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.
Dropping the $10,000+ Edition was the right move. It wasn't great PR for Apple, as the expectation was no one could afford this watch, and the little developer traction Apple are getting with the Watch now would be non-existent with Edition Watch market. Focusing on both health and fashion was the right move for the product. But let's face it, it's not as if you still can't pay pretty penny for an Apple Watch. If you want to, you a buy a Hermès for $1,500+.
This is not the point. The point is, that unique and very special spot the wrist has many competing candidates. A luxurious item can always chase your Watch away. You have to counter that with something of equal power, which was Edition.
Fortunately, Apple didn’t lose $10,000 per watch. I’d be shocked if they cost 1/10 of that. I never understood spending car money on a watch you don’t need...
At least a large number of people bought in to the cheaper version...
Yes because you are not very, very wealthy. Very, very wealthy people have no problem spending that on jewelry.
It is unbelievable that Apple couldn’t sell that Edition watch.
Actually it’s unbelievable that people bought them. Solid gold paperweights in 10 years’ time.
You're making the mistake of looking at it from a normal, non-wealthy point of view. The very wealthy do not give a shit. Have you not heard of the $666 gold-flaked hamburger or any of the other lavish spending habits of the very wealthy?
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.
It didn't sell, Apple got stuck with a huge leftover. The watch was insane because it was identical to the $10000 less models. It was also much to bulky to be a fashion statement.
1) You don't know whether it sold or not, nor does the WSJ. 2) The wealthy don't care 3) It is quite small compared to most luxury watches, which are hockey pucks
I think Jony Ives has been sitting on his butt not doing a whole lot for a number of years now. The overall designs of the iPhone really haven't changed much over the years. They have what I think is a UGLY camera bump that continues to get worse. The new iphones coming out later this year with 3 camera's and a even uglier square camera bump is just bad. Adding a 3rd camera looks like Apple copying!!! Google did such a Amazing job with 1 camera, and yet Apple can't do just as a Amazing job with 2 camera's and instead throws a 3rd one on?
I've been saying for years that I don't think Steve Jobs would allow Camera Bumps on the iPhone. The phones are already to thin and slippery. The bump is not HUGE, so I don't see what the phones aren't just made a bit thicker so there is no camera bump and add a little bit larger battery for longer battery life which people also want. Apple make the phone more energy efficient, and then makes the battery smaller and they keep doing that. STOP IT APPLE!!!! Instead of shrinking the battery down, leave it as is and have a longer lasting iPhone. The iPhone have one of the smallest battery's out there.
Jony Ives has issues because $10,000 Apple watches didn't sell? When you buy a High End normal watch, say a Rollex, That watch will still work 10, 20 years from now. It can be passed on to your kids. The Apple Watch, even the $10,000 which is really no different from the cheapest version has a limited life. Not just with the battery that you can't just replace easily and after a period of time will never be able to replace as you can't get a new battery for it, but the tech inside will become outdated in a short amount of time. Paying $10K is a complete waste of money. Not sure what Jony Ives has been doing, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot. Can't even be bothered to show up to his own meetings? It's like he checked out years ago. Maybe fresh new blood is really needed at Apple.
- Guess you didn't hear about the new HQ he was in charge of designing (over their hired guns).
- Ah the old "Steve Jobs would never!" trope
- iPhone battery life has been going up, not down, despite chemistry size
- Learn how to spell his name, it's Ive. Can't take you seriously if you don't even take the time to learn the man's name.
Yet that product could still sell if it was properly positioned and marketed. It was still a decent 4K video workstation.
No it wouldn't. The trashcan offered nothing that couldn't already be done with the then current Mac Pro. There was no position for it then and now.
Even if the Trashcan was slashed in price it would be useless for 4k Video as the vast majority of users shooting 4k video rely on h264 based codes which benefit hugely from Intel's Quicksync technology which is found on consumer i7/i9 CPUs and not on the Xeons. A cheap laptop would easily out-perform the Trashcan in 4k video editing. Apple has subsequently used the Vega GPUs to accelerate video codes in the iMac Pro but it's still not as fast as Quicksync.
The trashcan failed because it didn't offer a worthwhile performance improvement from the classic Mac Pro and the jobs artists wanted it for it sucked. There are countless stories of production studio literally burning through Trashcans because the GPUs cooked themselves to death. It was an appalling design and a disaster that went a long way in destroying the confidence of professionals in Apple Pro products. Apple's attempt to maximise profit by making the Trashcan as proprietary as possible and into an appliance failed miserably.
The latest Mac Pro makes similar mistakes of completely missing what the core Mac Pro buyer wants. There is a malaise in Apple's Mac design department.
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.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
So basically Ive reported to Williams?
