Apple SVP of Hardware Engineering Bob Mansfield to retire

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    gregoriusmgregoriusm Posts: 493member


    There could be a number of reasons for his departure, but I do have to agree that it could very well be like running the 100 yard dash every day of the week working in that position for Apple.


     


    And he could very well think that his health and his family are more important, while at the same time seeing from the inside what we don't from the outside, that Apple is in great shape to continue long after he is gone.


     


    So, any way it shakes out, thanks Bob for all you've done for us consumers! Enjoy!

  • Reply 62 of 80

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


     


    Ummm, here in the States, most schools and police are funded through property taxes on a town or county level, along with the street sweepers. Trash haulers are usually private. Don't get me started on the Medicaid, Social Security and low income debate because I believe hardly any capital gains tax is used for those programs.


     


    Sorry for being off topic but fundamentally I have a problem with this viewpoint. Bob Mansfield's success should not be utilized for the funding of these programs....for the benefit of others.



     


    But there is a better than even chance that Bob himself disagrees with you, since Apple executives tend to be democrats.

  • Reply 63 of 80


    Mansfield has been in the company since 1999, but has been Senior VP for all of two years. The guy is around 52. Something ain't right here. I am not saying he was fired, but a departure like this, so soon after a major promotion, is rarely a sign that everything is OK. Somebody was unhappy with somebody or (hopefully not) there is a health issue.

  • Reply 64 of 80
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    Mansfield has been in the company since 1999, but has been Senior VP for all of two years. The guy is around 52. Something ain't right here. I am not saying he was fired, but a departure like this, so soon after a major promotion, is rarely a sign that everything is OK. Somebody was unhappy with somebody or (hopefully not) there is a health issue.



     


    I think Bob had to step up to the plate in a major way, and he did. But whether it is sustainable in the long term is another question. It is Apple, after all. I don't think it's a major weird thing, perhaps just Bob having to face reality on what his role is, and what it was going to be.


     


    And there will always be only one Steve Jobs. People say he was a dick, but he certainly had staff that believed in him 100% and stuck it out despite Steve supposedly being this brash, abrasive guy.

  • Reply 65 of 80
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I've been wondering why he's been selling most all his stock during the past year. Now I know.

    I also wonder why he would retire at such a young age, and when Apple is becoming a vast company.




    Because he wants to enjoy retirement while he can still have sex?

  • Reply 66 of 80
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


     


    Ummm, here in the States, most schools and police are funded through property taxes on a town or county level, along with the street sweepers. Trash haulers are usually private. Don't get me started on the Medicaid, Social Security and low income debate because I believe hardly any capital gains tax is used for those programs.


     


    Sorry for being off topic but fundamentally I have a problem with this viewpoint. Bob Mansfield's success should not be utilized for the funding of these programs....for the benefit of others.





    And that private funding is ultimately sponsored by the fact that United States have a strong army. I won't go into the fine points, if you can't find out why that you're too stupid to understand explanations, and if you can find out why, I'd insult your intelligence by explaining.


     


    Just as a quick example, Ivy League was fundamentally sponsored through the River of Pearls war and opium trade, and that's only the 19th century.


     


    Your reasoning, once broken up to its components, is "luck and strength should be the only differentiator". Men have actually outgrown that line of thinking somewhere around 10000 BC.

  • Reply 67 of 80
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post




    And that private funding is ultimately sponsored by the fact that United States have a strong army. I won't go into the fine points, if you can't find out why that you're too stupid to understand explanations, and if you can find out why, I'd insult your intelligence by explaining.


     


    Just as a quick example, Ivy League was fundamentally sponsored through the River of Pearls war and opium trade, and that's only the 19th century.


     


    Your reasoning, once broken up to its components, is "luck and strength should be the only differentiator". Men have actually outgrown that line of thinking somewhere around 10000 BC.





    This sort of comment is just uncalled for. If you are truly more knowledgeable and intelligent, it would be apparent. If you have to make that claim yourself and insult someone to score a point, then you are just revealing your inferiority and insecurity. Play nice and you might earn the respect you crave.

