Sanctum1972

matrix077 said:

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.

I highly doubt it. More like the narrative media hopes to be true. 

I don't think they're hoping for it to be true because the WSJ conducted investigative interviews with people who worked with Ive and with others close to leadership who know the story from the inside. They didn't go to elaborate details but these things we're reading paint a basic picture of what has been going on as a form of confirmation and connecting more dots to the whys and hows it got to this point of Jony's departure. 

indieshack said:

This explains an awful lot about the cringeworthy sight of Apple pushing Apple Watch at haute couture events - absolutely ridiculous. Ive lost his marbles years ago

I think the problem with the fashion approach lies in with Cook, Angela and Ive. Those three should be blamed for it. Cook recruited her initially, she didn't approach the company for the job. Cook thought she was an A-list hire which eventually backfired over time, whereas Ive wanted to make the Watch a fashion product. I suspect Ive wanted a far simpler Apple Watch that didn't have 'feature overkill' with iOS apps but a simple screen telling the time and with some notifications. That's all on Cook for not keeping Ive in check when he should've done so in the first place. EDIT: and then having the guts to put his foot down and say " we gotta go the health route, not fashion ' in the first place. 

And yes, Ive went over the line with his design visions but Cook should have never said 'Okay, Jony. We'll do it your way and make the Watches purty while I go get Angela for our fashion marketing plans. bla bla bla'. 

Cook, Ive and Angela were the problem. Guess who's next to go out the window? Yep. It's Cook. I strongly believe he's got his one foot out the door while giving the creative responsibilities to Williams. He knows he's about to get huge backlash due to the Ive departure. In short, when the dung hits the fan, Cook's hopping onto his escape pod because he wants to keep his "political" image clean. 

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. 

canukstorm said:

rogifan_new said:

andrewj5790 said:

And, of course, John “get off my lawn” Gruber begins the handwringing. ߤ氟ﻦzwj;♂️

And everyone in the tech press kissing his ass tweeting what a great piece it was. No actually it was hot garbage.

Mark Gurman just wrote a piece detailing his scoop on Jony Ive leaving.  This part doesn't sound encouraging

"The design team is made up of the most creative people, but now there is an operations barrier that wasn’t there before," one former Apple executive said. "People are scared to be innovative."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/inside-apple-s-long-goodbye-to-design-chief-jony-ive

Also, just saw a tweet mentioning how all of Tim Cook's recent selections for many key senior executive positions have operations backgrounds.  Coincidence? I think not.

https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1144372794651754496

THAT tweet is disturbing. If confirmed that he placed his own 'operations' folks in various departments, there could be more headaches coming. 

AppleExposed said:

I've feared this day and it's finally come.

I saw it coming and was bound to happen. Going independent is the most natural thing to do rather than be 'ball and chain' ed to Apple for life.