Scott Forstall Deserved to be Ousted from Apple Says Former Apple Exec

[alephnull12]

Originally Posted by xofruitcake

Have you ever involved in a complicate development project before? What you are talking is a movie version of corporate / project management. Given how many projects that Apple has to tackle at the same time, there is no one man/woman that can manage all of them.

Dividing up work and having a great many people working on different aspects of a coherent project, is not the same as having many people coming to a consensus on a single jointly decided issue. You're talking about something completely different.

[DRFUMANCHU350]

Originally Posted by charlituna

I think you mean oversaw the development of an MP3 player that rewrote the market and boosted the company's value several times over. And with out which said phone etc might never exist.

True, but I will assume the position that iOS and the app store will prove WAAAAAY more profitable than any MP3 Player Ever produced. Scott Forstall was the advocate for 3rd party apps we love so well Steve was not!

[KdParker]

Originally Posted by dysamoria

Sure it is, if the arrogance is not earned and actually backed by being right.

That is my point. Just because some one is arrogant is not reason alone to not like someone.

[UmbraDiaboli]

Some former Apple Exex was a bit jelly

[Rogifan]

I don't get what's so great about skeuomrphism. I find most of it tacky. And when there are things software can do that the physical counterpart cannot it seems a bit disingenuously design the software to mimic the physical object. I think it should only be used when its the absolute best way to communicate what the software/app is intended to do. But when it's just ornamental decoration that serves no real function what's the point? Case in point, the paint brushes in iPhoto. They're redundant, take up too much space and are just plain ugly. And iCal? How many people actually have calendars like that on their office desks these days? Worst of all, what is intuitive about the podcast app? What does a reel to reel tape have to do with podcasting? What purpose does that UI serve other than some nostalgia for old geezers.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

Worst of all, what is intuitive about the podcast app? What does a reel to reel tape have to do with podcasting? What purpose does that UI serve other than some nostalgia for old geezers.

Hey, watch it. It's the "old geezers" of the world who created (or at least managed and funded) the iPhone, just so kids could be cool

Seriously, yeah some symbols that have lasted for decades, don't have the same emotional meaning, at least, to younger people who have never used the original reference items (or perhaps even seen except in movies).

On a side note, referencing recent debates about one-handed usage, people should be glad we don't use dial phones any more. Man, talk about wearing out your finger if you did calls all day... especially if they had lots of 8s or 9s! Ouch. People even resorted to using finger substitutes.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by prowlmedia

Sure. But he can't go anywhere if he's still under contract and "working" for apple. Hence they don't release him from it.

He may be able to quit and walk but will loose $5.8m in shares! Fairly sure he is not active in the campus and just answering questions etc.

I was kind of wondering about the terms of his severance. If that's the case, he could always take the time to enjoy himself or line up the next job for when his contract expires.

[tracker_oz]

I have to say I am in the camp of "we shall see!"

I find it interesting that people are talking about how Forstall was difficult to work with and missing the real point. Was he right?
Steve Jobs was hard to work with and very strong views on how things should be, just as Forstall. Does that justify getting rid of him? Only if the ideas are not panning out. Personally, I think Scott has taken a fall he should not have. Let's have a look at some of the so-called "issues".

1) Maps: I have not seen so many people fall in-line with such an overblown media-led "storm in a teacup" since.......well, ever! Sure there are some DTED issues with 3D overlays. Yes there is some wrong data in places. Every system has these. If ind it hilarious that the very same people that are panning iOS 6 maps are happy to overlook the problems with other services like Google maps. Personally, and I can only speak for my service in Australia, the iOS 6 maps (and plug-in architecture for directions) is already better and more extensible than Google maps was. And at least my bus timetable here is correct now. As for apologizing, I think it actually showed real integrity for Forstall to say NO if he really believed that what they were asking to apologize for was bogus.

2) Siri: Can someone tell me how Siri has been a failure exactly? I have used a lot of VR systems over the years, including Google's system, and Siri is easily better than them all. Not only is it fairly accurate, even in low SNR environments, but its natural language system is fantastic. Unlike other systems I have used (since I am Australian), I am not forced to sound like a 2 cent impression of J.R. Ewing in order to have it recognize me. And it continues to get better and better on the VR every week. I find myself doing about 40% of my interactions with the iPhone through Siri now.

Did people expect Siri to be like H.A.L. straight off? Is Apple's advertising, unlike every other manufacturer on the planet have to be 100% accurate and meet everyone's expectations immediately, no matter how fantastic these become? Siri continues to mature and evolve, and as with the maps in iOS 6, I believe this will be seen as a storm in a teacup within 18 months.

3) Skeuomorphism: While I don't personally care for all skeuomorphistic design, there are plenty of people out there that do. It is a vocal minority that is making a big deal of this. And some skeuomorphisms are very nice indeed. I note that the same people lambasting Scott Forstall over iCal are very quiet about the new iPad iOS 6 clock interface!

