Apple having trouble finding ex-iOS head Scott Forstall for Epic testimony

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    elijahg said:
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder if mini-Steve imagined that Cook would be another Sculley, that Apple would tank, and that he (mini-Steve) would be brought back to save the company, just like big Steve did.

    if so, it doesn’t seem to be working out 


    No, he took the high road and hasn’t publicly bad mouthed Apple after making him the scapegoat of Apple Maps being a total
    piece of shit and being fired for not apologizing. 

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 
    I suspect Cook wanted rid of him too because he was a potential threat to Cook's position. Blaming him for Maps was just a convenient way to get rid of him. Apple needs someone sharp and enthused like Forstall, who will question things, push boundaries and  push employees to be their best. Not mushy Cook who is quite happy with minor iteration and employing people for diversity targets rather than employing the best - as long as it brings in more $$$$ anyway.
    Completely changing the CPU of the Mac is a "minor iteration"?  Also, diversity does not imply not hiring the best.  Think of it this way, if you were putting 5 guys on the court to play basketball, you would choose the 5 best people (with diverse skill sets) to form a team, not just the 5 "best" players based on their individual stats (Brooklyn Nets current experiment notwithstanding).
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 46
    maltzmaltz Posts: 446member

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 

    I'm so tired of that nonsense.  The options are A) let your phone crash every time you do something that taxes the CPU when the battery is past its prime, B) throttle the CPU as the battery ages to keep the voltage level adequately high for normal operation, or C) reduce the speed of the CPU permanently, regardless of the age of the battery.  Are you seriously going to argue you would have chosen anything but B?  Regardless, you can now choose A.  Have you?  Has your phone started acting flakey?  No?  Then you probably weren't affected by throttling in the first place.

    "Holding it wrong" was a valid complaint.  "Screw Apple for prioritizing stability over speed when the battery is too old to properly function anymore" is not.
    FileMakerFellergeorgie01fastasleepDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 46
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,119member
    dysamoria said:
    welshdog said:

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 

    What's wrong with throttling a CPU to save battery and avoid an uncontrolled and potentially data damaging shutdown?
    Not explaining to the user that you’re doing it, and why, and letting them have reduced functionality without explanation. But this doesn’t even answer why my phone’s typing lag has become almost intolerable, since I disabled that throttling function (they don’t give you an option to turn it back on BTW) and the OS hasn’t been changed since the last iOS 12.x release and its performance continues to get worse. Either the typing services on Apple’s servers is getting really bogged down, or the CPU throttling is still happening regardless of tapping on the hyperlink to disable it, or there’s something else going on.

    It’s also bad because people buy new phones when their current one seems slow, and they don’t know why that would be the case. End users aren’t tech people and don’t know what questions to ask. They have one option: try a new phone. That benefits Apple.

    But you should already know all of this.
    So your position is that every engineering decision needs to be disclosed to end users? And what reduced functionality are you referring to? CPU throttling doesn’t reduce or eliminate any functionality, in fact, the purpose of the throttling was to ensure the phone continued to function even with a weak battery.  And no, throttling is not why your keyboard lags. 
    georgie01fastasleeprandominternetpersonmaltzwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 46
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,119member
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder if mini-Steve imagined that Cook would be another Sculley, that Apple would tank, and that he (mini-Steve) would be brought back to save the company, just like big Steve did.

    if so, it doesn’t seem to be working out 


    No, he took the high road and hasn’t publicly bad mouthed Apple after making him the scapegoat of Apple Maps being a total
    piece of shit and being fired for not apologizing. 

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 
    Scapegoat?  Either you don’t know what the word means or you’re clueless of what his role at Apple was. 
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 46
    Good for Scott for flying under the radar. And I hope he doesn’t help Apple one bit if he is forced out of hiding. 
    How do we know Scott is hurting Apple by hiding? Since it's Epic calling for Scott, it sounds more like Scott is intentionally hurting Epic by hiding.

    Furthermore, the article didn't give me the impression that Apple was trying very hard to find Scott. Nor that Scott was trying to be found. Every inference I drew is that Scott is helping Apple by hiding.