You know nothing about Apple if you think that’s possible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Cook should have had the ID and Interface Team report directly to Williams a long time ago if he didn't have any interest in dropping by the departments or share the creative responsibilities. This is saying that Cook did not have the ability to keep Ive in check. Fast forward to 2019, Ive leaves and now the ID and HI leaders are reporting to Williams and not the CDO or Cook himself directly. The Chief Design Officer position is going to get phased out which is extremely likely because there is NO ONE to replace Ive in that job. They're going old school by keeping the ID and IT teams report to the COO Jeff Williams is is most likely groomed to be the next CEO.
The CDO position was a mistake, I believe, and Ive should have stayed as head of ID the whole time and collaborate with Williams, not Cook. Cook shirking the creative responsibilities over to Williams is saying a lot about him. Is Jony faultless? No. He's got issues but do does Cook. They're both equally the problem. Jony is NOT a CEO so he cannot just 'green light' a product and get away with it but for some reason, that's happening to a degree.
Here's another example unrelated to Apple. There's a guy who's currently writing the Batman title for DC Comics and the current story line is one of the worst ever because the editor(s) did not do a good job of keeping the writer in check or calling out his garbage because he wants it done his way. His deconstruction of Batman was poorly done in an embarrassing way. He's now being taken off the book ( read: FIRED ) because the sales lost out to Marvel's Immortal Hulk which is killing it with an excellent story. The creative team needs to work well together so everything and I mean EVERYTHING stops at the Editor in Chief's desk for final approval/editing. But since they're on a scheduled pipeline, they have to move fast so mistakes are bound to be made. It's happened.
With Apple, it's a similar thing. The CEO has to bring the hammer down and say " Not good enough design. It's got flaws. Go back to the drawing board ". And if Cook could not do this over the years, he should have never promoted Jony to CDO and say " Finalize whatever you want. It's your call. I got a speech to make at some university ". You get the picture. That's a BAD way to treat a design department in this manner especially if it's a world renowned individual like Jony. I'm a professional creative myself so I get it. If I deal with clients, it's NOT a one way street. It goes both ways so it's all about communicating and making sure the client understands what they want and how the process works especially when making changes to get it right.
Similar way how the Warriors screwed up with Kevin Durant who now just jumped ship to the Brooklyn Nets. It's not exact but it's a similar analogy.
I think Jony Ives has been sitting on his butt not doing a whole lot for a number of years now. The overall designs of the iPhone really haven't changed much over the years. They have what I think is a UGLY camera bump that continues to get worse. The new iphones coming out later this year with 3 camera's and a even uglier square camera bump is just bad. Adding a 3rd camera looks like Apple copying!!! Google did such a Amazing job with 1 camera, and yet Apple can't do just as a Amazing job with 2 camera's and instead throws a 3rd one on?
I've been saying for years that I don't think Steve Jobs would allow Camera Bumps on the iPhone. The phones are already to thin and slippery. The bump is not HUGE, so I don't see what the phones aren't just made a bit thicker so there is no camera bump and add a little bit larger battery for longer battery life which people also want. Apple make the phone more energy efficient, and then makes the battery smaller and they keep doing that. STOP IT APPLE!!!! Instead of shrinking the battery down, leave it as is and have a longer lasting iPhone. The iPhone have one of the smallest battery's out there.
Jony Ives has issues because $10,000 Apple watches didn't sell? When you buy a High End normal watch, say a Rollex, That watch will still work 10, 20 years from now. It can be passed on to your kids. The Apple Watch, even the $10,000 which is really no different from the cheapest version has a limited life. Not just with the battery that you can't just replace easily and after a period of time will never be able to replace as you can't get a new battery for it, but the tech inside will become outdated in a short amount of time. Paying $10K is a complete waste of money. Not sure what Jony Ives has been doing, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot. Can't even be bothered to show up to his own meetings? It's like he checked out years ago. Maybe fresh new blood is really needed at Apple.
- Guess you didn't hear about the new HQ he was in charge of designing (over their hired guns).
- Ah the old "Steve Jobs would never!" trope
- iPhone battery life has been going up, not down, despite chemistry size
- Learn how to spell his name, it's Ive. Can't take you seriously if you don't even take the time to learn the man's name.
If the bolded is true and Ive did that, it would be highly unethical. It's not his job to be an architect on the campus. He's the head of ID. Period. That would be like Apple changing or adding to his job responsibilities and say ' Hey Jony! Wanna play architect?! '. It was right around the time when they promoted him to the CDO project when the HQ design process was happening and under construction. That would be like having a company hire a freelancer to do a logo, dump the idea, and then use the same dumped idea with someone inside their departments and say " Hey, can you do this logo idea? " and do it under this person's wage or salary. That is unethical and frowned upon in the creative industry considered as ' spec work '.
Using Jony to be in charge of designing the new HQ over the 'hired guns' is saying Apple does not have confidence in who they hire from the outside. And if you think that practice is unheard of, believe me, it's a huge problem in many industries.
