It is unbelievable that Apple couldn’t sell that Edition watch. Apple might sell it if they wanted that. While it is also true that the industry cannot tolerate such niche products, the Edition is only a fraction of Apple’s business and with such a power Apple could succeed with the Edition and obviously not go out of business like Vertu. There are a lot of VIPs in the world that would crave for such a watch. Apparently Ive has been left alone on the Marketing issues regarding Edition. The first Watch came in a luxurious box, with 2 m charging cable and a very high quality polycarbonate case. Watch 4 comes in a paper envelope, without case and with 70 cm charging cable unexpectedly short causing the Watch to slip from the hand and drop. The rationale of the Edition was not wrong, that spot on the wrist is very special and there are a lot of people that would decorate themselves on that spot with luxurious things. From high to low that would create demand for the less expensive variants as well.
Ive’s departure is a loss for Apple.
No it's not. They were $10,000 and with no prospect of upgrading the CPU, so it was well known it'd be outdated in a year. $10,000 non-smart watches don't get outdated in a year. The lack of interest shown was proven by the number of celebrities who were given an Edition Watch only to wear it with the pairing screen still showing...
I agree somewhat with the packaging, it's certainly less premium feeling now but the original box with the watch housed in a thick plastic case inside another cardboard box was unnecessarily wasteful for something that's going to go straight in the bin. I was disappointed to find the short charging cable too, it meant I had to get an extension cable to use it was I was before. More nickel and diming from Cook & co.
First, I guess you could have assume when gen 1 of the watch came out it would be obsolete in a year, but it was not well known that was going to be the case. I have a gen 1 and it is still on my wrist and working well and providing me value every day. 4 yrs later and it is not obsolete. There are newer ones with more features, but it does not make the older less useful. That would be like saying every watch before todays watches have no value since the new version has one new feature.
This explains an awful lot about the cringeworthy sight of Apple pushing Apple Watch at haute couture events - absolutely ridiculous. Ive lost his marbles years ago
so many news outlets have made the mistake his company name is going to be LoveFrom, if you read the Apple press release you'll see its actually LoveForm. I suppose this many people making this mistake proves its not a great name.
I’m finding LoveFrom everywhere on this. Not sure it is LoveForm....
The media is just publishing a hit piece on Apple. Apple is the most watched company in the world with 1000's or people trying to find the rotten within Apple and they are only now saying Ives and Cook have not gotten along for years. When this announcement came out, the media ran around and found some people who would back their narrative of what they believe is happening. They also acting like it some sort of revelation Cook is not a product guy like Steve was.
It is no surprise Cook is not as passionate as Steve and Ives was about a product design. This is why Ives existed and was elevated in the company since everyone knew Cook did not have the necessary skills to come up with products. As I said before, Ives realizes a service based company we be less focus on product which design is more visceral experience than someone streaming content to their hardware device. Apple is evolving yet again, and Ives can take his 100"s of million and sit back and let Apple come to him when they need some new product. Think about the TV service, apple licensing TV-OS so it has broader reach. Apple figured out people are not going to pay an apple premium for a TV, If apple want to win in this market they can not relay on their own hardware.
You always have to take stories like these with caution (and Rene Ritchie claims he’s heard different though he doesn’t go into details). BUT if any of it is true it’s kind of depressing, especially the part about Tim Cook rarely showing up in the design studio. Going from someone who was there every day and very interested in what you were doing to someone who doesn’t really care must be dispiriting. I also wonder if some of the design staff departures the past few years were because Ive wasn’t around as much.If he’s sort of checked out and Tim Cook never comes around I can see where that wouldn’t be a great environment.
Ben Bajarin claims Jeff Williams is more interested in design than is publicly known. So maybe it’s a good thing these teams are reporting to him and not Cook. And perhaps promotions his number two to SVP of operations gives him the time to focus on product and the design teams.
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
I highly doubt it. More like the narrative media hopes to be true.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
This explains an awful lot about the cringeworthy sight of Apple pushing Apple Watch at haute couture events - absolutely ridiculous. Ive lost his marbles years ago
I think the problem with the fashion approach lies in with Cook, Angela and Ive. Those three should be blamed for it. Cook recruited her initially, she didn't approach the company for the job. Cook thought she was an A-list hire which eventually backfired over time, whereas Ive wanted to make the Watch a fashion product. I suspect Ive wanted a far simpler Apple Watch that didn't have 'feature overkill' with iOS apps but a simple screen telling the time and with some notifications. That's all on Cook for not keeping Ive in check when he should've done so in the first place. EDIT: and then having the guts to put his foot down and say " we gotta go the health route, not fashion ' in the first place.
