This won't end well. Steve got things done because it was his company. His vision. His leadership. Scott may be talented, but he is really just an employee. Tim isn't going anywhere, but who is the bigger loss.....Forstall or Ive? I think Ive will eventually tire of Forstall and leave. I think it's a problem when you can't get those two to have a meeting without Tim there. Control your ego Forstall.
Mix Ive, Cook and Forestall in a blender... and then, and only then, would you have something close to Steve.
I disagree. Jobs did not have the in-depth background each of the trio has in their respective expertise. He was not a designer. Nor a programmer. Nor a logistics expert. His unique talent was assembling and integrating people who do, while learning enough details to have a strong hand. Ergo, he was very different from the integration of Cook, Forstall and Ive (and let's not forget Bob Mansfield).
There's no chance Cook and Ive can emerge beyond from their own expertise to develop a comprehensive product vision. Forstall has a chance if he learns how to bring Ive and Mansfield into his corner. But he could never duplicate Jobs for another reason beyond talent - Apple was Jobs' creation. No one questioned his vision. Scott Forstall can always walk away if he didn't get his way. The only way Jobs was leaving Apple was the way it happened. That's a level of passion no one can replicate.
The genius of Steve was in being able to see far into the future what products people might need. Can Scott do that? Still, I think Apple has very talented managers. I hope Tim is able to keep them together.
That's the biggest challenge facing Cook. He seems up to the task. But ego is a funny thing.
Even though SJ is irreplaceable, I've been saying for years that Scott is extremely charismatic, has a great stage presence, and should be the only guy on stage during Apple product announcements.
Tim Cook's genius lies elsewhere, but it's not on the stage.
I totally agree with you. Plus he is the man behind iOS and that is no small claim.
iOS is probably one of the most successful software projects in history. I can't remember a single thing they've done wrong over the course of its development...
And assuming the report is correct, this could've all been wrecked if Scott hadn't talked Steve out of keeping iOS closed. I'm surprised Steve didn't see the potential in opening iPhone development to the world.
Scott pulled iOS from the brink of disaster by creating that SDK.
I disagree. Jobs did not have the in-depth background each of the trio has in their respective expertise. He was not a designer. Nor a programmer. Nor a logistics expert. His unique talent was assembling and integrating people who do, while learning enough details to have a strong hand. Ergo, he was very different from the integration of Cook, Forstall and Ive (and let's not forget Bob Mansfield).
There's no chance Cook and Ive can emerge beyond from their own expertise to develop a comprehensive product vision. Forstall has a chance if he learns how to bring Ive and Mansfield into his corner. But he could never duplicate Jobs for another reason beyond talent - Apple was Jobs' creation. No one questioned his vision. Scott Forstall can always walk away if he didn't get his way. The only way Jobs was leaving Apple was the way it happened. That's a level of passion no one can replicate.
None of those degrees prepares you to be a public speaker nor a visionary.
Sorry, but Steve didn't technically have an Industrial Design bachelor's degree [that's all Ive hass] but he had nearly 30 years of design work.
The man designed the NeXT Computer Manufacturing fully automated robotics assembly plant.
He designed the Magneto Optical Disc holder on the NeXTStation that worked with Canon drives. Canon didn't manage it.
He was intricate in designing how the NeXTStation, NeXT Printer and the Cube was designed. The same with every Apple product since coming back.
He didn't do the final drafting and of course didn't put his P.E. stamp of approval on the wire harness, IC boards, Heat dissipation solutions, etc., but every part was redesigned if it didn't meet his critical eye for design.
The press loves to paint people in broad strokes, so I'm hesitant to believe this BusinessWeek writer's spin on Forstall. I also think that no one is going to fill Steve Jobs' shoes at Apple, nor should Apple management pursue someone in the hopes that they will be the "next Steve."
This won't end well. Steve got things done because it was his company. His vision. His leadership. Scott may be talented, but he is really just an employee. Tim isn't going anywhere, but who is the bigger loss.....Forstall or Ive? I think Ive will eventually tire of Forstall and leave. I think it's a problem when you can't get those two to have a meeting without Tim there. Control your ego Forstall.
What are you talking about? Ive and Forstall get along. This has nothing to do with the executive assembled today. This has to do with an employee who left and Forstall over what solution to use for the Embedded OS.
I can't deny that I was a little disgusted by the fact that he was not only co-valedictorian but he married the other co-valedictorian. Give me a break.