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.
Interesting that “other executives” consented to the announcement of an unfinished, vaporware project as the “AirPower” wireless charging pad.
And Phil Schiller got up on stage at WWDC to announce the trash can Mac Pro saying “can’t innovate any more, my ass”. Sure seems the company was proud of that product when they announced it.
You know it is a great little machine even now. I have one upgraded to the hilt. IMHO if Apple simply used a midi size tower with four slots added the latest I/O, optional GPUs and CPUs and a T2 chip then started pricing it around $2,500 I bet they sell well to small one man graphics businesses that didn't want an iMac and don't need the new Mac Pro.
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.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
So basically Ive reported to Williams?
You know nothing about Apple if you think that’s possible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Cook should have had the ID and Interface Team report directly to Williams a long time ago if he didn't have any interest in dropping by the departments or share the creative responsibilities. This is saying that Cook did not have the ability to keep Ive in check. Fast forward to 2019, Ive leaves and now the ID and HI leaders are reporting to Williams and not the CDO or Cook himself directly. The Chief Design Officer position is going to get phased out which is extremely likely because there is NO ONE to replace Ive in that job. They're going old school by keeping the ID and IT teams report to the COO Jeff Williams is is most likely groomed to be the next CEO.
The CDO position was a mistake, I believe, and Ive should have stayed as head of ID the whole time and collaborate with Williams, not Cook. Cook shirking the creative responsibilities over to Williams is saying a lot about him. Is Jony faultless? No. He's got issues but do does Cook. They're both equally the problem. Jony is NOT a CEO so he cannot just 'green light' a product and get away with it but for some reason, that's happening to a degree.
Here's another example unrelated to Apple. There's a guy who's currently writing the Batman title for DC Comics and the current story line is one of the worst ever because the editor(s) did not do a good job of keeping the writer in check or calling out his garbage because he wants it done his way. His deconstruction of Batman was poorly done in an embarrassing way. He's now being taken off the book ( read: FIRED ) because the sales lost out to Marvel's Immortal Hulk which is killing it with an excellent story. The creative team needs to work well together so everything and I mean EVERYTHING stops at the Editor in Chief's desk for final approval/editing. But since they're on a scheduled pipeline, they have to move fast so mistakes are bound to be made. It's happened.
With Apple, it's a similar thing. The CEO has to bring the hammer down and say " Not good enough design. It's got flaws. Go back to the drawing board ". And if Cook could not do this over the years, he should have never promoted Jony to CDO and say " Finalize whatever you want. It's your call. I got a speech to make at some university ". You get the picture. That's a BAD way to treat a design department in this manner especially if it's a world renowned individual like Jony. I'm a professional creative myself so I get it. If I deal with clients, it's NOT a one way street. It goes both ways so it's all about communicating and making sure the client understands what they want and how the process works especially when making changes to get it right.
Similar way how the Warriors screwed up with Kevin Durant who now just jumped ship to the Brooklyn Nets. It's not exact but it's a similar analogy.
So if Ive doesn’t report to Williams, describe to me in a simple term with only a few sentences - how can Williams “oversee Ive department” as you suggested?
Your solution is a mess.
My suggestion to you is you’re already digging yourself deep enough hole, don’t dig further.
"Ive was dissatisfied with how Apple has concentrated more on operations than on design since Tim Cook took over from the late Steve Jobs"
I mean...this could not have been more clear or more obvious to everyone on the outside looking in. No one wants to admit or acknowledge it...but the exact worst thing that could have happened (Apple losing its "DNA", the spirit that Steve Jobs infused) is exactly what happened in short order from Tim taking over. Operations above all else. It really is that simple. Apple continues to pretend outwardly that this has not happened, because their legacy depends on it...but it is of course exactly, and quite simply, what happened.
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.
You think it's okay for the CEO to rarely visit one of the top executives? That'd dispirit anyone who was in that position. It'd make them feel like they aren't worth the time of the CEO. I have no idea what else Cook does though, since he doesn't seem to be involved in the products anymore. Probably trying to find ways to increase services revenue more.
Why? Cook even value Ive contributions more than Jobs did, by paying him much more. The article even, cynically, provide information on that. So why does Cook has to pretend to be a design guru to show he cares when he already did?
Paying Ive more money does NOT solve the problem. It means Cook was the wrong guy or didn't have the creative background to keep Ive in check. Valuing Ive means visiting his department and talking to him about the products entirely and where the design is going. It's not about being a design guru but rather having a sensible taste in good and practical design and KNOWING when Ive crosses the line regarding possible engineering issues. Job wasn't a designer but had a creative background in liberal arts. He was OCD in detail and if he noticed a little tiny problem, he'll pick it apart. Cook doesn't have that IT factor. That's his blind spot.
