Jony Ive's design decisions, post-Steve Jobs, did more damage to Apple's products than Forstall's software decisions. Tim Cook fired the wrong guy.
I sense that both Forstall and Ive are not easy people to work with as both seem to have very strong egos and opinions.
Both need someone with an even stronger ego to reign them in.
Steve Jobs was that person.
Forstall had a strong vision for software development. Not everyone agreed, but he was able to drive new ideas forward. But without a counter balance in Steve Jobs, he went too far in too many areas.
Same with Ive. Ive drove Apple into new directions, pushing engineering to creative new developments, culminating in the literal reinvention of the laptop with the 12" MacBook ultra-portable model. Most of its features were "Apple firsts", like the amazing sound system, the static trackpad that simulates virtual clicks via force feedback, USB-C (which Apple co-invented), terraced batteries, anodized aluminium bodies, etc.
All these features later became standard on most laptops. Not just Apple's.
However, without Steve Jobs as a counter balance, Ive went too far, and applied these designs to literally every Apple laptop, which did not go down well with the professional users.
With Steve gone, sadly there was no one left who could reign in these talented people. Cook does not understand software development nor design enough to be able to discuss their issues with them. Instead all he could do was to give them free reigns. And hope for the best.
And that was a mistake. But what else could he have done?
Yet Cook was definitely needed to keep Apple's financials in check. Which Steve deemed the most important quality in his successor.
And there likely was no one else at Apple at the time who could replace Steve as well as Cook. But he was definitely not the ideal person for that job. Yet maybe it is asking too much for an ideal replacement. Steve could not be replaced easily by anyone.
Apple just had to make do.
The result was not a total bust. I remember many commentators at the time gave Apple 3-5 years at most after Jobs.
Cook did a much better job than most thought possible.
However, it was also clear at the time, with Steve gone, that Apple would - over time - likely turn more and more into the IBM of old. With more and more conservative decisions, smaller and smaller iterative product improvements, leading ultimately to stagnation.
That writing was on the wall.
People are only now waking up to that realization.
It was reported that Cook signed the Apple Maps apology only because Steve Forstall refused to sign it.
So this PR stunt was not really an act of leadership by Cook, but more an act of "having no other choice".
If true, then I would not expect Cook to take leadership this time either, he will likely not proclaim or sign anything.
