What assumptions did I make about how you reached your point of view? My whole comment started with the question "why?". Why does anyone think Apple software would be better with Forstall in place? How had he demonstrated competence in systems with this level of complexity? What vision did he show?
I'm not assuming how you reached your point of view, I'm asking how you reached it. If it just boils down to "I don't like Cook, Cook fired Forstall, ergo Forstall must be awesome" then I don't find it very compelling. Forstall had a long tenure at Apple-- what tangible evidence is there for your point of view?
Jobs may have seen something in him, but was it anything more than his being a loyal lieutenant? Jobs kept him around, but Jobs also kept Cook and Ive around. Jobs selected Cook for the CEO slot. So if your opinion is predicated on Jobs' opinion, then Jobs thought Cook was the better successor.
To quickly address your other points: I don't need to know that the flaw happened while he was there because I'm not arguing it wouldn't have if he were. The fact that every iOS version under Forstall was jailbroken demonstrates that every version had serious security flaws. Cook didn't "oust" Forstall, he was Forstall's boss and fired him. He didn't do it in a hurry, he did it after a year and after several high profile failures. I wasn't there, so only know what I read, but most of the evidence suggests that none of the top management would work with Forstall-- which doesn't make him a likely coup leader. So, it's unlikely that Cook was threatened by him-- it's more likely that he saw no reason to retain someone that divisive and who refused to take responsibility for their own work.
To keep it simple but mostly because I have no interest in continuing this debate I’m going to have to say that we will have to agree to disagree.
We don’t all need to believe the exact same thing.... we are not lemmings after all.