Jony Ive's departure follows years of dissatisfaction and absenteeism

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 161
    Sanctum1972Sanctum1972 Posts: 94unconfirmed, member
    "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.
    Thank you! That's a major point right there that people cannot seem to grasp. 
    anantksundaramelijahgkestraldysamoria
  • Reply 102 of 161
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 729member
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    elijahg said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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? 
    Ha Ha. Unfortunately for you, I’m also graduate in graphic design, and is a much better designer than you judging from your posts.

    As for your question the answer is very easy, very simple someone followed Apple a few years would be able to answer it. Why now? Because of Ive departure. Duh..
    edited July 1
  • Reply 103 of 161
    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
    It would make a good name for a sex toy firm as well.

    However the name is LoveFrom

    https://www.ft.com/content/9ad4dc32-991b-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229
  • Reply 104 of 161
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,155member
    matrix077 said:
    elijahg said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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. 
    This is pure conjecture. I’m sure it’s what some people want to believe, especially people who have this vision of Jobs as some kind of god who could do no wrong. But it’s not backed up by facts. There are plenty of things people complained about when Steve Jobs was still in charge. But now the revisionist history is anything someone doesn’t like about Apple is something Steve Jobs wouldn’t have allowed to happen. BS.
  • Reply 105 of 161
    Sanctum1972Sanctum1972 Posts: 94unconfirmed, member
    matrix077 said:
    elijahg said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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. 
    This is pure conjecture. I’m sure it’s what some people want to believe, especially people who have this vision of Jobs as some kind of god who could do no wrong. But it’s not backed up by facts. There are plenty of things people complained about when Steve Jobs was still in charge. But now the revisionist history is anything someone doesn’t like about Apple is something Steve Jobs wouldn’t have allowed to happen. BS.
    I never said he was a god even though he was temperate and difficult to work with. But he did have a strong grasp in what he wanted out of the products and was surrounded by a strong staff of executives. Cook is not Jobs, obviously and vice versa. What happened between Cook and Ive is not 100% known but it's obvious one or both of them are the problem. All we can get from the WSJ and then on is what's been reported. I don't think Rene Ritchie has a balanced view on things from what I've seen on his youtube clips. Whatever he heard from depends on the source he's getting it from in contrast to the WSJ. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes on to the defense of Cook on his future YouTube clips. 
     
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 106 of 161
    Sanctum1972Sanctum1972 Posts: 94unconfirmed, member
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    elijahg said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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? 
    Ha Ha. Unfortunately for you, I’m also graduate in graphic design, and is a much better designer than you judging from your posts.

    As for your question the answer is very easy, very simple someone followed Apple a few years would be able to answer it. Why now? Because of Ive departure. Duh..
    Well judging from your posts, your grammar and English needs a lot of work as you wouldn't get a job with that kind of attitude. You sound either foreign outside of America or Deaf considering the grammar being used ( I say this from experience ). I couldn't care less if you're a much better designer or which school you graduated from. Good designers don't talk like that. 

    And your response is a sign that you're avoiding the question. Google on Ive's departure and Jeff William's new responsibilities. It's not because of Ive's departure which there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. You need to learn to read between the lines as it is unusual for COO Jeff Williams to take on the responsibilities to oversee the departments. This has never happened before in Apple, I don't believe. Something is up with Cook and I think he is the next one to leave Apple and Williams to be the new CEO. When that happens, it remains to be seen but it could be at the end of the year or very early 2020 right when the election year comes around for the United States. 
    edited July 1 dysamoria
  • Reply 107 of 161
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 729member
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    elijahg said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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? 
    Ha Ha. Unfortunately for you, I’m also graduate in graphic design, and is a much better designer than you judging from your posts.

    As for your question the answer is very easy, very simple someone followed Apple a few years would be able to answer it. Why now? Because of Ive departure. Duh..
    Well judging from your posts, your grammar and English needs a lot of work as you wouldn't get a job with that kind of attitude. You sound either foreign outside of America or DEAF considering the grammar being used ( I say this from experience ). I couldn't care less if you're a much better designer or which school you graduated from. Good designers don't talk like that. 

