Sanctum1972

matrix077 said:

elijahg said:

matrix077 said:

rogifan_new said:

matrix077 said:

rogifan_new said:

matrix077 said:

foregoneconclusion 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. 

StrangeDays said:

jbdragon said:

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. 

matrix077 said:

Sanctum1972 said:

matrix077 said:

Sanctum1972 said:

matrix077 said:

Sanctum1972 said:

matrix077 said:

foregoneconclusion 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?

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. 

matrix077 said:

Sanctum1972 said:

matrix077 said:

Sanctum1972 said:

matrix077 said:

foregoneconclusion 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?

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. 

matrix077 said:

Sanctum1972 said:

matrix077 said:

foregoneconclusion 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.