In a word.. NO!
Forstall didn't push his luck with Jobs. He thought he could stage a coup vs Cook and he was wrong. In other words, he acceded to Jobs total control willfully because he knew Jobs could not be challenged. He didn't want to live under Cook so he was unmanageable and viewed that he was irreplaceable.
There are always talented people who push the limits of management's tolerance. The Harvard Business Review once published an article about the "temperamental talent." Which such people it's about risk vs reward. At the point that they create too much dysfunction for what they offer, a strong manager has to have courage to cut their losses, which is what Cook did.
Apple hasn't suffered since Forstall left. He botched Maps. He refused to make simple changes to iOS that were useful and readily available in Android.
You're forgetting Jony Ive here. Think about it. Jobs was able to keep him under control, including Forstall. And get his envisioned products out. However, when Cook became CEO, he got rid of Forstall due to corporate politics but he let Jony 'run wild' with his work. Why is that Cook doesn't want to confront Forstall and defer to Jony which led to some problematic design issues such as the infamous camera bump, etc. He should have not have promoted Jony to Chief Design Officer and let him stay within his Industrial Design department and let someone else focus on the UI/software design. That's like putting an industrial designer in charge of all kinds of design related projects for the entire company. This is either too much responsibility for him to handle as overload OR Jony Ive is simply 'too bored' in his department and as a means to appease to his post-Jobs depression for he had no one to keep him in check, let alone himself.
To me, it sounds like Cook didn't want to make the design decisions or say no to him because he lacks THREE things that Steve had. One was his creative background. The second, Buddhism. And the third? Balls of steel.
Ever wonder WHY Apple products had the simple design philosophy? It all came down to Steve's zen for simplicity.
Want proof?
Read this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-zen-meditation-buddhism-2015-1
I'm not a fan of Forstall, but I know he will never, ever, EVER return to Apple as long as Cook and his cronies are still there, as I'm aware some Forstall fans clamor for. But I'm not a fan of Cook, either. I still don't think he's the right guy.
[doublepost=1498488637][/doublepost]
The thing Forestall talks about the 'hit region'....
I've had iP4 then iP5 .... when i was in the process of gathering money for iP6, I swiched to LG G3 primarily for dual-sim reason, and I couldn't figure out why I could type faster on the tiny iP5 screen then on 5.5` Lg G3 screen... ????
This is why Apple is the best there is.
Because Apple's the best there is? Is that the best explanation? How about explaining in technical terms WHY the keyboard was easier to type in rather than putting Apple on a pedestal?
Was it the design of the keys? The size of the keys? Or the placement of the keyboard? Were the measurements off or such? And another thing, iP5 was a long, long time ago. Android keyboards have evolved now so they should be as good as the iOS stock keyboard these days. If the phone is 5.5 with such width, you should not have any trouble typing on either platform.
I'm sure Forstall played a role in the keyboard design and did a good job of it because he kept it simple and focused. Even though I have an SE, I still believe a larger phone makes the keyboard ( I've had an iP6 + prior so I've experienced that ) a bit easier to type in due to screen width. Especially if you have gamer thumbs, you need precision.
We look forward today and that IS the future. but for portable-ness and keyboard it was kinda amazing when u look back.