    And your response is a sign that you're avoiding the question. Google on Ive's departure and Jeff William's new responsibilities. It's not because of Ive's departure which there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. You need to learn to read between the lines as it is unusual for COO Jeff Williams to take on the responsibilities to oversee the departments. This has never happened before in Apple, I don't believe. Something is up with Cook and I think he is the next one to leave Apple and Williams to be the new CEO. When that happens, it remains to be seen but it could be at the end of the year or very early 2020 right when the election year comes around for the United States. 
    My grammar is very bad, and I never say otherwise. :)

    Your last paragraph only proves that you’re a confused person. Adios. Please don’t quote me anymore. You’re not worth my time. 
    edited July 1
  • Reply 108 of 161
    indieshackindieshack Posts: 161member
    maestro64 said:
    The media is just publishing a hit piece on Apple. 
    ..because "The Media" is a monolithic entity which walks in lock-step and has it in for Apple. 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 109 of 161
    kestralkestral Posts: 251member
    "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.
    Tim Cook came from Compaq. Compaq is his DNA. Want to know where Apple will go? Look where Comaq went. Give it enough time and that's where Apple will be.
    dysamoriaSanctum1972
  • Reply 110 of 161
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 795member
    matrix077 said:
    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?
    In comparison, sources say that Cook was rarely seen in the design studio and this dispirited Ive...  This is a bit different than not as much as Steve. This sentence says to me that Cook almost never came to the design studio.  Looking for input from someone out side of the design team can help with a different perspective,  and to give a designer a different way to think about what it is they are trying to get the finished product to be... Just a thought..
    dysamoriaHypereality
  • Reply 111 of 161

    Yet that product could still sell if it was properly positioned and marketed. It was still a decent 4K video workstation.

    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.
    One of the most prominent YT VLoggers in recent years, Casey Neistat bought a Trashcan and junked it because his MBP was so much faster at cutting and exporting 4k. It's well documented on his YT Channel.

    You appear to be a typical forum poster, educated by press releases and no real world experience. The Trashcan was dreadful, it's one of the worst computer designs ever to be sold as Pro hardware. It failed so hard Apple internally EOLed the Mac Pro until back-tracking in 2017. The Trashcan had no redeeming features, the dual GPUs were out of date on the day of release and were just rebadged Radeon 7950 cards that had to be underclocked for power and heat issues and were easily outperformed by an upgraded cMP.

    The Trashcan was so 'decent' that Apple never returned to it, never gave it an upgrade because the sales were poor. Deadpool was edited on Premiere using Trashcans, they went through about 10 IIRC which spent more time being repaired than being used. No Professional workstation should fail like this under normal usage.

    Who is flying high?
  • Reply 112 of 161
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,155member
    matrix077 said:
    elijahg said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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. 
    This is pure conjecture. I’m sure it’s what some people want to believe, especially people who have this vision of Jobs as some kind of god who could do no wrong. But it’s not backed up by facts. There are plenty of things people complained about when Steve Jobs was still in charge. But now the revisionist history is anything someone doesn’t like about Apple is something Steve Jobs wouldn’t have allowed to happen. BS.
    I never said he was a god even though he was temperate and difficult to work with. But he did have a strong grasp in what he wanted out of the products and was surrounded by a strong staff of executives. Cook is not Jobs, obviously and vice versa. What happened between Cook and Ive is not 100% known but it's obvious one or both of them are the problem. All we can get from the WSJ and then on is what's been reported. I don't think Rene Ritchie has a balanced view on things from what I've seen on his youtube clips. Whatever he heard from depends on the source he's getting it from in contrast to the WSJ. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes on to the defense of Cook on his future YouTube clips. 
     
    So you have a personal opinion about Rene Ritchie and thus are less inclined to believe what he says. Got it. Btw, Rene never divulged anything, he just said what he’s heard is different than this WSJ story.

    Anyway my larger point is saying certain products are the way they are because Jobs wasn’t there to say no or not good enough is conjecture.
  • Reply 113 of 161
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,961member
    AI_lias said:
    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. 
    Even when Steve Jobs was in charge there was always pressure to show off something new but he had the guts to have the patience to introduce products when they were genuinely ready & not buckle under media pressure.  He had a backbone.  That's what Tim Cook needs more of.  And I agree the Watch was released to early.  The hardware for Version 1 (Series 0) was really slow and the OS was nowhere near ready.
  • Reply 114 of 161
    larz2112larz2112 Posts: 286member
    In my opinion it seems fairly clear that the synchronicity, synergy, and passion for design that Ive shared with Jobs simply does not exist with Cook. When a symbiotic relationship that is so powerful and successful is lost, and nothing replaces the void, it is often difficult to stay motivative. To some degree, you fall into a creative depression. I think that is what happened to Ive, plain and simple. I'm sure that Ive had many, many creative brainstorming sessions with Jobs that fueled his passion and motivation. As many have noted, Cook is a bean counter, and as such, I'm sure could not provided the creative inspiration and "what if?" challenges that Jobs provided.