Jobs, when alive, made Jony work his ass off until he got to the design he liked. It's about intuitive design. Cook? I don't see that coming from him. If Jony wanted to go crazy with his design, Jobs would reel him to keep the product design practical. Not everything was perfect but during that era, the products were damn well built. I have a mid 2010 iMac and is still going strong. I even own a Titanium G4 PowerBook stored away and is built like a tank ( still works to this day except for the browned out Airport card ). I still have a G4 mirror drive tower Power Mac stored away too. One of the most practical Macs I've owned and it still works, thanks to Jobs.
Hate to say it, because Ive's designs were excellent, but Apple should put more of a focus on function over design. I bet it was the new cheese grater that made him leave. One thing Ive did right was to insist he be allowed to work at home. It is astonishing that Apple will not allow its employees to telecommute. There is nothing greener, and more likely to improve the quality of software for use in the home than telecommuting. Most of Apple's networking code assumes you have unlimited bandwidth and zero transmission errors. Xcode, for example, does not even bother to show a status bar for a large app upload, takes up 100% of your computer's bandwidth and fails the entire upload even if it is 99% done if there is a brief interruption to the Internet. Crazy!
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.
You think it's okay for the CEO to rarely visit one of the top executives? That'd dispirit anyone who was in that position. It'd make them feel like they aren't worth the time of the CEO. I have no idea what else Cook does though, since he doesn't seem to be involved in the products anymore. Probably trying to find ways to increase services revenue more.
Why? Cook even value Ive contributions more than Jobs did, by paying him much more. The article even, cynically, provide information on that. So why does Cook has to pretend to be a design guru to show he cares when he already did?
Paying Ive more money does NOT solve the problem. It means Cook was the wrong guy or didn't have the creative background to keep Ive in check. Valuing Ive means visiting his department and talking to him about the products entirely and where the design is going. It's not about being a design guru but rather having a sensible taste in good and practical design and KNOWING when Ive crosses the line regarding possible engineering issues. Job wasn't a designer but had a creative background in liberal arts. He was OCD in detail and if he noticed a little tiny problem, he'll pick it apart. Cook doesn't have that IT factor. That's his blind spot.
Jobs, when alive, made Jony work his ass off until he got to the design he liked. It's about intuitive design. Cook? I don't see that coming from him. If Jony wanted to go crazy with his design, Jobs would reel him to keep the product design practical. Not everything was perfect but during that era, the products were damn well built. I have a mid 2010 iMac and is still going strong. I even own a Titanium G4 PowerBook stored away and is built like a tank ( still works to this day except for the browned out Airport card ). I still have a G4 mirror drive tower Power Mac stored away too. One of the most practical Macs I've owned and it still works, thanks to Jobs.
Stop talking about what you don’t have a clue. Clearly you haven’t worked in design because if you have you’ll know the bolded part is BS. Design process doesn’t work like that. The article present a nice story, a nice angle that get you attention when you first read it but doesn’t hold when you’re really thinking about it, something that you clearly failed to do.
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.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
So basically Ive reported to Williams?
You know nothing about Apple if you think that’s possible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Cook should have had the ID and Interface Team report directly to Williams a long time ago if he didn't have any interest in dropping by the departments or share the creative responsibilities. This is saying that Cook did not have the ability to keep Ive in check. Fast forward to 2019, Ive leaves and now the ID and HI leaders are reporting to Williams and not the CDO or Cook himself directly. The Chief Design Officer position is going to get phased out which is extremely likely because there is NO ONE to replace Ive in that job. They're going old school by keeping the ID and IT teams report to the COO Jeff Williams is is most likely groomed to be the next CEO.
The CDO position was a mistake, I believe, and Ive should have stayed as head of ID the whole time and collaborate with Williams, not Cook. Cook shirking the creative responsibilities over to Williams is saying a lot about him. Is Jony faultless? No. He's got issues but do does Cook. They're both equally the problem. Jony is NOT a CEO so he cannot just 'green light' a product and get away with it but for some reason, that's happening to a degree.
Here's another example unrelated to Apple. There's a guy who's currently writing the Batman title for DC Comics and the current story line is one of the worst ever because the editor(s) did not do a good job of keeping the writer in check or calling out his garbage because he wants it done his way. His deconstruction of Batman was poorly done in an embarrassing way. He's now being taken off the book ( read: FIRED ) because the sales lost out to Marvel's Immortal Hulk which is killing it with an excellent story. The creative team needs to work well together so everything and I mean EVERYTHING stops at the Editor in Chief's desk for final approval/editing. But since they're on a scheduled pipeline, they have to move fast so mistakes are bound to be made. It's happened.
With Apple, it's a similar thing. The CEO has to bring the hammer down and say " Not good enough design. It's got flaws. Go back to the drawing board ". And if Cook could not do this over the years, he should have never promoted Jony to CDO and say " Finalize whatever you want. It's your call. I got a speech to make at some university ". You get the picture. That's a BAD way to treat a design department in this manner especially if it's a world renowned individual like Jony. I'm a professional creative myself so I get it. If I deal with clients, it's NOT a one way street. It goes both ways so it's all about communicating and making sure the client understands what they want and how the process works especially when making changes to get it right.
