and once again, you come off as if you know EVERYTHING.
If you'd like to pretend that's what I said, that's fine. You've no reason to believe that from what I've said, but you can pretend just about anything these days.
Completely agree with "slurpy". If Apple management are removing Forstall for so-called misses with Maps, Siri and passbook, then I fear we are heading down a dark road of Apple being steered by the popular tech media and reactionaries!
Does anyone else see the similarities here with the ousting of SJ under Sculley?
Forestall probably didn't have much to say about the release date of the software. The latter was most probably politically motivated anyways. They should have brought it out as "beta" software and improve on it over time as so many elements have to work together to get it right.
Screw that. They don't have to apologize for ANYTHING. He knows how good it WILL be; why would he apologize for that? That's like Einstein's parents apologizing because their two year old was 'unruly'. Put it in context and it's not really important.
However, when I'm driving to an unfamiliar destination, I care how good it is NOW, not how good it WILL be a year from now.
The apology letter was necessary from a PR perspective. They released a product before it was ready, didn't call it Beta like they did with Siri, and removed the old version before their contract with Google was up. Had they called it Beta and kept a native Google Maps option ready (or given Google enough advance notice to release a native app such as with YouTube), they likely wouldn't have had the same level of complaints.
And, by extension, the code was also written by Phil Schiller, Jonathan Ive, Bob Mansfield, and even Tim Cook himself.
See how that doesn't work? We don't know if Forstall even wrote a line of code for this, even if he was directly responsible for a "Maps team". We don't even know the hierarchy there at all, if he just oversaw everything or if he was directly in charge.
Exactly. Forstall wrote a great application. The application is great. The back-end data wasn't the best at launch and remains not necessarily the best. We can guess as to why that is, but that's a separate topic. The point is, it's not Apple's data. And where this differs from the old arrangement is in the number of sources from which they're pulling.
If Forstall is directly responsible for any of this at all, the only place he has dropped the ball is on the aggregation of that data into a fashion most readable by the application (the great application) they wrote. That is something Apple didn't have to do previously. They were given Google's data, straight up, and documentation for it. It would be "this data point corresponds to this thing", and they'd plug it into their app where that belongs.
The aggregation of the data is the most important part. I don't care how pretty an application is or how easy it is to use if it isn't giving me the data I need. Apple released it before it was ready.
And Tim Cook did sign the letter, so he did take responsibility for Maps. My guess (and yes, it's just a guess) is that it was the last straw. Had this been the first PR blunder under Forstall's watch, he might have survived it. If he hadn't engendered Jony Ive's ire (and Bob Mansfield's), he might still be with Apple, Maps and all. Apple received lots of bad press and angry e-mails about Maps. Tim Cook decided an official apology letter was necessary. The SVP in charge of the team who designed Maps is an obvious signatory, as well as the CEO.
The last person who was made an advisor, aka Bob Mansfield, now has more responsibilities than ever. Ergo, Forstall will follow this script and soon take over the whole company.
The difference is that Bob Mansfield appears to have "retired" of his own accord, and was convinced to stay on by Tim Cook. Perhaps Mansfield "retired" because he didn't want to work with Forstall and figured he'd made enough money where he didn't need to, and Tim subtly let it be known that it wouldn't be an issue much longer.
However, when I'm driving to an unfamiliar destination, I care how good it is NOW, not how good it WILL be a year from now.
The apology letter was necessary from a PR perspective. They released a product before it was ready, didn't call it Beta like they did with Siri, and removed the old version before their contract with Google was up. Had they called it Beta and kept a native Google Maps option ready (or given Google enough advance notice to release a native app such as with YouTube), they likely wouldn't have had the same level of complaints.
Do we really know the level of complaints? Yes, we hear about it in the press but, like Antennagate, is this an overblown issue where, although maps was nowhere near a polished product when released, most of the iPhone buyers don't really care and are willing to wait for it to improve.
Forcing Forstall to sign it is a dick move by the "cabal". Steve Jobs always took top responsibility and never trotted anyone else out for a public stoning. Already Apple execs are scrambling to fill the Steve Jobs power vacuum. Not promising at all.
MBP Retinas not polished enough. iPod Touch release messy. iMacs MIA. and of course... iOS Maps.
But trotting out Scott in front of the raging mob to his "public execution". Not cool. Not cool at all.
The aggregation of the data is the most important part. I don't care how pretty an application is or how easy it is to use if it isn't giving me the data I need. Apple released it before it was ready.
And Tim Cook did sign the letter, so he did take responsibility for Maps. My guess (and yes, it's just a guess) is that it was the last straw. Had this been the first PR blunder under Forstall's watch, he might have survived it. If he hadn't engendered Jony Ive's ire (and Bob Mansfield's), he might still be with Apple, Maps and all. Apple received lots of bad press and angry e-mails about Maps. Tim Cook decided an official apology letter was necessary. The SVP in charge of the team who designed Maps is an obvious signatory, as well as the CEO.