4) One more thing: Tony Fadell has an axe to grind with Scott Forstall. They fell out over the design of the iPhone from all accounts. In fact, if the stories are to be believed, they fell out over the design of the OS for the iPhone. Forstall wanted to use OSX, while Fadell was espousing a simpler (ipod like) OS design. Ask yourself what was the right decision?!

There are so many parallels between SF's ousting from Apple and the original ousting of Steve Jobs that I can scarcely believe the mainstream media has not already picked up on it. I worry that Apple is becoming more like the "Sculley-years" Apple, and less like the Steve Jobs oversaw. Again, ask yourself why is it that Steve Jobs kept SF on? Steve was not one to suffer fools lightly and its not like SF was new to Apple.

And while so many people have jumped on the anti SF bandwagon, I am sorry to see him go. I believe that he still has a lot more to offer any company smart enough to realise that and that eventually we will all realise his import to Apple and where Apple has gotten to. If Apple thinks they have issues with Google and Android now, Apple better hope that SF does not get gobbled up by Google!

Time will tell!

[tracker_oz]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

I don't get what's so great about skeuomrphism. I find most of it tacky. And when there are things software can do that the physical counterpart cannot it seems a bit disingenuously design the software to mimic the physical object. I think it should only be used when its the absolute best way to communicate what the software/app is intended to do.

And those clocks on the new iOS 6 that mimic the Swiss rail clocks are so tacky and unnecessary. As are digital clocks. I mean, who doesn't understand binary clocks nowadays?!!

The issue with the anti-skeuomorphist crowd is that they generalise too much! While I don't care for some of it, I am not everyone and I can't generalise to say it is all useless. There are lots of people that I know (in fact likely the majority of those I know) that actually like the iCal look. So don't assume that because a few geeky online users don't like something that that is the feeling of the majority. Oh, and just because Jon Ive does not like skeuomorphism does not meant that that becomes God's law!

I think Steve Jobs would be wincing in his grave seeing the stupidity (and gutless willingness to pander to the media and vocal few) being shown at Apple lately!

[krravi]

Originally Posted by addicted44

Tony Faddell is clearly biased. His idea, of basing the iPhone OS on the iPod OS was shot down in favor of Forstall's idea of basing it on Mac OS X. And I think this was the right decision.

That being said, I believe iOS6 clearly indicated that Forstall had to go. He is obviously a brilliant man, but I think he had run out of ideas. While iOS6 was a great update, it wasn't the revolution I believe Apple needs in the next couple of years. And there was no indication that Forstall would be able to deliver.

In most cases, running out of ideas personally is not a huge issue in a large talented company like Apple's, because there are so many other smart people whose ideas you can leverage. But this is where Forstall's inability to get along with anyone else would potentially be a dealbreaker, because (a) he was unlikely to accept others' ideas, and (b) others were unlikely to share their ideas with him.

I think its really unfair to expect an "Revolutionary" product every quarter. To quote Jobs himself.." I was lucky to be part of not one but three revolutionary products in my lifetime".. Now calculate the number of years between the three products.

Wall street has hammered Apple repeatedly over this just so they can make their money not because they want to change the world.

And this fever has spread all over that puts undue pressure on the company, the executives and the engineers.

Let them breathe, please.

BTW, Apple is what it is today, because of Tony Fadell not Steve Jobs.

Steve jobs came in the very end of the iPod in the look and feel of the product. He didn't even care when the idea was pitched to him or when it was being *developed* and Tony was hired as just a temporary consultant. To design a music player and have a store surrounding the player was Tony's idea and it's what gave Apple its boost, financially, culturally and technically.

[eastercat]

Originally Posted by osaga

I wish someone would just tell us what the jackass (Forstall) did to deserve what he got. Can't macrumors email some former underlings and get a scoop?

There are allegedly a few things that brought up friction.
-his refusal to co-sign the letter apologizing for the maps app
-his stance on skeumorphism
-his attitude

Originally Posted by KdParker

Arrogant is not a reason to dislike someone. Just sayin

Yes, Jobs was very arrogant, but many would say he had the talent to balance it.
Supposedly, Forstall didn't have enough talent to balance his arrogance. Fact is, we really won't know the truth for a while.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by charlituna

I think you mean oversaw the development of an MP3 player that rewrote the market and boosted the company's value several times over. And with out which said phone etc might never exist.

Several times over ? Hardly.

In 2006, the Mac was still more than 50% of their revenues :

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q406data_sum.pdf

Macs accounted for 2.2 billion $ while iPods for 1.5 billion $ in Q4 '06. Macs had an overall growth rate of 37% YtoY while iPods had 29%.

Even thinking of the iPod as a gateway device, it wasn't Apple's primary business at all, the Mac still was.

What made Apple's revenue jump to record heights, rendered the Mac almost irrelevant in their financials, is the iPhone. Look at revenue break down in '12. The Mac is in the 1x% bracket of revenue generation, with iPhone and iPad doing most of the legwork.

While we never might have had the iPhone without the iPod and that the revenue/profits it brought to Apple is nothing to sneeze at, it's still not what single handedly saved Apple, not by a long shot.