Similar way how the Warriors screwed up with Kevin Durant who now just jumped ship to the Brooklyn Nets. It's not exact but it's a similar analogy.
So if Ive doesn’t report to Williams, describe to me in a simple term with only a few sentences - how can Williams “oversee Ive department” as you suggested?
Your solution is a mess.
My suggestion to you is you’re already digging yourself deep enough hole, don’t dig further.
You need to take the red pill and see reality for what it is. Trust me. Ive is FINISHED. He's walking OUT of Cook's office. All he's going to do is work freelance from his own design company as Apple will be one of his clients, likely on a limited capacity. It depends on if Williams or Cook will call his design firm for the work to be done but he'll have to sign an NDA ( non disclosure agreement ) now that he's going to be working from the outside.
And secondly, I said it for the thousandth time, it's the Industrial Design and Human Interface leaders, NOT Jony Ive, that will be reporting directly to Williams. NOT Cook. This is for the in-house development within Apple Park.
It's a reported FACT and the news is going around now that Williams is being handed the responsibility to oversee those two departments. It's likely he will be the one to call up Jony's design firm if they need anything.
I'll say it one more time: Jeff Willams COO is overseeing the ID and HI development and design process. NOT Cook.
Yet that product could still sell if it was properly positioned and marketed. It was still a decent 4K video workstation.
No it wouldn't. The trashcan offered nothing that couldn't already be done with the then current Mac Pro. There was no position for it then and now.
Even if the Trashcan was slashed in price it would be useless for 4k Video as the vast majority of users shooting 4k video rely on h264 based codes which benefit hugely from Intel's Quicksync technology which is found on consumer i7/i9 CPUs and not on the Xeons. A cheap laptop would easily out-perform the Trashcan in 4k video editing. Apple has subsequently used the Vega GPUs to accelerate video codes in the iMac Pro but it's still not as fast as Quicksync.
The trashcan failed because it didn't offer a worthwhile performance improvement from the classic Mac Pro and the jobs artists wanted it for it sucked. There are countless stories of production studio literally burning through Trashcans because the GPUs cooked themselves to death. It was an appalling design and a disaster that went a long way in destroying the confidence of professionals in Apple Pro products. Apple's attempt to maximise profit by making the Trashcan as proprietary as possible and into an appliance failed miserably.
The latest Mac Pro makes similar mistakes of completely missing what the core Mac Pro buyer wants. There is a malaise in Apple's Mac design department.
I said “decent” not “ultimate”, you’re replying to a wrong post. Quicksync does not allow much control over the intricacies of H.264 and H.264 hardware encoder is not devoid of limitations. Browse i7/i9 data sheets on ark.intel.com to learn the exact capabilities of their hardware encoder, or browse the Wikipedia entry quoted below:
”The name "Quick Sync" refers to the use case of quickly transcoding ("converting") a video from, for example, a DVD or Blu-ray Disc to a format appropriate to, for example, a smartphone. This becomes critically important in the professional video workplace, in which source material may have been shot in any number of video formats, all of which must be brought into a common format (commonly H.264) for inter-cutting.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video
That resumes the industrial positioning of Quicksync as a “quick and dirty” utility used in the preparation of the source clips. From source to the final video there are a lot of editing during which Quicksync doesn’t help but the double GPUs of the 2013 Mac Pro soldered to the logic board may help along with Xeon. You are flying very high.
But my point was not that. You missed it completely.
It is unbelievable that Apple couldn’t sell that Edition watch.
Actually it’s unbelievable that people bought them. Solid gold paperweights in 10 years’ time.
Agreed. But 10 years?!? The thing is based on a phone. Just another iOS device. It was outdated the day it was released. $400 or $10,000 for something that will be replaced with much better technology in 12 months? And EVERY subsequent 12 month period thereafter. Smart consumers for going for the cheaper model.
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.
Now you didn’t make sense. Do you want Ive to report to Williams?
Consider this. The current heads of Industrial Design and Human Interface now both report to Williams and not Cook. Making Jony a Chief Design Officer was a mistake, IMO, that is if he wasn't comfortable making the final calls and not the CEO. Tim should've had Jony stay in ID and then keep him reporting directly to him for final approval. Or if Cook wasn't confident in his creative feedback or showing lack of interest in products, he should've had Williams oversee Jony's department and the Interface team in the first place without promoting Ive to CDO. At least Williams was apparently interested in the products' development process.
So basically Ive reported to Williams?
