You may know more about this than I: was Forstall a problem-starter and difficult to work with, or was it more Jony Ive didn’t want to work with him, and Jony won that battle?
I don't it was just Ive. Manfeld any many other executives couldn't stand him as well, so it ultimately came down to his personality. Scott was undeniably an asset, very much like the Hulk can be an asset, but there's a reason why you don't see the hulk featured in many marvel films. He's just more trouble than he's worth most of the time.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...onflict-with-execs-jubilation-from-employees/
Tim Cook was reportedly very big on the whole collaborative aspect for Apple, and I guess Scott just didn't fit in. This is my own impression based on analysis from bloggers such as John Gruber, and what I have read so far. I have no idea who really started all this, but I don't it matters at the end of the day. Tim Cook's ultimatum was clear - either you play nice with the rest or get packing, and Scott chose the latter.
[doublepost=1512879135][/doublepost]
Totally agree here. Sounds like the camera bump requires new tech or a thicker phone. The easy solution is a thicker phone, considering you could increase your battery size to blow away the competition.
And a thicker phone is harder to hold, plus a larger battery also means a heavier phone. Definitely not free of tradeoffs, and I don't think it's one you get to make on behalf of everyone else.
The notch definitely needs to go. If it means getting rid of faceID, so be it. No one was screaming for faceID before it arrived, and they decided to add it right when they were going full phone/screen...just crazy. Why not minimize the sensors as much as possible (instead of adding to them), and go for under the glass touchid???? They are very vocally claiming now that that was never a possibility, but if not, why not? They pulled a Microsoft--see the Kinect--where they got invested in a tech advance few cared about, and sacrificed the overall product and aesthetics to do it. Just crazy, and unApple.
The notch feels very uniquely Apple.
I think people misinterpret FaceID. The idea is that it blurs the perception of needing authentication at all to unlock your phone. I think what Apple was going for was using FaceID to take care of all the security stuff behind the scenes so you don't have too. It removes having to think about authenticating to access something because faceID has already detected that it is you. What you're left with is a phone that is as easy to access as one without a passcode. No longer do you have to go through security checks because it is all done automatically. It seems pretty seamless when it works, but we're still in V1.
Apple is the kind of company to ditch something when the replacement is good enough but will be much better in a few years. They probably could have done under-the-screen Touch-ID, but it was a direct decision not to so that people didn’t enable faceID and used a worse touchID because of familiarity. Apple is the kind of company that would ditch something so users have less choice, but possibly (in their opinion) a better experience.
That is what makes Apple so polarizing. They aim for product experience often times at the sacrifice of user choice. And if their idea of what you want in a product matches yours, then it is full of secret magic and delight. And if not, it can be frustration, like jogging through quicksand.
Like I said, uniquely Apple. It doesn't mean they are losing the plot. It just means they choose to see things in a very unorthodox manner that most people wouldn't.