None of those degrees prepares you to be a public speaker nor a visionary.
Sorry, but Steve didn't technically have an Industrial Design bachelor's degree [that's all Ive hass] but he had nearly 30 years of design work.
The man designed the NeXT Computer Manufacturing fully automated robotics assembly plant.
He designed the Magneto Optical Disc holder on the NeXTStation that worked with Canon drives. Canon didn't manage it.
He was intricate in designing how the NeXTStation, NeXT Printer and the Cube was designed. The same with every Apple product since coming back.
He didn't do the final drafting and of course didn't put his P.E. stamp of approval on the wire harness, IC boards, Heat dissipation solutions, etc., but every part was redesigned if it didn't meet his critical eye for design.
Good lord, I didn't slag Jobs in any way. But you just had to find a reason to be all up in arms.
Man, some of you are so defensive about Jobs and Apple, as if defending the man and the company would confer their greatness on you.
The press loves to paint people in broad strokes, so I'm hesitant to believe this BusinessWeek writer's spin on Forstall. I also think that no one is going to fill Steve Jobs' shoes at Apple, nor should Apple management pursue someone in the hopes that they will be the "next Steve."
I agree. You don't 'replace' Steve Jobs. Apple's future sucess will largely be determined by their ability to work as a team. I thought Forstall was the best presenter at the iPhone 4S Event. His Siri Demo sold me on the product.
I didn't watch the iPhone4S Keynote until after I knew Steve Jobs had died. So knowing when I watched it how heavy those guys must have felt, I thought that Scott did the best at putting the issue from his mind and gave a very Steve-like presentation. I hadn't remembered him from other keynotes, just the video at Apple.com that shows him talking about iOS.
When I watched the Keynote, I kept thinking that he looked like how I would imagine Wesley Crusher from Star Trek would look grown up (Will Wheaton, doesn't look like a grown up Wesley to me) probably because he really is a brilliant thinker and not just acting like one. I felt swayed by his enthusiasm and impressed by his work.
Now, I am as big of a Steve Jobs as there is (I cried like a baby several times this past week) but Steve Jobs didn't have a corner on seeing the future. For instance it was Gene Roddenberry and his team of designers thought up the flip open communicators. I was a small child when Star Trek first aired, and we had nothing remotely close to such a thing in our lives. We still used dial telephones and some areas of the country operators actually still manually connecting phone lines! The first cell phones were very Trek communicator like.
Then in Star Trek the Next Generation, Roddenberry and designers gave us the clean monitor only computers and *gasp* hand-held computer tablets. Computers at that time were clunky and beige, even Apple's. There are many great minds around thinking of great things all of the time, some (H. G. Wells) died before Steve was born. What Steve did was drive the industry to invest into bringing the designs that were fantasies at the time they were first conceived of. I do believe that Scott also has the type of drive that Steve Jobs had, plus he has more hands on knowledge of just what it would take to do something. I actually feel much more relieved knowing the history of his and Steve's relationship, I think he will bring good things for a very long time. I have only played with iOS5 for a day and I am really loving it. Good stuff.
And it will take a team, Scott couldn't just become Steve, he needs to focus on his strength of being the leader of the iOS unit. Tim is better to over see the team. I really do think Apple is in good hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
Ah...but is he a visionary?
The genius of Steve was in being able to see far into the future what products people might need. Can Scott do that? Still, I think Apple has very talented managers. I hope Tim is able to keep them together.
This AI article has a much different and more sinister flavor than the Businessweek story it attempts to summarize. It's a good idea to read the original piece.
This calls to mind the adage about the connection between quality and oats. If you want clean, first-quality oats, then be prepared to get them direct from the farmer and pay a fair price. If you don't mind oats that have been through the horse first, well that comes a little cheaper.
What are you talking about? Ive and Forstall get along. This has nothing to do with the executive assembled today. This has to do with an employee who left and Forstall over what solution to use for the Embedded OS.
There was no doubt this was Scott's role to lose.
You didn't read the entire 6 page article? It does state that Ive and Forstall have their issues.
That's not a great character trait. That's precisely how the shit floats to the top of most companies.
Anyhow, I'm not gonna judge him by that. 'spooky looking' definitely (!) , but I quite like him, he is intriguingly odd, and clearly quite talented.
Could not agree more. Why do the sociopathic douchebags always seem to rise to the top? I guess because humans somehow appreciate those traits? Me, those are the people I tell to F off and would fire if I were running a company.