You know nothing about Apple if you think that’s possible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Cook should have had the ID and Interface Team report directly to Williams a long time ago if he didn't have any interest in dropping by the departments or share the creative responsibilities. This is saying that Cook did not have the ability to keep Ive in check. Fast forward to 2019, Ive leaves and now the ID and HI leaders are reporting to Williams and not the CDO or Cook himself directly. The Chief Design Officer position is going to get phased out which is extremely likely because there is NO ONE to replace Ive in that job. They're going old school by keeping the ID and IT teams report to the COO Jeff Williams is is most likely groomed to be the next CEO.
The CDO position was a mistake, I believe, and Ive should have stayed as head of ID the whole time and collaborate with Williams, not Cook. Cook shirking the creative responsibilities over to Williams is saying a lot about him. Is Jony faultless? No. He's got issues but do does Cook. They're both equally the problem. Jony is NOT a CEO so he cannot just 'green light' a product and get away with it but for some reason, that's happening to a degree.
Here's another example unrelated to Apple. There's a guy who's currently writing the Batman title for DC Comics and the current story line is one of the worst ever because the editor(s) did not do a good job of keeping the writer in check or calling out his garbage because he wants it done his way. His deconstruction of Batman was poorly done in an embarrassing way. He's now being taken off the book ( read: FIRED ) because the sales lost out to Marvel's Immortal Hulk which is killing it with an excellent story. The creative team needs to work well together so everything and I mean EVERYTHING stops at the Editor in Chief's desk for final approval/editing. But since they're on a scheduled pipeline, they have to move fast so mistakes are bound to be made. It's happened.
With Apple, it's a similar thing. The CEO has to bring the hammer down and say " Not good enough design. It's got flaws. Go back to the drawing board ". And if Cook could not do this over the years, he should have never promoted Jony to CDO and say " Finalize whatever you want. It's your call. I got a speech to make at some university ". You get the picture. That's a BAD way to treat a design department in this manner especially if it's a world renowned individual like Jony. I'm a professional creative myself so I get it. If I deal with clients, it's NOT a one way street. It goes both ways so it's all about communicating and making sure the client understands what they want and how the process works especially when making changes to get it right.
Similar way how the Warriors screwed up with Kevin Durant who now just jumped ship to the Brooklyn Nets. It's not exact but it's a similar analogy.
So if Ive doesn’t report to Williams, describe to me in a simple term with only a few sentences - how can Williams “oversee Ive department” as you suggested?
Your solution is a mess.
My suggestion to you is you’re already digging yourself deep enough hole, don’t dig further.
You need to take the red pill and see reality for what it is. Trust me. Ive is FINISHED. He's walking OUT of Cook's office. All he's going to do is work freelance from his own design company as Apple will be one of his clients, likely on a limited capacity. It depends on if Williams or Cook will call his design firm for the work to be done but he'll have to sign an NDA ( non disclosure agreement ) now that he's going to be working from the outside.
And secondly, I said it for the thousandth time, it's the Industrial Design and Human Interface leaders, NOT Jony Ive, that will be reporting directly to Williams. NOT Cook. This is for the in-house development within Apple Park.
It's a reported FACT and the news is going around now that Williams is being handed the responsibility to oversee those two departments. It's likely he will be the one to call up Jony's design firm if they need anything.
I'll say it one more time: Jeff Willams COO is overseeing the ID and HI development and design process. NOT Cook.
All of what you typed here is just pure air and irrelevant to my question. Maybe your reading comprehension is not good I’ll put it again as simple as I can.
If Ive doesn’t report to Williams, how can Williams oversee Ive department (like you suggested)?
Yet that product could still sell if it was properly positioned and marketed. It was still a decent 4K video workstation.
No it wouldn't. The trashcan offered nothing that couldn't already be done with the then current Mac Pro. There was no position for it then and now.
Even if the Trashcan was slashed in price it would be useless for 4k Video as the vast majority of users shooting 4k video rely on h264 based codes which benefit hugely from Intel's Quicksync technology which is found on consumer i7/i9 CPUs and not on the Xeons. A cheap laptop would easily out-perform the Trashcan in 4k video editing. Apple has subsequently used the Vega GPUs to accelerate video codes in the iMac Pro but it's still not as fast as Quicksync.
The trashcan failed because it didn't offer a worthwhile performance improvement from the classic Mac Pro and the jobs artists wanted it for it sucked. There are countless stories of production studio literally burning through Trashcans because the GPUs cooked themselves to death. It was an appalling design and a disaster that went a long way in destroying the confidence of professionals in Apple Pro products. Apple's attempt to maximise profit by making the Trashcan as proprietary as possible and into an appliance failed miserably.
The latest Mac Pro makes similar mistakes of completely missing what the core Mac Pro buyer wants. There is a malaise in Apple's Mac design department.
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.
You think it's okay for the CEO to rarely visit one of the top executives? That'd dispirit anyone who was in that position. It'd make them feel like they aren't worth the time of the CEO. I have no idea what else Cook does though, since he doesn't seem to be involved in the products anymore. Probably trying to find ways to increase services revenue more.