[xofruitcake]

Originally Posted by alephnull12

Dividing up work and having a great many people working on different aspects of a coherent project, is not the same as having many people coming to a consensus on a single jointly decided issue. You're talking about something completely different.

They go hand in hand in smooth daily operation. The same people that deliver the project are the same people that make the decisions on every aspect of the project. Just look at your own household decision. Assuming that you are the head of the household, do you take your family's input when you make major family related decision? if you do, you are building your decision on consensus. If you don't, how you going to convince your family to go along with your decision?

In every project that I work on in my professional life, there are always one guy/gal in charge of all major decisions. But that one guy will have to work through multiple different options presented by different fraction within the project on every single decision. How is one person be able be handle all these daily decision making without building consensus within his team? One person can have a very strong vision and able to convince everyone to go alone with his vision. But the key is that he/she convince everyone to go along. Not he steamrolling everyone to go along. And it does not have to be the decision maker either. It can be a designer, a marketing guy, a programmer within the project.

[alephnull12]

Originally Posted by xofruitcake

Assuming that you are the head of the household, do you take your family's input when you make major family related decision?

Not always, but sometimes. But that's different. In a marriage, participants are accountable to one another. In a company, employees are accountable to shareholders, and in the case of Apple, making a superior product.

Originally Posted by xofruitcake

In every project that I work on in my professional life, there are always one guy/gal in charge of all major decisions. But that one guy will have to work through multiple different options presented by different fraction within the project on every single decision.

Yes, but ultimately, the final decision doesn't need to be established consensus. Often, a good manager makes decisions that are not advocated by his employees, or that may not serve the best interest of his employees. For the good of the company and the product.

Originally Posted by xofruitcake

One person can have a very strong vision and able to convince everyone to go alone with his vision. But the key is that he/she convince everyone to go along. Not he steamrolling everyone to go along.

Steve Jobs was able to do all that -- but my impression is, it wasn't always by generating consensus. Often times, it can be by simply telling people what they will do, even if they don't want to do it. Or, by demoting, transferring, or firing the person who doesn't share the correct vision.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by charlituna

I think you mean oversaw the development of an MP3 player that rewrote the market and boosted the company's value several times over. And with out which said phone etc might never exist.

The ipod was never the majority of their growth. They entered a new market where they owned 0%, which was huge. Profits from that probably helped fund development of the iphone, which remains their biggest success. The ipad is the same. They were able to grow a small market where they lacked any prior presence. They didn't even have a sizable computing device at that price point. They look huge because the growth initiated from the ground up.

[xofruitcake]

Originally Posted by alephnull12

Dividing up work and having a great many people working on different aspects of a coherent project, is not the same as having many people coming to a consensus on a single jointly decided issue. You're talking about something completely different.

heh heh, and who got to decide how those work should be done?

Who decide how many RAM should be use in Ipad mini? Who decide what processor should be use? Who decide what lcd technology to use? who decide what the price point should be? Who decide what the advertising campaign should look like? Who decide which supplier to use? and on and on and on.. Thousands of decision has to be made and you think a single guy know enough to make all the right decisions?

In a major project, all the worker bees work through their piece of the puzzle and put together recommendation with pros and cons of each choice using their own judgement. And they influence their piece of the project by their recommendation. And decision got to be made in each and every levels everyday. How do you intent to have our super-man/super-woman leader decide what to intervene his subordinate's decisions everyday?

A visionary leader lay out his vision but he has to let other work out the details to implement his/her vision. He has to convince other of his vision. He can't just make the decision. It does not work in our home, why would it work in a big project that involve hundred to thousand of people.

[Mactendo]

Originally Posted by adildacoolset

Oh yes, you know better than the godfather of the iPod himself eh?

Everyone give this guy a round of applause

Eh.

[iLilana]

this guy... seriously.

[damir00]

Originally Posted by krravi

I think its really unfair to expect an "Revolutionary" product every quarter.

It's been a lot longer than a "quarter" since Apple last blew anybody's mind with a new product.

[krravi]

Originally Posted by damir00

It's been a lot longer than a "quarter" since Apple last blew anybody's mind with a new product.

So... whats your time limit on when a revolutionary product should occur?

If it does, then is it revolutionary or evolutionary?

And either way is there a "revolutionary" product factory that people enter and come out with products?

Revolutionary products come along with a spark. Usually by one person thats then disseminated to other groups and if they have the freedom and funding then they work on it, not knowing if it will ever succeed.

I am sorry you make it sound like its a "process" and not "happenstance".

[iLilana]

Originally Posted by damir00

It's been a lot longer than a "quarter" since Apple last blew anybody's mind with a new product.

I am curious to see how they will change the macpro. I don't see it keeping the same 500lb form factor. there has to be some new thing that will allow consumers to add their own crap. Some modular rack box or smaller tower. or some crazy dual motherboard 32 processor monstrosity. (which i would totally want) to be totally honest though as a pro user wannabe I would love to see the "tower" go away completely. Towers are clunky and space/noise/eye abusing behemoths. there needs to be a new pro form factor standard.