  • Reply 68 of 80
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    Mansfield has been in the company since 1999, but has been Senior VP for all of two years. The guy is around 52. Something ain't right here. I am not saying he was fired, but a departure like this, so soon after a major promotion, is rarely a sign that everything is OK. Somebody was unhappy with somebody or (hopefully not) there is a health issue.





    Chances are that at least some of those reporting directly to Steve Jobs (reportedly at least 15 VPs and SVPs) started losing motivation after his departure. Culture is changing. Or they were loyal to the man more than to the company. When one is that successful and that wealthy, it actually is remarkable that he hasn't left sooner. All to say, I see a very natural occurrence here and nothing unexpected.

  • Reply 69 of 80
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Mansfield has been in the company since 1999, but has been Senior VP for all of two years. The guy is around 52. Something ain't right here. I am not saying he was fired, but a departure like this, so soon after a major promotion, is rarely a sign that everything is OK. Somebody was unhappy with somebody or (hopefully not) there is a health issue.
    Mansfield first showed up on Apple's executive page in June 2008 as SVP Mac Hardware Engineering.  Though I think he was reporting to Cook; I don't think he ever reported directly to Jobs.  

    In May of 2004 Jon Rubenstien's title was changed from SVP Hardware Engineering to SVP iPod Division and Tim Cook took over Mac engineering.  Tim Bucher took over Ruby's role but less than a year later he filed suit for wrongful termination.  After he left Cook appointed a team led by Mansfield, Dan Riccio and Jony Ive to oversee the Mac business.

    It seems a bit odd Mansfield would leave now, but maybe he wants to go out on top (rMBP is a high note to go out on).  Or maybe he's just burned out and needs a change.
  • Reply 70 of 80
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    cgj wrote: »
    What are you talking about? How many service packs have over 200 new features? Including major changes like Voice Dictation, deeper iCloud sync, Notification Centre, new Safari and Facebook/Twitter integration?

    Indeed. Windows XP with Squares. That's Windows 8. Windows Vista 64bit? My gawd, how many weeks of my life was wasted on getting the damn PC to recognise more than 2GB of RAM.

    NEVER AGAIN Microsoft. NEVER AGAIN.
    OK, I'll go out on a limb here ... I think Apple has a long way to go.

    The thing is that Steve was running at a different pace than the rest of the world, particularly in the last decade. It will take Apple and consumers, particularly, another 10 years to catch up with everything that he put in place. Look at the iTunes Store now. Then watch the 2003 All Things D Steve interview when iTunes Store was first launched. Not much difference in essence, though of course very different in sophistication.
    "In other news, Samsung has poured every cent they have into hiring Bob Mansfield, formerly of Apple Inc." :lol:

    LOL. I'm sure Samsung also promised him his pick of Samsung laptops to use at work.
    Bob Mansfield has done an excellent job. The engineering in the laptops seems to be very well done. The Mac Mini is pretty good. I've read that the iMacs get too hot and that bothers some people. Maybe the new guy will have the balls to tell Johnny Ive that he needs to give the components more room for cooling or more vents and a fan.

    It's always been a tough one. The iMac G5 was horrendous. The Quicksilver G4 was lovely but like a wind turbine. Intel Core 2 Macbook/Pros were still very noisy. Retina MacBook Pro ~ perhaps the best form factor and noise level for that level of performance. Apple, like always, was always pushing the very edge of technology and it backfired on them. But since the MacBook Air and now Retina MBP with asymmetric fans (it does help, honestly, I tried 2012 non-Retina MBP versus Retina MBP)... Apple has got a grip on it now.
    Does anybody think that the next iMacs will have soldiered on RAM and hard drives that can't be accessed just so the units can be super thin? Maybe Bob came up with that idea for the iPad and Ive will be implementing it on the next generation iMacs.