I'm not saying Forstall is necessarily like this because I'm only going off the article as well...
But it sure seems like most middle and upper management of most companies are douchebags.
Comments
Over the past ten years, he sold about 237,000 shares worth over $42.5 million....
Jeeze, can you blame the guy for wanting to take a vacation?
Mix Ive, Cook and Forestall in a blender... and then, and only then, would you have something close to Steve.
I disagree. Jobs did not have the in-depth background each of the trio has in their respective expertise. He was not a designer. Nor a programmer. Nor a logistics expert. His unique talent was assembling and integrating people who do, while learning enough details to have a strong hand. Ergo, he was very different from the integration of Cook, Forstall and Ive (and let's not forget Bob Mansfield).
There's no chance Cook and Ive can emerge beyond from their own expertise to develop a comprehensive product vision. Forstall has a chance if he learns how to bring Ive and Mansfield into his corner. But he could never duplicate Jobs for another reason beyond talent - Apple was Jobs' creation. No one questioned his vision. Scott Forstall can always walk away if he didn't get his way. The only way Jobs was leaving Apple was the way it happened. That's a level of passion no one can replicate.
Ah...but is he a visionary?
The genius of Steve was in being able to see far into the future what products people might need. Can Scott do that? Still, I think Apple has very talented managers. I hope Tim is able to keep them together.
That's the biggest challenge facing Cook. He seems up to the task. But ego is a funny thing.
Even though SJ is irreplaceable, I've been saying for years that Scott is extremely charismatic, has a great stage presence, and should be the only guy on stage during Apple product announcements.
Tim Cook's genius lies elsewhere, but it's not on the stage.
I totally agree with you. Plus he is the man behind iOS and that is no small claim.
iOS is probably one of the most successful software projects in history. I can't remember a single thing they've done wrong over the course of its development...
And assuming the report is correct, this could've all been wrecked if Scott hadn't talked Steve out of keeping iOS closed. I'm surprised Steve didn't see the potential in opening iPhone development to the world.
Scott pulled iOS from the brink of disaster by creating that SDK.
I disagree. Jobs did not have the in-depth background each of the trio has in their respective expertise. He was not a designer. Nor a programmer. Nor a logistics expert. His unique talent was assembling and integrating people who do, while learning enough details to have a strong hand. Ergo, he was very different from the integration of Cook, Forstall and Ive (and let's not forget Bob Mansfield).
There's no chance Cook and Ive can emerge beyond from their own expertise to develop a comprehensive product vision. Forstall has a chance if he learns how to bring Ive and Mansfield into his corner. But he could never duplicate Jobs for another reason beyond talent - Apple was Jobs' creation. No one questioned his vision. Scott Forstall can always walk away if he didn't get his way. The only way Jobs was leaving Apple was the way it happened. That's a level of passion no one can replicate.
None of those degrees prepares you to be a public speaker nor a visionary.
Sorry, but Steve didn't technically have an Industrial Design bachelor's degree [that's all Ive hass] but he had nearly 30 years of design work.
The man designed the NeXT Computer Manufacturing fully automated robotics assembly plant.
He designed the Magneto Optical Disc holder on the NeXTStation that worked with Canon drives. Canon didn't manage it.
He was intricate in designing how the NeXTStation, NeXT Printer and the Cube was designed. The same with every Apple product since coming back.
He didn't do the final drafting and of course didn't put his P.E. stamp of approval on the wire harness, IC boards, Heat dissipation solutions, etc., but every part was redesigned if it didn't meet his critical eye for design.
This won't end well. Steve got things done because it was his company. His vision. His leadership. Scott may be talented, but he is really just an employee. Tim isn't going anywhere, but who is the bigger loss.....Forstall or Ive? I think Ive will eventually tire of Forstall and leave. I think it's a problem when you can't get those two to have a meeting without Tim there. Control your ego Forstall.
What are you talking about? Ive and Forstall get along. This has nothing to do with the executive assembled today. This has to do with an employee who left and Forstall over what solution to use for the Embedded OS.
There was no doubt this was Scott's role to lose.
None of those degrees prepares you to be a public speaker nor a visionary.
Sorry, but Steve didn't technically have an Industrial Design bachelor's degree [that's all Ive hass] but he had nearly 30 years of design work.
The man designed the NeXT Computer Manufacturing fully automated robotics assembly plant.