And yes, Ive went over the line with his design visions but Cook should have never said 'Okay, Jony. We'll do it your way and make the Watches purty while I go get Angela for our fashion marketing plans. bla bla bla'.
Cook, Ive and Angela were the problem. Guess who's next to go out the window? Yep. It's Cook. I strongly believe he's got his one foot out the door while giving the creative responsibilities to Williams. He knows he's about to get huge backlash due to the Ive departure. In short, when the dung hits the fan, Cook's hopping onto his escape pod because he wants to keep his "political" image clean.
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
Defended his decisions to whom? And which decisions? All we have is speculation and stories that might not be the whole truth. As far as the Watch, maybe it shouldn’t have been announced in 2014 but if you remember at the time Apple was under tremendous pressure to show off something new. Samsung was the new darling with their Next Big Thing campaign. Wall Street analysts and tech pundits were all claiming innovation was dead at Apple and there was no pipeline of new products. Some were even spreading rumors that Apple’s board was ready to fire Tim Cook over innovation concerns. It was all nonsense but it was out there.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Cook can not operate as Jobs. He can only operate as he is. The point is people who wants Cook to do everything as Jobs did doesn’t put their brains to do the job. From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
I highly doubt it. More like the narrative media hopes to be true.
I don't think they're hoping for it to be true because the WSJ conducted investigative interviews with people who worked with Ive and with others close to leadership who know the story from the inside. They didn't go to elaborate details but these things we're reading paint a basic picture of what has been going on as a form of confirmation and connecting more dots to the whys and hows it got to this point of Jony's departure.
so many news outlets have made the mistake his company name is going to be LoveFrom, if you read the Apple press release you'll see its actually LoveForm. I suppose this many people making this mistake proves its not a great name.
I’m finding LoveFrom everywhere on this. Not sure it is LoveForm....
LoveForm would make a lot more sense for a designer
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.
I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely.
Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.
I think the problem more likely comes from some of his works goes nowhere, like Apple Car than Cook physically has to be in the studio. Ive is a veteran designer. I trust him to know how things work. If he’s just dispirited because CEO who isn’t good at design doesn’t come to his room even when that CEO always have time for him and his idea, then he has some strange problem himself.
I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.
Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best.
And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?
The point is Cook is the CEO and he's supposed to sign off on the final design (s ) of the products involved. That was the problem. I saw this coming YEARS ago. It seems the blame should be on Cook and Ive both. Because of Cook's corporate culture behavior and lack of interest in the products, Ive didn't get the feedback he needed. It's very important for a CEO to grow a pair of balls to keep someone like Ive in check but Cook didn't do that.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.
The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
Cook can not operate as Jobs. He can only operate as he is. The point is people who wants Cook to do everything as Jobs did doesn’t put their brains to do the job. From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
If that was the case considering the bolded part, why didn't Cook delegate that ID situation to Williams in the FIRST place, knowing that he didn't have the creative background? Why did he wait so long to do this now? It means one thing. He wasn't the right guy in the first place. If he were this operationally smart, he would've done so originally years ago. I'm not suggesting Cook is like Jobs but rather he isn't the right guy. Apple needs a 'products' guy right now, not a bean counter. The CEO's job is to 'green light' the final versions of the products way in advance and if there are flaws, he needs to call it out and get them back to the drawing board. That's what Jobs did.
Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery lifen improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.
Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.
I highly doubt it. More like the narrative media hopes to be true.
I don't think they're hoping for it to be true because the WSJ conducted investigative interviews with people who worked with Ive and with others close to leadership who know the story from the inside. They didn't go to elaborate details but these things we're reading paint a basic picture of what has been going on as a form of confirmation and connecting more dots to the whys and hows it got to this point of Jony's departure.
I don’t think you had read many of WSJ .. um.. pieces about Apple let’s just say that. Maybe this is your first?
You always have to take stories like these with caution (and Rene Ritchie claims he’s heard different though he doesn’t go into details). BUT if any of it is true it’s kind of depressing, especially the part about Tim Cook rarely showing up in the design studio. Going from someone who was there every day and very interested in what you were doing to someone who doesn’t really care must be dispiriting. I also wonder if some of the design staff departures the past few years were because Ive wasn’t around as much.If he’s sort of checked out and Tim Cook never comes around I can see where that wouldn’t be a great environment.
