mdriftmeyer

What he's referring to is how NeXT and PIXAR are run. The cross-pollination of help between colleagues was expected and/or demanded of people. You quickly realized there was no way in hell one could run lean w/o people pitching in on several projects. The management was well managed and no one hid decisions from them. Every week we had to collect all of our action items of what we had yet to do and the ones resolved; and include all parties involved. Sent them to the manager and at the meeting every one an hour or two prior were given the complete listing to then discuss at the meeting.

Different members discussed how they could resolve other member issues and/or improve upon their solutions. You quickly knew everyone and discovered their talents.

It's a win/win.

Keeping to a singular focus approach will slow progress and produce more work in the long run.

Cook seems to run Engineering like procurement of materials and contracts: Bad Idea.

Soli said:

rogifan_new said:

davidmalcolm said:

I honestly would love to see Forestall back at Apple. I think iOS has really gone stagnant after iOS 7. It's a heck of a lot of more of the same. Don't get me wrong I love my iPad Pro with Pencil, and I love my iPhone SE. But my iPhone SE is the same design that was there when Scott was there, and the software UI hasn't moved that much at all. And I think he probably could have gone along with a flatter UI. Sometimes I wonder if Ive just wanted Forestall out because of personal conflicts and didn't actually have much planned for the UI aside from flattening it. Where as Forestall had a TON of ideas.

Forstall wasn't let go because he didn't support a "flat" UI. That's ridiculous. Go back and read the press release and then some of the reporting around that time. There were reports that Bob Mansfield wouldn't meet with him unless Tim Cook was present. There were reports that he was slagging off other teams to his team members in emails. In a BBC interview Tony Fadell said Forstall " got what he deserved". None of that has anything to do with flat UI.

Was there a change in his attitude because he wasn't chosen as Jobs' successor and/or is this a situation where he was always difficult but was able to be controlled by Jobs since he started back at NeXT?

Steve spent most of his time at PIXAR after 1993 and the release of Openstep for Intel. We weren't making black hardware anymore and PIXAR was working on Toy Story. Steve didn't invest much time at NeXT until WebObjects and even then later he was mainly back at PIXAR. When the merger was a possibility he immediately re-engaged on NeXT and the possibility of being the special consultant advisor that later became iCEO moved him from 100% PIXAR to 100% Apple.

Steve was really a Hardware man. He expected the OS to work as meticulously as he expected the hardware to be both aesthetically ideal and as reliable as possible. He hated to have an idea and later discover it would take time to develop it. It's also one of the reasons he loved being on the forefront of controlling the OS and Hardware. It was also a problem for NeXT because instead of being just ahead of the industry curve we were always ten years ahead, which translated into no one being interested.

Tim Cook seems to prefer being 6 months ahead and thus irritates the hell out of those more in favor of Steve's 18 months ahead of the competition. If you are just barely ahead of the competition most people will overlook your innovation as nothing special. But nearly two years and everyone will be a copycat.

Scott was very much respected, but let's be honest, a lot of the folks today who are Senior VPs weren't even senior managers at NeXT. Most of the top brass moved on and out of the industry entirely after the merger. Some people are better at seeing the big picture and others have big egos who were given a huge title to match.

Believe it or not, but Craig is a dick and butted heads with a lot of former colleagues he worked with at NeXT and later after he came back to Apple by leapfrogging others more qualified than himself. People rave about his ``keynote'' entertaining moments, but he's actually not the most laid back person to be around. Forestall was far more qualified to demo OS X, iOS than Federighi ever would be. Craig's focus at NeXT was EOF (Enterprise Objects Framework) and that was it. Scott was one of the principal architects of AppKit and much more.

A fellow colleague of mine and friend to this day that was better than all of them at charisma, showmanship and always made the best in-house demos is Mark Tacchi. He garnered fame by creating the Java Gamelet Toolkit on a whim, while at NeXT. He's the founder and CEO of Vendini. Also founded one other company named HipBone.

If anyone would have been Steve's successor it would have been Mark, but during the merger people offered him a ton of cash to bolt and run a new startup software engineering division at more than double what Apple was willing to pay. He's just an all around great person who knows how to engage, is amazingly compassionate and a keen eye for building teams, while having a grounded ego.

Guys like Faddell are pure opportunists. Guys like Tacchi wanted to work at NeXT because of it's unique vision and its founder's history. They are rare.

davidmalcolm said:

I honestly would love to see Forestall back at Apple. I think iOS has really gone stagnant after iOS 7. It's a heck of a lot of more of the same. Don't get me wrong I love my iPad Pro with Pencil, and I love my iPhone SE. But my iPhone SE is the same design that was there when Scott was there, and the software UI hasn't moved that much at all. And I think he probably could have gone along with a flatter UI. Sometimes I wonder if Ive just wanted Forestall out because of personal conflicts and didn't actually have much planned for the UI aside from flattening it. Where as Forestall had a TON of ideas.

Scott was a colleague and one of the main architects of AppKit. Ives doesn't know a damn thing about Software Design or Development. Steve Jobs never would have ousted Forstall. He was one of his most favored top architects at NeXT and Apple. Scott was very good at his job.

The problem we see isn't just a few folks, but a lot of key architects from NeXT left between 2007-2012. When you lose people like Bertrand Serlet you lose far more than someone like Chris Lattner. Bertrand was a guiding force behind Openstep and later OS X. He is brilliant as well as being a very engaging and personable human being, who not unlike a conductor of an Orchestra knew how to make it all cohesively work and meet deadlines.

Also, losing the creator of the Mach Microkernel and Senior VP Avie Tevanian was a monumental blow that most people don't grasp.