    I think the iPad was a collective Apple thing, with a lot of Steve in the mix. Basically they wanted a clean slate (pun unintended)... And thought, what if we threw out the idea of a "computer"? We just want a piece of glass that does cool stuff, the consumer need not care about the rest... RAM, hard disk, GPU, fans, noise, battery, charging... That's why the Retina Macbook is (to borrow Dick A's terminology) is the best pre-iPad device and the iPad is the best post-iPad device. Nothing will come close through to 2015. Not to mention once Retina MacBook Air 13" comes along, bye bye anything else for people that can "afford" it and like Apple.
    I was visiting the Vizio site this week and their version of an all in one desktop has the computing parts built within the base of the stand, not in the screen enclosure like the iMacs. Did Apple do it that way originally for the iMacs or did they always have the components combined with the screen? I got into Apple computers in 2008 and don't know much of the history of the products.

    For non-flat screen iMacs it was one unit, like a TV. "Sunflower" G4 as a poster showed above was all components in a base, which made the screen very manoeuvrable and quirky-sexy. iMac G5 went flat like today's iMac because I think if it was "Sunflower" the heat from the base would have melted the screen on top. I exaggerate, but the iMac G5 was pretty horrendous thermally. Steve saved Apple many times over. Switching to Intel... My goodness, if he didn't do that.
    Not a business writer, hopefully. A good writer who truly gets technology (i.e. not Isaacson)

    Yeah Isaacson captured the human side but he was a bit off on the tech side, he kept saying Microsoft was "open" and Apple "closed"... I mean, Xbox360? Hello? Arguably Microsofts most successful product in recent times, and it's closed, wall-garden, etc...
    rogifan wrote: »
    It seems a bit odd Mansfield would leave now, but maybe he wants to go out on top (rMBP is a high note to go out on).  Or maybe he's just burned out and needs a change.

    I don't think burned out but he can see he's put in his heart and soul and Apple will only ask for more, because that's just what Apple is. So, time to exit stage right on that high note.
  • Reply 71 of 80
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post




    This sort of comment is just uncalled for. If you are truly more knowledgeable and intelligent, it would be apparent. If you have to make that claim yourself and insult someone to score a point, then you are just revealing your inferiority and insecurity. Play nice and you might earn the respect you crave.



    I know I shouldn't answer to THAT. I guess I'm as childish as you are calling me :p


    So, here's my answer. I did not say I was MORE intelligent or MORE knowledgeable. I did not insult him either. What I did is simply make a point, and say that either he's intelligent and can prove that point without me doing it (basically, I was admitting to laziness) or he's not intelligent and then it's not worth spending time to prove my point to him.


     


    All in all, someone insulted someone else. That was you calling me "inferior", "insecure" and "craving for respect". All things I'm not. What I am, however, is incapable of not answering to comments on the internet, like the famous XKCD drawing. I don't think it's that bad ;)


    All in all, I forgive you for insulting me, and I hope you understand I did not insult anyone ;)


    Peace to you :D

  • Reply 72 of 80

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post




    And that private funding is ultimately sponsored by the fact that United States have a strong army. I won't go into the fine points, if you can't find out why that you're too stupid to understand explanations, and if you can find out why, I'd insult your intelligence by explaining.


     


    Just as a quick example, Ivy League was fundamentally sponsored through the River of Pearls war and opium trade, and that's only the 19th century.


     


    Your reasoning, once broken up to its components, is "luck and strength should be the only differentiator". Men have actually outgrown that line of thinking somewhere around 10000 BC.



    Hmmm, let's see.  The internet?  Established with taxpayer dollars, by legislation introduced by, wait for it, Al Gore.  Medical breakthroughs?  All based on research funded by taxpayer dollars.  Even private companies that develop drugs are simply adding the last rung to a ladder built with taxpayer dollars.  Infrastructure?  taxpayer dollars.  Safe food?  Taxpayer dollars.  


     


    These executives who get wealthy, they do so because they grew up in a society built with taxpayer dollars.  They benefited from the most, so the least they can do is contribute their fair share.


     


    Your nonsense about private funding is barely worth responding to.  Ivy League schools?  Where do you think the money comes from for most of the research grants to scientists and engineers at those schools?  Never mind that public universities educate many times as many students.   And the military, privately funded?  LOL.  Fox News droids can be spotted so easily...

  • Reply 73 of 80
    envirogenvirog Posts: 188member


    A job well done Bob.  Thanks for helping to make the greatest tech on earth!  Enjoy your youth & retirement!

