Jony Ive's exit from Apple caused by company culture changes and growing frustration

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 74
    drdaviddrdavid Posts: 90member
    Beats said:
    I wish Tim would be less of a beta feminist and focus more on design. 
    “Oh my god it’s just massive”. “Yep. Locals call it the Grand Canyon of stupid comments.”
    TRAG
  • Reply 62 of 74
    When Jobs passed, so did Ives' enthusiasm for Apple. As an artist/designer who understands the basic principle "Form FOLLOWS Function", Ives did exactly the opposite leading to one feature starved product after another all in the service of making the lightest/thinnest……everything. Ives is a much heralded designer, and has found success in "Love From", and I wish him the best. However, I feel his leaving Apple was the best thing that could happen to Apple's product lines! Witness the new MacBook Pros with the reintroduction of PORTS! And the Mac Studio with ports galore. I don't believe Apple would have been able to make these products if they were at the mercy of the Ives design philosophy. As for Tim Cook, no, he isn't the innovator Steve Jobs was, but his teams are chock full of brilliant designers and engineers. Regardless of the way he is portrayed in this article, Cook is touted as one of the best CEOs of our time. Even when Jobs was alive, it was Cook who made Apple soar. And of all the brilliant "generals" at Apple, Jobs chose Cook to succeed him.
  • Reply 63 of 74
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    tundraboy said:
    Wealthy people might not mind spending $10K on a watch but they do mind wasting $10K on anything.  That's one of the reasons they got to be wealthy.
    LOL this is 100% untrue.
  • Reply 64 of 74
    CheeseFreezeCheeseFreeze Posts: 1,247member
    Apple’s SoC team is amazing and they have brought a new kind of innovation to the company.

    On design, the new iMac is nice. Unexpected.
    But the Studio is just a dull, unattractive brick, basically an obese Mac Mini. The Studio monitor lacks personality. iPads and iPhones are still the same.
    Other brands have caught up and offer similar designs. 

    Perhaps we are in an era where, regardless of brand, unique design is less important and the utility is more important. Where there’s not much room or need to be unique on the design front, and the insides matter much more.

    It’s just a bit sad to see Apple lacks the cohones, with the iMac being an exception, to truly innovate on the design front. That was Ivy, yes, risking usability and utility in the process sometimes. But his time was up. And that’s fine. 

    It’s 2022 now, and in my opinion Apple should innovate in repairability and sustainability. We should be able to replace the battery of our phones, without Apple compromising design or water proof factor. The iMac should be usable as standalone monitor. And so forth. 
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 65 of 74
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    Apple's key point of difference was that Jobs had a stronger personality than Woz so purpose led technology, unique in comparison to the competition and still rare today. From his comments before his death, Jobs clearly wanted Ive to continue to drive the product direction with design not engineering.
    Unfortunately, Jobs' firing and return appears to have made him too formidable a character to follow and maintain the purpose-driven focus so things have lapsed into predictable 'faster horses' as clearly evidenced by current MacBook Pro & Mac Studio design regressions. There are also stacks of uncharacteristically unintuitive 'design' decisions across all products which are almost certainly the result of limited design input.

    Is it doom for Apple? Probably not but slowly the competition will catch up and Apple's point of difference and wow factor will diminish and force some more financially and politically motivated decisions - we'll know when they start licensing the theirs OS' again.
  • Reply 66 of 74
    elliots11elliots11 Posts: 290member
    Ive’s designs have been amazing, however he was always on the form side of form vs function and I think sometimes that went too far. Hopefully Apple won’t swing too far in the other direction now. The too thin MacBooks lacking ports, removing of the iPhone home button and headphone jack were probably his ideas I’m not fond of, but Apple stuff looks great so it’s probably good he got to have his influence. Hopefully Apple continues to push design but differently. As for Tim Cook who’s taken some hits here, he oversaw the Apple Silicon transition and returning ports to MacBook Pros, and both are huge for me, with Apple Silicon being huge overall, if he were just a bean counter Apple Silicon probably wouldn’t be as good as it is, so his legacy is secure. 
  • Reply 67 of 74
    Who knows if mr Cook and sir Ive had arguments, over 30 years of collaboration it's almost certain they did. In another thread a user commented brilliantly : sir Ive had worked so many years and the loss of his best friend (Steve Jobs) left him a void. Also having worked so hard for so many years, with such success, and having completed the dream of his friend (Apple Park) it's only fitting to retire just then. Of course there might be other reasons as well but it's not all retirements the result of big conflict.