Why? Cook even value Ive contributions more than Jobs did, by paying him much more. The article even, cynically, provide information on that. So why does Cook has to pretend to be a design guru to show he cares when he already did?
Paying Ive more money does NOT solve the problem. It means Cook was the wrong guy or didn't have the creative background to keep Ive in check. Valuing Ive means visiting his department and talking to him about the products entirely and where the design is going. It's not about being a design guru but rather having a sensible taste in good and practical design and KNOWING when Ive crosses the line regarding possible engineering issues. Job wasn't a designer but had a creative background in liberal arts. He was OCD in detail and if he noticed a little tiny problem, he'll pick it apart. Cook doesn't have that IT factor. That's his blind spot.
Jobs, when alive, made Jony work his ass off until he got to the design he liked. It's about intuitive design. Cook? I don't see that coming from him. If Jony wanted to go crazy with his design, Jobs would reel him to keep the product design practical. Not everything was perfect but during that era, the products were damn well built. I have a mid 2010 iMac and is still going strong. I even own a Titanium G4 PowerBook stored away and is built like a tank ( still works to this day except for the browned out Airport card ). I still have a G4 mirror drive tower Power Mac stored away too. One of the most practical Macs I've owned and it still works, thanks to Jobs.
Stop talking about what you don’t have a clue. Clearly you haven’t worked in design because if you have you’ll know the bolded part is BS. Design process doesn’t work like that. The article present a nice story, a nice angle that get you attention when you first read it but doesn’t hold when you’re really thinking about it, something that you clearly failed to do.
I know what I'm talking about. I studied in art school years ago in the graphic design/illustration department and have interacted with Industrial Design students. I've freelanced for almost 20 years now. I understand how the process works. It's clear you're ignoring Jobs' creative background and not acknowledging the fact that Cook is the one of the people who doesn't have that creative touch. He's a "bean counter" who pretends to have taste in good practical design but doesn't. This is a man who does NOT have the ability to provide good feedback to Ive.
Ask yourself this. WHY did he hand the responsibility to the COO Jeff Williams right now to oversee the departments?
It is unbelievable that Apple couldn’t sell that Edition watch.
Actually it’s unbelievable that people bought them. Solid gold paperweights in 10 years’ time.
Agreed. But 10 years?!? The thing is based on a phone. Just another iOS device. It was outdated the day it was released. $400 or $10,000 for something that will be replaced with much better technology in 12 months? And EVERY subsequent 12 month period thereafter. Smart consumers for going for the cheaper model.
IMO the gold watch was never meant to sell in large quantities. For once I agree with DED:
@charlesarthur@PenLlawen More likely, I think the gold Apple Watch was intended to be a luxury halo to make the stainless version seem affordable in comparison, and to make the new product feel incomparable to cheap looking techy Android bands selling for $150.
Comments
Yes because you are not very, very wealthy. Very, very wealthy people have no problem spending that on jewelry.
You're making the mistake of looking at it from a normal, non-wealthy point of view. The very wealthy do not give a shit. Have you not heard of the $666 gold-flaked hamburger or any of the other lavish spending habits of the very wealthy?
1) You don't know whether it sold or not, nor does the WSJ.
2) The wealthy don't care
3) It is quite small compared to most luxury watches, which are hockey pucks
Guess you don't know it all after all.
- Ah the old "Steve Jobs would never!" trope
- iPhone battery life has been going up, not down, despite chemistry size
- Learn how to spell his name, it's Ive. Can't take you seriously if you don't even take the time to learn the man's name.
Even if the Trashcan was slashed in price it would be useless for 4k Video as the vast majority of users shooting 4k video rely on h264 based codes which benefit hugely from Intel's Quicksync technology which is found on consumer i7/i9 CPUs and not on the Xeons. A cheap laptop would easily out-perform the Trashcan in 4k video editing. Apple has subsequently used the Vega GPUs to accelerate video codes in the iMac Pro but it's still not as fast as Quicksync.
The trashcan failed because it didn't offer a worthwhile performance improvement from the classic Mac Pro and the jobs artists wanted it for it sucked. There are countless stories of production studio literally burning through Trashcans because the GPUs cooked themselves to death. It was an appalling design and a disaster that went a long way in destroying the confidence of professionals in Apple Pro products. Apple's attempt to maximise profit by making the Trashcan as proprietary as possible and into an appliance failed miserably.
The latest Mac Pro makes similar mistakes of completely missing what the core Mac Pro buyer wants. There is a malaise in Apple's Mac design department.
The CDO position was a mistake, I believe, and Ive should have stayed as head of ID the whole time and collaborate with Williams, not Cook. Cook shirking the creative responsibilities over to Williams is saying a lot about him. Is Jony faultless? No. He's got issues but do does Cook. They're both equally the problem. Jony is NOT a CEO so he cannot just 'green light' a product and get away with it but for some reason, that's happening to a degree.