    Epic is seeking information. How do we even know that the information it seeks will hurt Apple? It could exonerate Apple. But if it doesn't, then it could also implicate Scott. I don't see why Scott would be eager to implicate himself. What motivation would Scott have to help Epic, which is trying to burn him and Apple?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 46
    This whole thing is just comical. Epic, take an epic exit, please.
    randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 46

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 
    Nobody owes you an apology for that. Had they not flattened the CPU spikes, you'd be complaining about whoever allowed batteries to degrade to the point that iPhones were randomly shutting down unannounced. 
    edited February 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 46
    dysamoria said:

    Not explaining to the user that you’re doing it, and why, and letting them have reduced functionality without explanation. But this doesn’t even answer why my phone’s typing lag has become almost intolerable, since I disabled that throttling function (they don’t give you an option to turn it back on BTW) and the OS hasn’t been changed since the last iOS 12.x release and its performance continues to get worse. Either the typing services on Apple’s servers is getting really bogged down, or the CPU throttling is still happening regardless of tapping on the hyperlink to disable it, or there’s something else going on.

    It’s also bad because people buy new phones when their current one seems slow, and they don’t know why that would be the case. End users aren’t tech people and don’t know what questions to ask. They have one option: try a new phone. That benefits Apple.

    But you should already know all of this.
    What really happened is that a handful of people notice something and decided to test and discovered what Apple decided to do. And then people found out and 99% of the people who complained suddenly decided their phones were slowed down and Apple was trying to make them obsolete.

    All the while these users could all have simply gotten replacement batteries at a mostly reasonable cost and their phones would be revived. In response to the amusing outrage Apple lowered the price to $20 which is ridiculously low, yet we still have people like you moaning and complaining.

    If your phone isn’t working right then maybe it’s at end of life. Like it or not, devices don’t last forever, and even new ones fail. Apple has not slowed down your phone on purpose.
    fastasleepDetnatorRayz2016maltz
  • Reply 29 of 46

    dysamoria said:
    welshdog said:

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 

    What's wrong with throttling a CPU to save battery and avoid an uncontrolled and potentially data damaging shutdown?
    Not explaining to the user that you’re doing it, and why, and letting them have reduced functionality without explanation. But this doesn’t even answer why my phone’s typing lag has become almost intolerable, since I disabled that throttling function (they don’t give you an option to turn it back on BTW) and the OS hasn’t been changed since the last iOS 12.x release and its performance continues to get worse. Either the typing services on Apple’s servers is getting really bogged down, or the CPU throttling is still happening regardless of tapping on the hyperlink to disable it, or there’s something else going on.

    It’s also bad because people buy new phones when their current one seems slow, and they don’t know why that would be the case. End users aren’t tech people and don’t know what questions to ask. They have one option: try a new phone. That benefits Apple.

    But you should already know all of this.
    The fact that you're speculating that your phone is slowing down due to "typing services on Apple's servers getting bogged down" (what? lol) says all you need to know about the public's ability to parse any information about how their phone works. There could be any number of things going wrong with your now very old iPhone. Turns out a new phone benefits both Apple and the user when things inevitably break down. 
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 46

    elijahg said:
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder if mini-Steve imagined that Cook would be another Sculley, that Apple would tank, and that he (mini-Steve) would be brought back to save the company, just like big Steve did.

    if so, it doesn’t seem to be working out 


    No, he took the high road and hasn’t publicly bad mouthed Apple after making him the scapegoat of Apple Maps being a total
    piece of shit and being fired for not apologizing. 

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 
    I suspect Cook wanted rid of him too because he was a potential threat to Cook's position. Blaming him for Maps was just a convenient way to get rid of him. Apple needs someone sharp and enthused like Forstall, who will question things, push boundaries and  push employees to be their best. Not mushy Cook who is quite happy with minor iteration and employing people for diversity targets rather than employing the best - as long as it brings in more $$$$ anyway.
    Bullshit, it's all pretty well documented that he led the Maps project and wouldn't own it when it failed and that Jony Ive and others had issues with him to the point they couldn't be in the same meetings. You'd think maybe Jobs would've given him CEO if he was so much better as you project in your fantasy here. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 46
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder if mini-Steve imagined that Cook would be another Sculley, that Apple would tank, and that he (mini-Steve) would be brought back to save the company, just like big Steve did.

    if so, it doesn’t seem to be working out 


    No, he took the high road and hasn’t publicly bad mouthed Apple after making him the scapegoat of Apple Maps being a total
    piece of shit and being fired for not apologizing. 

