. The bump is not HUGE, so I don't see what the phones aren't just made a bit thicker so there is no camera bump and add a little bit larger battery for longer battery life which people also want. Apple make the phone more energy efficient, and then makes the battery smaller and they keep doing that. STOP IT APPLE!!!! Instead of shrinking the battery down, leave it as is and have a longer lasting iPhone. The iPhone have one of the smallest battery's out there.
Jony Ives has issues because $10,000 Apple watches didn't sell? When you buy a High End normal watch, say a Rollex, That watch will still work 10, 20 years from now. It can be passed on to your kids. The Apple Watch, even the $10,000 which is really no different from the cheapest version has a limited life. Not just with the battery that you can't just replace easily and after a period of time will never be able to replace as you can't get a new battery for it, but the tech inside will become outdated in a short amount of time. Paying $10K is a complete waste of money. Not sure what Jony Ives has been doing, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot. Can't even be bothered to show up to his own meetings? It's like he checked out years ago. Maybe fresh new blood is really needed at Apple.
Of course it’s a perfectly normal product development to release something, iterate over time when you have real world feedback on what works, what doesn’t. What people like, what they don’t. That’s what’s happened with the Watch.
The first iPhone also had a lot of shortcomings, but it was an exciting product. Apple Watch falls in line with choosing to bring a "good enough" first version of a new product to market. And Apple is good in quickly developing an idea and bringing a 1.0 to market. That's what Apple should be doing. It did it with first iMac. With the iPod. iPhone had longer developing history of experimentation with multitouch, but once Steve said they should make a phone, development went quickly too. But really, in what category do we want Apple to bring another 1.0 product? Arguably, the Apple TV Screen would have been fun, but too expensive a product for most to buy. And if it wasn't for the idea of driverless car, Apple could have made a beautiful 1.0 car already (I do hate current car designs and interiors). Maybe Apple could have brought the most amazing (video)camera to market, but one can argue that market is declining. Still, it could have been something amazing to see. Apple bringing to market THE camera to buy for all those vloggers. But yes, a very small market, and Apple doesn't do small. Apple chooses product categories where it wants to change things, like the home computer, the music player, the phone, the tablet, the watch... Where can Apple really change things? Yes, we again turn to the car, don't we?
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
Interesting that “other executives” consented to the announcement of an unfinished, vaporware project as the “AirPower” wireless charging pad.
And Phil Schiller got up on stage at WWDC to announce the trash can Mac Pro saying “can’t innovate any more, my ass”. Sure seems the company was proud of that product when they announced it.
Yet that product could still sell if it was properly positioned and marketed. It was still a decent 4K video workstation.
Shame, I actually think he's just a guy missing his old friend Steve and was acting out when he didn't get the super-star attention he was used to getting. Leadership is such a critical aspect of work that when you feel undervalued, it shows in unintended ways. The other problem is that he was a top-level leader and he affected everyone working below him, so that's uncalled for. I think it's probably best for him to step aside and let the company take on a different course. Nobody is indispensable, it's time the other designers stepped up and filled those shoes.
so many news outlets have made the mistake his company name is going to be LoveFrom, if you read the Apple press release you'll see its actually LoveForm. I suppose this many people making this mistake proves its not a great name.
You mean this press release? Which doesn't say that?
Comments
This article claims other executives were iffy on the Watch because they didn’t think it had a killer app. and they wanted it to be an extension of the iPhone. To me that’s just as damming as wanting to position it as a fashion accessory. And many of the initial Watch complaints were that it was trying to be an iPhone on your wrist.
Of course it’s a perfectly normal product development to release something, iterate over time when you have real world feedback on what works, what doesn’t. What people like, what they don’t. That’s what’s happened with the Watch.
Like it or not, Tim Cook has played a very large part in this (personification -> institutionalization) transformation and Steve Jobs ensconced Tim in the transformative stewardship role to ensure that Apple would survive and thrive after he was gone. If Jobs/Wozniak was Apple 1.0, Sculley et al being Apple 1.5, Steve's return being Apple 2.0, then Tim Cook is Apple 3.0. For the hundreds of thousands of Apple stakeholders it's been all about survival and continuing to thrive. Nobody, and especially Steve Jobs, wanted Apple to roll up its bags and pack up its tent after Steve passed on. Steve surely knew that Apple 3.0 would be different than Apple 2.0, as did Tim Cook, but you can't just pull the plug when there are so many stakeholders, i.e., people, who have everything riding on the continued success of Apple.
The same exact thing can be said about Jony Ive and the survival and continued success of the Apple design organization that he personally created, mentored, and coached. It's always hard to get over the emotional aspects of change but it was imperative that Jony Ive slowly disengage himself from a lot of the day to day and hands-on activities within his team and to ensure that those who are left holding the reins are prepared to move forward on their own and without the need for affirmation from their former mentor and coach. I'm sure that Tim Cook is already taking an active role in helping with the transition since he's lived through it and came out on top.
You know nothing about Apple if you think that’s possible.
I've been saying for years that I don't think Steve Jobs would allow Camera Bumps on the iPhone. The phones are already to thin and slippery. The bump is not HUGE, so I don't see what the phones aren't just made a bit thicker so there is no camera bump and add a little bit larger battery for longer battery life which people also want. Apple make the phone more energy efficient, and then makes the battery smaller and they keep doing that. STOP IT APPLE!!!! Instead of shrinking the battery down, leave it as is and have a longer lasting iPhone. The iPhone have one of the smallest battery's out there.
Jony Ives has issues because $10,000 Apple watches didn't sell? When you buy a High End normal watch, say a Rollex, That watch will still work 10, 20 years from now. It can be passed on to your kids. The Apple Watch, even the $10,000 which is really no different from the cheapest version has a limited life. Not just with the battery that you can't just replace easily and after a period of time will never be able to replace as you can't get a new battery for it, but the tech inside will become outdated in a short amount of time. Paying $10K is a complete waste of money. Not sure what Jony Ives has been doing, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot. Can't even be bothered to show up to his own meetings? It's like he checked out years ago. Maybe fresh new blood is really needed at Apple.
You mean this press release? Which doesn't say that?
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/06/jony-ive-to-form-independent-design-company-with-apple-as-client/