Here's another example unrelated to Apple. There's a guy who's currently writing the Batman title for DC Comics and the current story line is one of the worst ever because the editor(s) did not do a good job of keeping the writer in check or calling out his garbage because he wants it done his way. His deconstruction of Batman was poorly done in an embarrassing way. He's now being taken off the book ( read: FIRED ) because the sales lost out to Marvel's Immortal Hulk which is killing it with an excellent story. The creative team needs to work well together so everything and I mean EVERYTHING stops at the Editor in Chief's desk for final approval/editing. But since they're on a scheduled pipeline, they have to move fast so mistakes are bound to be made. It's happened.
With Apple, it's a similar thing. The CEO has to bring the hammer down and say " Not good enough design. It's got flaws. Go back to the drawing board ". And if Cook could not do this over the years, he should have never promoted Jony to CDO and say " Finalize whatever you want. It's your call. I got a speech to make at some university ". You get the picture. That's a BAD way to treat a design department in this manner especially if it's a world renowned individual like Jony. I'm a professional creative myself so I get it. If I deal with clients, it's NOT a one way street. It goes both ways so it's all about communicating and making sure the client understands what they want and how the process works especially when making changes to get it right.
Similar way how the Warriors screwed up with Kevin Durant who now just jumped ship to the Brooklyn Nets. It's not exact but it's a similar analogy.
Using Jony to be in charge of designing the new HQ over the 'hired guns' is saying Apple does not have confidence in who they hire from the outside. And if you think that practice is unheard of, believe me, it's a huge problem in many industries.
So if Ive doesn’t report to Williams, describe to me in a simple term with only a few sentences - how can Williams “oversee Ive department” as you suggested?
Your solution is a mess.
My suggestion to you is you’re already digging yourself deep enough hole, don’t dig further.
I mean...this could not have been more clear or more obvious to everyone on the outside looking in. No one wants to admit or acknowledge it...but the exact worst thing that could have happened (Apple losing its "DNA", the spirit that Steve Jobs infused) is exactly what happened in short order from Tim taking over. Operations above all else. It really is that simple. Apple continues to pretend outwardly that this has not happened, because their legacy depends on it...but it is of course exactly, and quite simply, what happened.
Jobs, when alive, made Jony work his ass off until he got to the design he liked. It's about intuitive design. Cook? I don't see that coming from him. If Jony wanted to go crazy with his design, Jobs would reel him to keep the product design practical. Not everything was perfect but during that era, the products were damn well built. I have a mid 2010 iMac and is still going strong. I even own a Titanium G4 PowerBook stored away and is built like a tank ( still works to this day except for the browned out Airport card ). I still have a G4 mirror drive tower Power Mac stored away too. One of the most practical Macs I've owned and it still works, thanks to Jobs.
One thing Ive did right was to insist he be allowed to work at home. It is astonishing that Apple will not allow its employees to telecommute. There is nothing greener, and more likely to improve the quality of software for use in the home than telecommuting. Most of Apple's networking code assumes you have unlimited bandwidth and zero transmission errors. Xcode, for example, does not even bother to show a status bar for a large app upload, takes up 100% of your computer's bandwidth and fails the entire upload even if it is 99% done if there is a brief interruption to the Internet. Crazy!
The article present a nice story, a nice angle that get you attention when you first read it but doesn’t hold when you’re really thinking about it, something that you clearly failed to do.
And secondly, I said it for the thousandth time, it's the Industrial Design and Human Interface leaders, NOT Jony Ive, that will be reporting directly to Williams. NOT Cook. This is for the in-house development within Apple Park.
It's a reported FACT and the news is going around now that Williams is being handed the responsibility to oversee those two departments. It's likely he will be the one to call up Jony's design firm if they need anything.
I'll say it one more time: Jeff Willams COO is overseeing the ID and HI development and design process. NOT Cook.
”The name "Quick Sync" refers to the use case of quickly transcoding ("converting") a video from, for example, a DVD or Blu-ray Disc to a format appropriate to, for example, a smartphone. This becomes critically important in the professional video workplace, in which source material may have been shot in any number of video formats, all of which must be brought into a common format (commonly H.264) for inter-cutting.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video
That resumes the industrial positioning of Quicksync as a “quick and dirty” utility used in the preparation of the source clips. From source to the final video there are a lot of editing during which Quicksync doesn’t help but the double GPUs of the 2013 Mac Pro soldered to the logic board may help along with Xeon. You are flying very high.
But my point was not that. You missed it completely.
If Ive doesn’t report to Williams, how can Williams oversee Ive department (like you suggested)?
How?
Ask yourself this. WHY did he hand the responsibility to the COO Jeff Williams right now to oversee the departments?