Ben Bajarin claims Jeff Williams is more interested in design than is publicly known. So maybe it’s a good thing these teams are reporting to him and not Cook. And perhaps promotions his number two to SVP of operations gives him the time to focus on product and the design teams.
Tim Cook has always promoted teamwork over one-man shows. He wouldn’t ridicule himself by playing the Steve-clone. He is a very loyal person to both Steve Jobs and other members of the team. If he didn’t show up in Ive’s studio this is for respect to Ive’s authority and talents.
The new endeavour of Ive appears to be entrepreneurship, not a retired-style one man show. And Tim Cook might have pushed Ive into that path, seeing him more and more alienated to the company he devoted the best years of his life, promising his personal support. We don’t know, the announcement by Tim Cook was very promising and enthusiastic, we’ll see in a couple of years. Ive’s company might have grabbed the next big thing project of Apple thanks to Tim Cook.
Comments
It is no surprise Cook is not as passionate as Steve and Ives was about a product design. This is why Ives existed and was elevated in the company since everyone knew Cook did not have the necessary skills to come up with products. As I said before, Ives realizes a service based company we be less focus on product which design is more visceral experience than someone streaming content to their hardware device. Apple is evolving yet again, and Ives can take his 100"s of million and sit back and let Apple come to him when they need some new product. Think about the TV service, apple licensing TV-OS so it has broader reach. Apple figured out people are not going to pay an apple premium for a TV, If apple want to win in this market they can not relay on their own hardware.
And I'm going to quote what another source said that wasn't mentioned on this forum:
- Ive was “dispirited” by Tim Cook who “showed little interest in the product development process,” according to sources speaking to the WSJ. This helps explain why Cook, who comes from operations, sometimes appears to be seeing products for the first time in the hands-on area after Apple events (like the photo at the top of this article).
The bolded part is shocking to me. How the F could a CEO see products for the first time in a hands-on area after events. For the FIRST TIME?!?? If this is true, this is extremely disturbing. Ive shouldn't be blamed due to being dispirited on Cook's lack of interest or minimized visitations to his design department. I had a feeling this is what has been happening over the years. I'm a professional creative and can smell 'creative burnout' by observing things like this. It's not about operating best when we operate on what we know best. It's about feedback, communication and getting it right. Cook wasn't doing that and so delegated Ive to give the 'green light' on his own to the final versions. It basically tells me that Cook is lazy and didn't want to deal with the creative responsibilities which is now handed over to Jeff Williams.The buck stops at the CEO's desk. Everything that goes on in a company must be approved by the top. However, I don't agree with Ive's idea about turning the Watch into a fashion accessory so it's hard to tell what exactly he had in mind to keep the device relevantly updated on a regular basis to retain value compared to the Health/Fitness focused aspects of today's Watch. The Health/Fitness approach is what should've been done in the very first place. That's on Cook and it's his fault for not reigning Ive in to keep in check and get real. Cook's lassez-faire approach is what screwed the whole thing up. And stacking half of his executive staff with Operations backgrounds is a huge mistake on Cook according to a recent Tweet by Ryan Jones.
Despite the lack of design or creative background that Cook has, it's his job to go down to the design department to see what they were working on in advance and put them in check in case of any issues. You have a CEO who has no creative vision nor ability to SEE the flaws or have any interest in the 'creative process' of the products. Because of Ive's dispirited and low morale at his job, Cook is part of the problem.
And yes, Ive went over the line with his design visions but Cook should have never said 'Okay, Jony. We'll do it your way and make the Watches purty while I go get Angela for our fashion marketing plans. bla bla bla'.
Cook, Ive and Angela were the problem. Guess who's next to go out the window? Yep. It's Cook. I strongly believe he's got his one foot out the door while giving the creative responsibilities to Williams. He knows he's about to get huge backlash due to the Ive departure. In short, when the dung hits the fan, Cook's hopping onto his escape pod because he wants to keep his "political" image clean.
From what happened we can assume that Cook think Williams is a much better person to handle this ID situation than him and I think he’s right.
The new endeavour of Ive appears to be entrepreneurship, not a retired-style one man show. And Tim Cook might have pushed Ive into that path, seeing him more and more alienated to the company he devoted the best years of his life, promising his personal support. We don’t know, the announcement by Tim Cook was very promising and enthusiastic, we’ll see in a couple of years. Ive’s company might have grabbed the next big thing project of Apple thanks to Tim Cook.