    Artists need to explore their creativity in many ways and sir Ive has earned that. Design is not only about technological devices.

    So, what I see from all these reports is lacking the human aspect and full of gossip-like information and representation of personalities.
    edited May 2022
  • Reply 68 of 74
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 694member
    phytonix said:
    I would argue his departure was a blessing in disguise. Sure I love his designs, usually very elegant, with a lot of attention to detail. But his pursuit of thinness, less ports, etc., have always caused a lot of practical challenges for Mac and iPhone users (particularly Mac).

    Some of his design language still lives on at Apple, but I think the hardware have become generally better as a result of his departure. 

    I would agree with your sentiment as well. Their products now are a better balance of form and function. Ive was way too obsessed with thinness etc in which function suffered. Now with Apple Silicon they can still keep products thin and cool, while maintaining great battery life and performance. I think, IMHO, that has been the biggest score to date.
  • Reply 69 of 74
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    mcdave said:
    From his comments before his death, Jobs clearly wanted Ive to continue to drive the product direction with design not engineering.
    Not sure why you think those are two disparate things. As Jobs said himself:

    ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”

    things have lapsed into predictable 'faster horses' as clearly evidenced by current MacBook Pro & Mac Studio design regressions. There are also stacks of uncharacteristically unintuitive 'design' decisions across all products which are almost certainly the result of limited design input.
    Yet these new MacBook Pros have been widely hailed as a welcome return to form and universally loved. The Studio is something users have been clamoring for, for years. Could it look more interesting? Sure. Does it need to? No.

    Is it doom for Apple? Probably not but slowly the competition will catch up and Apple's point of difference and wow factor will diminish and force some more financially and politically motivated decisions - we'll know when they start licensing the theirs OS' again.
    LOL absolutely never ever happening.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 70 of 74
    chasm said:
    It is worth noting that the drivel upon which this article is based was written by Trippe Mickel, a anti-Apple propagandist who has never been right about the company.

    There might well be some facts sprinkled in amongst his anti-Cook diatribe, but the accuracy of anything he has ever written on the topic of Apple has been exceedingly low.

    But don’t take my word for it — ask the Macalope.

    (unless I’m secretly the Macalope …) 😜
    You beat me to it.

    Mickle learned long ago that writing things which were skewed as anti-Apple was a sure way to get attention. Witness the 80 or so replies on this topic. To those in the financial world who view (and own) Apple stock, writing like this will be perceived a edgy and contrarian. And to those who are acolytes of the company, it provokes rage and hostile responses.

    Mickel’s book is the literary version of clickbait. The best way to deal with it is to understand he is trying to get under your skin with gossip and thinly-sourced material.
  • Reply 71 of 74
    kidrock2199kidrock2199 Posts: 143member
    When Steve Jobs died, I HOPED Apple would continue to be great. I wanted it to so bad. But had a feeling it wouldn’t. I knew the moment Scott Forstall was let go that Apple was already changing. I know he wasn’t well liked there, but he knew his shit. Why do you think Steve kept him around? Like a lot of businesses in America, the higher up people don’t know the first thing about their companies products. They’re only there cause they’re good and making the bottom line appealing.

    I know of companies that completely went under from being on top because “this guys got great ideas and will continue to grow the business.” “Don’t worry, nothings changing.” My ass. Shit ALWAYS changes for the worse after a new boss comes in. I never stay at companies long after a boss or CEO shift. I left 3 businesses the moment a new boss was brought in and after hearing from colleagues later, it was the right move EVERY time. They said EVERYTHING  changed and were miserable.