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 
    It wasn’t required. It was a smart move made to be evil by stupid people in media who were looking for clicks and lawyers trying to make a buck. I am grateful Apple made my old device that would have been damaged by the natural spikes of an old dying battery last longer. In fact it’s ironic that if it were found that Apple had discovered a solution to that problem but chose not to use it they would have been sued for planned obsolescence. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. 
    edited February 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 46
    People here are complaining about how Apple's software handles battery issues on their iPhones, but they're perfectly okay with demanding side-loading so that unchecked apps can run on their iPhones.
    Detnatorrandominternetperson
  • Reply 33 of 46
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    People here are complaining about how Apple's software handles battery issues on their iPhones, but they're perfectly okay with demanding side-loading so that unchecked apps can run on their iPhones.
    It's called "choice".
  • Reply 34 of 46
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,232member
    He’s probably hiding in the Peruvian jungle drinking ayahuasca and eating mushrooms. 
  • Reply 35 of 46
    elijahg said:
    People here are complaining about how Apple's software handles battery issues on their iPhones, but they're perfectly okay with demanding side-loading so that unchecked apps can run on their iPhones.
    It's called "choice".
    Have you ever objected to Apple's rules against tobacco, violence or porn in their app store? Have you ever asked for "choice" in these areas?
    edited February 2021
  • Reply 36 of 46
    hexclock said:
    He’s probably hiding in the Peruvian jungle drinking ayahuasca and eating mushrooms. 
    No, that would be Apple's crack marketing team over there.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 46
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    elijahg said:
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder if mini-Steve imagined that Cook would be another Sculley, that Apple would tank, and that he (mini-Steve) would be brought back to save the company, just like big Steve did.

    if so, it doesn’t seem to be working out 


    No, he took the high road and hasn’t publicly bad mouthed Apple after making him the scapegoat of Apple Maps being a total
    piece of shit and being fired for not apologizing. 

    In contrast, what happened to whoever decided to throttle the processor on iPhones when your battery was failing? I didn’t see an apology from them. 
    I suspect Cook wanted rid of him too because he was a potential threat to Cook's position. Blaming him for Maps was just a convenient way to get rid of him. Apple needs someone sharp and enthused like Forstall, who will question things, push boundaries and  push employees to be their best. Not mushy Cook who is quite happy with minor iteration and employing people for diversity targets rather than employing the best - as long as it brings in more $$$$ anyway.
    Bullshit, it's all pretty well documented that he led the Maps project and wouldn't own it when it failed and that Jony Ive and others had issues with him to the point they couldn't be in the same meetings. You'd think maybe Jobs would've given him CEO if he was so much better as you project in your fantasy here. 
    This is the thing that the Cult of Forstall seems to forget. If he was that good then why didn’t Jobs give him the CEO. Maybe it’s because it takes more than a black sweater to be a good CEO?

    randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 46
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    elijahg said:
    People here are complaining about how Apple's software handles battery issues on their iPhones, but they're perfectly okay with demanding side-loading so that unchecked apps can run on their iPhones.
    It's called "choice".
    And no one is removing your choice. All you need to do is buy a different phone. 

    Simples. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 46
    Rayz2016 said:

    elijahg said:
    People here are complaining about how Apple's software handles battery issues on their iPhones, but they're perfectly okay with demanding side-loading so that unchecked apps can run on their iPhones.
    It's called "choice".
    And no one is removing your choice. All you need to do is buy a different phone. 

    Simples. 
    Or he could jailbreak his phone and install a different OS. Apple wouldn't sue him for that. It's his phone, after all.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 46
    Sorry if everyone missed my sarcasm. I forgot to put the /s at the end of my previous comment. 

    My point was that IMHO, Cook fired Forestall for using the Maps debacle as an excuse to get rid of him because, well, he didn’t like his personality. I don’t think it was Scott’s fault that Maps was such a turd when it first came out without Google. His team had to cobble together different technologies that Apple had purchased to make a brand new platform. 
    From what I read, Scott didn’t want to release it when Tim and the rest of the board did. 
    When it was discovered it wasn’t ready, Tim wanted Scott to publicly apologize knowing he wouldn’t and thus firing him.  Now Epic wants to talk to him to see if he throws Apple under the bus. I doubt he will. 

    The sarcastic part of my last comment was that, IMHO, Tim made an even bigger blunder FOR apologizing and giving away batteries for $29. There was nothing wrong with Apple trying to protect its users devices by throttling the processor when the battery is failing so that it doesn’t power off unexpectedly. It’s just that nobody decided to make that a very big point to explain it in detail and allow consumers to switch it off which would have avoided all of the headaches and lost revenue of millions of dollars. 
    There was never anyone in Scott’s position  fired and made public over that. 

    So Tim really cost Apple more money and tarnished Apple’s image worse than Scott did. 
Sign In or Register to comment.