He designed the Magneto Optical Disc holder on the NeXTStation that worked with Canon drives. Canon didn't manage it.
He was intricate in designing how the NeXTStation, NeXT Printer and the Cube was designed. The same with every Apple product since coming back.
He didn't do the final drafting and of course didn't put his P.E. stamp of approval on the wire harness, IC boards, Heat dissipation solutions, etc., but every part was redesigned if it didn't meet his critical eye for design.
Good lord, I didn't slag Jobs in any way. But you just had to find a reason to be all up in arms.
Man, some of you are so defensive about Jobs and Apple, as if defending the man and the company would confer their greatness on you.
This is so cute.
Good lord, I didn't slag Jobs in any way. But you just had to find a reason to be all up in arms.
Man, some of you are so defensive about Jobs and Apple, as if defending the man and the company would confer their greatness on you.
This is so cute.
So you can disagree with me but nobody can disagree with you.
That's pathetic.
The press loves to paint people in broad strokes, so I'm hesitant to believe this BusinessWeek writer's spin on Forstall. I also think that no one is going to fill Steve Jobs' shoes at Apple, nor should Apple management pursue someone in the hopes that they will be the "next Steve."
I agree. You don't 'replace' Steve Jobs. Apple's future sucess will largely be determined by their ability to work as a team. I thought Forstall was the best presenter at the iPhone 4S Event. His Siri Demo sold me on the product.
When I watched the Keynote, I kept thinking that he looked like how I would imagine Wesley Crusher from Star Trek would look grown up (Will Wheaton, doesn't look like a grown up Wesley to me) probably because he really is a brilliant thinker and not just acting like one. I felt swayed by his enthusiasm and impressed by his work.
Now, I am as big of a Steve Jobs as there is (I cried like a baby several times this past week) but Steve Jobs didn't have a corner on seeing the future. For instance it was Gene Roddenberry and his team of designers thought up the flip open communicators. I was a small child when Star Trek first aired, and we had nothing remotely close to such a thing in our lives. We still used dial telephones and some areas of the country operators actually still manually connecting phone lines! The first cell phones were very Trek communicator like.
Then in Star Trek the Next Generation, Roddenberry and designers gave us the clean monitor only computers and *gasp* hand-held computer tablets. Computers at that time were clunky and beige, even Apple's. There are many great minds around thinking of great things all of the time, some (H. G. Wells) died before Steve was born. What Steve did was drive the industry to invest into bringing the designs that were fantasies at the time they were first conceived of. I do believe that Scott also has the type of drive that Steve Jobs had, plus he has more hands on knowledge of just what it would take to do something. I actually feel much more relieved knowing the history of his and Steve's relationship, I think he will bring good things for a very long time. I have only played with iOS5 for a day and I am really loving it. Good stuff.
And it will take a team, Scott couldn't just become Steve, he needs to focus on his strength of being the leader of the iOS unit. Tim is better to over see the team. I really do think Apple is in good hands.
Ah...but is he a visionary?
The genius of Steve was in being able to see far into the future what products people might need. Can Scott do that? Still, I think Apple has very talented managers. I hope Tim is able to keep them together.
This calls to mind the adage about the connection between quality and oats. If you want clean, first-quality oats, then be prepared to get them direct from the farmer and pay a fair price. If you don't mind oats that have been through the horse first, well that comes a little cheaper.
I wonder how he would look in a black turtleneck?
that made me spit my coffee and LOL!
What are you talking about? Ive and Forstall get along. This has nothing to do with the executive assembled today. This has to do with an employee who left and Forstall over what solution to use for the Embedded OS.
There was no doubt this was Scott's role to lose.
You didn't read the entire 6 page article? It does state that Ive and Forstall have their issues.
Steve's best quality was being able to say "NO"
Lots of Apple engineers and designers came up with great ideas... it took Jobs saying "NO" to get rid of the bad ideas.
That's not a great character trait. That's precisely how the shit floats to the top of most companies.
Anyhow, I'm not gonna judge him by that. 'spooky looking' definitely (!) , but I quite like him, he is intriguingly odd, and clearly quite talented.
Could not agree more. Why do the sociopathic douchebags always seem to rise to the top? I guess because humans somehow appreciate those traits? Me, those are the people I tell to F off and would fire if I were running a company.
I'm not saying Forstall is necessarily like this because I'm only going off the article as well...
But it sure seems like most middle and upper management of most companies are douchebags.