    I think it is clear to most that Apple today is different than Apple ten years ago, for better or for worse.  And tomorrow's Apple will be even more different, for better or for worse. It will not be "doom and gloom", just, different. I guess Tim Cook is taking the slogan to heart. Think Different (for better or for worse).
    edited July 1 dysamoria
  • Reply 115 of 161
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,961member
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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. 
    100% this!
    Sanctum1972
  • Reply 116 of 161
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 795member
    MacPro said:
    I am for one am not shocked that Apple is left with a lot of Apple Watch $10,000 models, I assume they are the first generation.  I get Jony wanting to build a really cool, high-end version of the Apple Watch but unlike a Rolex, it isn't a thing that has much longevity. Not due to built-in obsolescence as with so many things rather because of the incredible pace of technical progress and innovation we have in the tech sector. The Apple Watch like all Apple's other products begs to be replaced with a newer version by anyone who is a tech enthusiast every few years. At least his Campus creation will be a monument and testimony to his genius that will last without being replaced by a new version in a year.
    You don't think the people that were able to afford this watch when it was released would somehow not be able to afford it when a newer version was introduced?  Think about that for a minute..
    macplusplus
  • Reply 117 of 161
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,961member
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    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?
    edited July 1
  • Reply 118 of 161
    The real tragic is that Apple lost its product leadership focus under SJ and is now optimizing operational excellence and financial management thereby maximizing financial results. Sad, as we all know this is not sustainable and can envision where this will end. 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 119 of 161
    john f.john f. Posts: 91member
    kestral said:
    Tim Cook came from Compaq. Compaq is his DNA. Want to know where Apple will go? Look where Comaq went. Give it enough time and that's where Apple will be.
    So Apple will go where? Towards a low profit margin company? Microsoft will take over Apple? Towards a company without culture? I don't think Apple will go that far, although culture is hard to maintain. Just look at Pixar too. There always needs to be one strong creative person at the helm, yes. But perhaps that day will come again for Apple. I don't think Apple will ever be a Compaq.

    Maybe Cook has transformed Apple towards a culture of being too nice to each other, because those are his values. All the rebels have left or were booted out. So what is left is perhaps a yes-men culture. Nobody is pitted against each other. Nobody there to strongly disagree about anything, like the pricing of products. In an interview with Scott Forstall, he said there was once an argument over the pricing of something. Forstall said to Steve the price was too high, because he knew people who couldn't afford it at the price. And while Steve maintained the price point, the argument is what is important. Steve was also someone who could change his mind overnight. Steve Jobs lowered the iPhone price after a few months of introduction. Remember the outrage? But Steve said: "We've clearly got a breakthrough product and we want to make it affordable for even more customers as we enter this holiday season." See, Steve did use the term affordable now and then. So someone got through to him. In the Cook era, that has gone. Right now, there needs to be people shouting at Cook that profit is nice for Apple, but what is better is to be a company that people love.
  • Reply 120 of 161
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,888member

    Yet that product could still sell if it was properly positioned and marketed. It was still a decent 4K video workstation.

    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.
    One of the most prominent YT VLoggers in recent years, Casey Neistat bought a Trashcan and junked it because his MBP was so much faster at cutting and exporting 4k. It's well documented on his YT Channel.

    You appear to be a typical forum poster, educated by press releases and no real world experience. The Trashcan was dreadful, it's one of the worst computer designs ever to be sold as Pro hardware. It failed so hard Apple internally EOLed the Mac Pro until back-tracking in 2017. The Trashcan had no redeeming features, the dual GPUs were out of date on the day of release and were just rebadged Radeon 7950 cards that had to be underclocked for power and heat issues and were easily outperformed by an upgraded cMP.

    The Trashcan was so 'decent' that Apple never returned to it, never gave it an upgrade because the sales were poor. Deadpool was edited on Premiere using Trashcans, they went through about 10 IIRC which spent more time being repaired than being used. No Professional workstation should fail like this under normal usage.

    Who is flying high?
    Great. You continue to educate yourself by following YouTube “influencers”. When I choose H.264 hardware encoder almost all H.264 parameters disappear, your influencer mentor is not the only one who owns a MBP.  H.264 isn’t even a professional editing or interchange format, what are you talking about... Do not quote me anymore I have no time to waste with you.
Sign In or Register to comment.