  • Reply 74 of 80
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,628member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post


    Very true, indeed. But, in this case and in the case of so many others, Mr. Mansfield has paid his dues in terms of income taxes and taxes on his stock options. I completely agree that he should be able to enjoy HIS earnings without the IRS continually asking more more.



     


    Continually?   I don't think so (although I'm not an accountant).    But I did have options.   The year I exercised the options (which meant selling the shares), I paid taxes on the gain, although I don't remember whether it was taxed as capital gains or ordinary income.      But those are shares that are already cashed out and he won't have to pay any additional taxes on them.    On shares that he already (and still) owns that he cashes out, he's only going to pay at the long-term cap gains rate of 18%.     If he's got some good deductions, he might even be able to get it down to what Mitt Romney pays: 14%.       


     


    Only pre-tax 401K/SEP money gets taxed as ordinary income and that's because the compensation that came from wasn't taxed when you put it away.


     


    I'd love to pay only 18% federal taxes, but I'm not rich enough, so I have to pay at a much higher rate. 


     


    If there's a tax accountant watching, they can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm correct.  

  • Reply 75 of 80
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    zoetmb wrote: »
    Continually?   I don't think so (although I'm not an accountant).    But I did have options.   The year I exercised the options (which meant selling the shares), I paid taxes on the gain, although I don't remember whether it was taxed as capital gains or ordinary income.      But those are shares that are already cashed out and he won't have to pay any additional taxes on them.    On shares that he already (and still) owns that he cashes out, he's only going to pay at the long-term cap gains rate of 18%.     If he's got some good deductions, he might even be able to get it down to what Mitt Romney pays: 14%.       

    Only pre-tax 401K/SEP money gets taxed as ordinary income and that's because the compensation that came from wasn't taxed when you put it away.

    I'd love to pay only 18% federal taxes, but I'm not rich enough, so I have to pay at a much higher rate. 

    If there's a tax accountant watching, they can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm correct.  

    I think if you sell your stock you pay capital gains. Then your stock is in the form of cash. If you put the cash in a bank and get interest you will be charged on the interest income. That's why IRAs, 401Ks, [Superannuation in Australia], are good because you are only taxed on retirement or something like that so you can draw on the money when your marginal tax rate is low.

    So I think there is still this double taxation, which I haven't realised before. Because the government cannot (or is not bothered to) know what cash earning interest was originally from stock sold which you paid capital gains tax on.

    Yeah, an accountant should clarify this but I think this is the case for US, UK, Australia.

    EDIT: LIGHT BULBBB

    Wow. Man are we getting screwed. Yes, if you sell stock and take a capital gain you will pay capital gains tax. But if you take that cash from the sale then put it in a bank, you are also taxed on the interest from that cash. Because you have made a gain (capital gain), which is taxed, then after that, you are seen to be making more gains (interest income), which is taxed as well.

    If you sell a stock, you pay capital gains, but if you use that money to buy more stock, you won't be taxed until you sell it, upon which you will only be taxed a lower (usually) capital gains tax. So for example, if Bob sold all his Apple shares, and he has say, $2 million lying around (probably orders of magnitude more, but let's keep it simple). Firstly, no way he would put that all in regular interest-bearing savings accounts in the US. Heck, Australia will give you 6% for that $2 million per year, just taking 10% off the interest on the Australian side, and, as we know, who knows what the US side will do, maybe nothing?

    Bob will probably put that $2 million dollars into property (the government cannot tax you as your house increases in value, only when you sell it, etc)... Or perhaps more stock (the government cannot tax you if your mutual fund goes up, only when you sell it, even then only if you made a profit).

    Now do we see why the 1%, those holding stocks, accountants, tax lawyers and what not rule the financial roost? How the system is designed to absolutely destroy personal savings practices?

    The house always wins.

    Clearly the financial system is geared towards untenable asset bubbles such as stock prices and property prices, which inherently do not ensure reasonable determination of their market prices.

    The tax advantages fuel the asset bubble which fuels more tax advantages. So much for "trickle down". Maybe down your pants when the stock and property market dives off a cliff.