1. If Forstall engendered the ire of others hence he should become the whipping boy to set an example?
2. Was an official apology letter really necessary?
3. If so, see number 1?
This kind of politicking is highly troublesome for Apple. A great company that focused on great products may fall to petty bitching.
Comments
Originally Posted by Woodlink
and once again, you come off as if you know EVERYTHING.
If you'd like to pretend that's what I said, that's fine. You've no reason to believe that from what I've said, but you can pretend just about anything these days.
Does anyone else see the similarities here with the ousting of SJ under Sculley?
Originally Posted by trackeroz
…I fear we are heading down a dark road of Apple being steered by the popular tech media and reactionaries!
I disagree with the examples you have posted, but I'll leave this point with the following:
"iPhone 5".
Forestall probably didn't have much to say about the release date of the software. The latter was most probably politically motivated anyways. They should have brought it out as "beta" software and improve on it over time as so many elements have to work together to get it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
AND RIGHTLY SO!
Screw that. They don't have to apologize for ANYTHING. He knows how good it WILL be; why would he apologize for that? That's like Einstein's parents apologizing because their two year old was 'unruly'. Put it in context and it's not really important.
However, when I'm driving to an unfamiliar destination, I care how good it is NOW, not how good it WILL be a year from now.
The apology letter was necessary from a PR perspective. They released a product before it was ready, didn't call it Beta like they did with Siri, and removed the old version before their contract with Google was up. Had they called it Beta and kept a native Google Maps option ready (or given Google enough advance notice to release a native app such as with YouTube), they likely wouldn't have had the same level of complaints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They did a great job with it. The UI is amazing.
And, by extension, the code was also written by Phil Schiller, Jonathan Ive, Bob Mansfield, and even Tim Cook himself.
See how that doesn't work? We don't know if Forstall even wrote a line of code for this, even if he was directly responsible for a "Maps team". We don't even know the hierarchy there at all, if he just oversaw everything or if he was directly in charge.
Exactly. Forstall wrote a great application. The application is great. The back-end data wasn't the best at launch and remains not necessarily the best. We can guess as to why that is, but that's a separate topic. The point is, it's not Apple's data. And where this differs from the old arrangement is in the number of sources from which they're pulling.
If Forstall is directly responsible for any of this at all, the only place he has dropped the ball is on the aggregation of that data into a fashion most readable by the application (the great application) they wrote. That is something Apple didn't have to do previously. They were given Google's data, straight up, and documentation for it. It would be "this data point corresponds to this thing", and they'd plug it into their app where that belongs.
The aggregation of the data is the most important part. I don't care how pretty an application is or how easy it is to use if it isn't giving me the data I need. Apple released it before it was ready.
And Tim Cook did sign the letter, so he did take responsibility for Maps. My guess (and yes, it's just a guess) is that it was the last straw. Had this been the first PR blunder under Forstall's watch, he might have survived it. If he hadn't engendered Jony Ive's ire (and Bob Mansfield's), he might still be with Apple, Maps and all. Apple received lots of bad press and angry e-mails about Maps. Tim Cook decided an official apology letter was necessary. The SVP in charge of the team who designed Maps is an obvious signatory, as well as the CEO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
The last person who was made an advisor, aka Bob Mansfield, now has more responsibilities than ever. Ergo, Forstall will follow this script and soon take over the whole company.
The difference is that Bob Mansfield appears to have "retired" of his own accord, and was convinced to stay on by Tim Cook. Perhaps Mansfield "retired" because he didn't want to work with Forstall and figured he'd made enough money where he didn't need to, and Tim subtly let it be known that it wouldn't be an issue much longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
However, when I'm driving to an unfamiliar destination, I care how good it is NOW, not how good it WILL be a year from now.
The apology letter was necessary from a PR perspective. They released a product before it was ready, didn't call it Beta like they did with Siri, and removed the old version before their contract with Google was up. Had they called it Beta and kept a native Google Maps option ready (or given Google enough advance notice to release a native app such as with YouTube), they likely wouldn't have had the same level of complaints.
Do we really know the level of complaints? Yes, we hear about it in the press but, like Antennagate, is this an overblown issue where, although maps was nowhere near a polished product when released, most of the iPhone buyers don't really care and are willing to wait for it to improve.
MBP Retinas not polished enough.
iPod Touch release messy.
iMacs MIA.
and of course...
iOS Maps.
But trotting out Scott in front of the raging mob to his "public execution". Not cool. Not cool at all.
1. If Forstall engendered the ire of others hence he should become the whipping boy to set an example?
2. Was an official apology letter really necessary?
3. If so, see number 1?
This kind of politicking is highly troublesome for Apple. A great company that focused on great products may fall to petty bitching.