    Tim’s a great numbers man. But has no interest in the way the products are designed. You need an artist at the top. THEN a numbers guy in the #2 spot to keep the company humming along on all cylinders. Steve picked the wrong guy (again) Tim should’ve stayed in the #2 spot. They’ve lost a ton of talent since Steve died. The ones who willingly left, I know their pain. 
    OctoMonkey
  • Reply 72 of 74
    OctoMonkeyOctoMonkey Posts: 311member
    When Steve Jobs died, I HOPED Apple would continue to be great. I wanted it to so bad. But had a feeling it wouldn’t. I knew the moment Scott Forstall was let go that Apple was already changing. I know he wasn’t well liked there, but he knew his shit. Why do you think Steve kept him around? Like a lot of businesses in America, the higher up people don’t know the first thing about their companies products. They’re only there cause they’re good and making the bottom line appealing.

    I know of companies that completely went under from being on top because “this guys got great ideas and will continue to grow the business.” “Don’t worry, nothings changing.” My ass. Shit ALWAYS changes for the worse after a new boss comes in. I never stay at companies long after a boss or CEO shift. I left 3 businesses the moment a new boss was brought in and after hearing from colleagues later, it was the right move EVERY time. They said EVERYTHING  changed and were miserable.

    Tim’s a great numbers man. But has no interest in the way the products are designed. You need an artist at the top. THEN a numbers guy in the #2 spot to keep the company humming along on all cylinders. Steve picked the wrong guy (again) Tim should’ve stayed in the #2 spot. They’ve lost a ton of talent since Steve died. The ones who willingly left, I know their pain. 
    As I have said many, many times...
    Tim Cook may have made a great COO, but he is a miserable failure as a CEO.

    As to ALWAYS...  no.  Frequently, yes.  Perhaps even usually.  But definitely not always.

    Jobs was no artist, he was a visionary and a dreamer (and a bit of a control freak).  Ives was an artist.  Ives was very good, but only as long as he was kept in check.  The more final decision making power he had, the worse his designs became - because there was not enough (or no) pragmatic balance to his artistic creativity.
  • Reply 73 of 74
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    When Steve Jobs died, I HOPED Apple would continue to be great. I wanted it to so bad. But had a feeling it wouldn’t. I knew the moment Scott Forstall was let go that Apple was already changing. I know he wasn’t well liked there, but he knew his shit. Why do you think Steve kept him around? Like a lot of businesses in America, the higher up people don’t know the first thing about their companies products. They’re only there cause they’re good and making the bottom line appealing.

    I know of companies that completely went under from being on top because “this guys got great ideas and will continue to grow the business.” “Don’t worry, nothings changing.” My ass. Shit ALWAYS changes for the worse after a new boss comes in. I never stay at companies long after a boss or CEO shift. I left 3 businesses the moment a new boss was brought in and after hearing from colleagues later, it was the right move EVERY time. They said EVERYTHING  changed and were miserable.

    Tim’s a great numbers man. But has no interest in the way the products are designed. You need an artist at the top. THEN a numbers guy in the #2 spot to keep the company humming along on all cylinders. Steve picked the wrong guy (again) Tim should’ve stayed in the #2 spot. They’ve lost a ton of talent since Steve died. The ones who willingly left, I know their pain. 
    Yet, we have one of the strongest Mac lineups in many years. iPhones and iPads are incredible, the former has 99% customer satisfaction rate. Watch sucked the air out of the market. AirPods are a huge success. Weird how that works out with such a "wrong" CEO.

    People like yourself have rose-tinted glasses as far as how great Apple's product lineup was during Jobs' tenure. He made a LOT of mistakes and crappy decisions. Forstall enabled a lot of those poor decisions as well, which is probably one reason Jobs "kept him around". Jobs liked torn paper and fake leather on app interfaces, the stupid card shredder and mechanical reel-to-reel podcast player. All stupid, stupid UX decisions enabled by Forstall. Good riddance.
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.