    But savings in a bank? Pfft that's only for dweebs. Being taxed every single day that your money supposedly "works for you", at a much higher rate to capital gains... *Sigh*
  • Reply 76 of 80
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    zoetmb wrote: »
    Continually?   I don't think so (although I'm not an accountant).    But I did have options.   The year I exercised the options (which meant selling the shares), I paid taxes on the gain, although I don't remember whether it was taxed as capital gains or ordinary income.      But those are shares that are already cashed out and he won't have to pay any additional taxes on them.    On shares that he already (and still) owns that he cashes out, he's only going to pay at the long-term cap gains rate of 18%.     If he's got some good deductions, he might even be able to get it down to what Mitt Romney pays: 14%.

    Long term capital gains tax doesn't mean you are taxed over a long term, it means if you hold that stock for a certain period of time you will pay a capital gains tax of a certain amount, incurred at the time of sale of the stock (i.e. has to be paid for that financial year).

    Once that stock becomes something else, the government still has a right to tax you whatever that is... If it is in other assets like stocks, then you don't pay straight away, but you still ~have~ to pay it when you sell, and if it is in cash, you will be taxed on the interest at your marginal tax rate.

    So once you cash out your stock, deductions aside, unless that cash is earning 0% or less interest, you will ~continue~ to be taxed on the money you made (i.e. the money Bob earned by Apple giving him stock and the money Bob earned from that stock making more money and the money Bob earned from the stock becoming cash that earns interest).

    OK peace y'all time for some Xbox360. G'nite.
  • Reply 77 of 80
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I retired once and then traveled extensively. After several years it became dull. Then I started spending my days loitering on internet forums. I've since taken jobs in a variety of professions simply to try them out but I've been missing my former career to the point that I've invested thousands in training equipment so I can get back into it.


     


    You're not secretly Bill Gates in disguise are you? lol

  • Reply 78 of 80
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    Mansfield has been in the company since 1999, but has been Senior VP for all of two years. The guy is around 52. Something ain't right here. I am not saying he was fired, but a departure like this, so soon after a major promotion, is rarely a sign that everything is OK. Somebody was unhappy with somebody or (hopefully not) there is a health issue.



     


    Could be Tim wants to build a new team around him to freshen things up. 52 seems very young to retire so I suspect there is more to this than we know.

  • Reply 79 of 80
    nceencee Posts: 857member


    How about he retires and enjoys himself / family and life for a bit. Now he can walk, talk, run, skip, hop, see and enjoy stuff, and there is plenty of stuff to enjoy. If he gets bored in a few years, then he can go back to work. But if you are lucky enough to be able to sit back, travel and enjoy life while you are still young and healthy, I say "Go for it!" and good for him.


     


    Nothing hurts me more, then to see folks have to work until they are 72 or older, then watch them try to do things, but they can't because they are to hurt, sick, poor to enjoy life. With many American's living into their late 70's, 80's - hey simply get out there and smell the roses.


     


    We know if he is like most folks he will get bored and need to get back into it, so take a break, the world isn't going to pass you by or disappear … yet.


     


    Hell, if nothing else, there is a REAL good chance, his family wants to get to know him again.


     


    Skip

  • Reply 80 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    How about he retires and enjoys himself / family and life for a bit. Now he can walk, talk, run, skip, hop, see and enjoy stuff, and there is plenty of stuff to enjoy. If he gets bored in a few years, then he can go back to work. But if you are lucky enough to be able to sit back, travel and enjoy life while you are still young and healthy, I say "Go for it!" and good for him.


     


    Nothing hurts me more, then to see folks have to work until they are 72 or older, then watch them try to do things, but they can't because they are to hurt, sick, poor to enjoy life. With many American's living into their late 70's, 80's - hey simply get out there and smell the roses.


     


    We know if he is like most folks he will get bored and need to get back into it, so take a break, the world isn't going to pass you by or disappear … yet.


     


    Hell, if nothing else, there is a REAL good chance, his family wants to get to know him again.


     


    Skip



     


    I predict a nice big book and extensive book tour in his future.

Sign In or Register to comment.