Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That's the company line. This is the typical way to manage the narrative of high profile people leaving a company. If Apple announced that Ive was resigning and riding off into the sunset, that would have an effect on Apple stock in the short term, and confidence in the Apple brand in the long term.

But by claiming that Ive will still be involved in designing products for Apple, it helps mold people's perception of what's going on, and allows people to think that future Apple products are still being designed by Ive. (no one on the outside would really know)

Well exactly. Plus it gave Apple a moment to emphasize that Ive has headed a design team, and that it's headed up by experienced team players; there will be continuity as Ive heads out over time.

( LOL all the handwringing over Jony easing out overlaid over all the complaints about how Apple has lost its way because of retaining Jony. There must be a buck in there for day traders somewhere.)

So annoying that investors have to be talked out of the idea that anyone is irreplaceable, and then at other times the same folk need handholding to accept the idea that reasonable change is afoot with some promotion or the hiring of someone from outside.

You'd think since at least the institutional investors have been around the block a few times they realize that what's going on with Ive's easing out is a normal business function (and a normal PR-oriented way of shaping it).

Heh, but traders thrive on volatility, so you never know whether street talk about any change is from genuine concern or just liking to see if they can move the dial a little for a couple days or weeks and profit off it. My money would be on the latter in this case.
 
He’s been successful, done great things at Apple and doesn’t want to to work 9-5 anymore.
I don’t see it as a change at all, natural evolution.
Family being ill definitely changes ones perspective.
 



jony_ive-250x286.jpg
Shortly after Apple's announcement last week that Jony Ive was leaving the company, Bloomberg published a report that suggested his departure had been viewed internally for some time as an inevitability ever since the Apple Watch was launched in 2015.

This morning, The Wall Street Journal published a report on his last years at Apple, based on conversations over more than a year with people who worked with Ive, as well as people close to Apple's leadership.

The report follows a similar narrative of a design team frustrated with Ive's growing absence, but shines a spotlight on the design chief's own discontent within the company, which he felt was becoming less design-focused and more operations-led.

According to sources who spoke to WSJ, Ive pushed for the Apple Watch to be made despite disagreements from some executives, who questioned if a device so small could have a killer app that would compel people to buy it.

When CEO Tim Cook approved the project in 2013, Ive "threw himself into it" and oversaw the software interface team as well as the industrial design, conducting meetings almost daily and immersing himself in detail.

Ive reportedly wanted to position the watch as a fashion accessory, but some Apple leaders envisioned it as an extension of the iPhone. Eventually a compromise was agreed, and the $349 watch was tethered to the iPhone, with Apple creating a $17,000 gold version and partnering with Hermès.

The company sold about 10 million units in the first year, a quarter of what Apple forecast, a person familiar with the matter told WSJ. Thousands of the gold version are said to have gone unsold.

Ive said his work on the Apple Watch in 2014 had been one of his most challenging years at the company, and told Cook he wanted to step back from day-to-day management responsibilities and have "time and space to think."

Ive's promotion to chief design officer was a recognition of his desire to step back, but the change reportedly proved disruptive internally. In one example, Ive is said to have promised to hold a "design week" each month with software designers to discuss their work on the iPhone X, but he rarely showed up. Even when he was involved, Ive's leadership over key decisions seemed weakened.
After the iPhone X launch in September 2017, a key designer left and others were considering leaving, as Ive's absence strained the cohesion central to product development.

Sensing discontent, Cook asked Ive to resume day-to-day responsibilities later the same year. Ive agreed, which initially encouraged designers, but his absences later resumed as he spent more time in the U.K., where his father has been ill.

Around this time, Ive had reportedly become "dispirited" by Cook, who is said to have "showed little interest in the product development process," according to people in the design studio. Ive also grew frustrated as Apple's board became increasingly populated by directors with backgrounds in finance and operations rather than technology or other areas of the company's core business.

Despite his decision to leave, Ive brought the industrial-design and human-interface teams together in one office thanks to his work on Apple Park, and is said to have created new processes for more quickly prototyping new products and software features.

A colleague who has worked closely with Ive told WSJ: "He built Apple into this ID (industrial design) and HI (human interface) powerhouse. What does that mean going forward? None of us know. It's not the team that he inherited."

Article Link: WSJ: Jony Ive Became 'Dispirited' After Apple Watch and Sometimes Failed to Show Up to Meetings
Perhaps apple needs a new ceo and board members.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vidjahgamz and Huck
Who edits these articles? Apple didn't partner Hermès for the gold watches.

Unless the article was edited, it says "with Apple creating a $17,000 gold version and partnering with Hermès." Both of those things happened, and both were part of Apple's foray into the fashion world. This wording doesn't suggest that the gold watch was part of the Hermès partnership.
 
It turns out the same thing can happen in technology companies that get monopolies, like IBM or Xerox. If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful.

So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product.

They have no conception of the craftsmanship that's required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product. And they really have no feeling in their hearts, usually, about wanting to really help the customers.

Steve Jobs - The Lost Interview
Nope, the board members want that nice domicile in a gated community, a fancy car, fur coat for their wives/husbands or mistress and Disney land for their spoiled kids and a great retirement plan, screw the consumers.
[doublepost=1561987590][/doublepost]
Unless the article was edited, it says "with Apple creating a $17,000 gold version and partnering with Hermès." Both of those things happened, and both were part of Apple's foray into the fashion world. This wording doesn't suggest that the gold watch was part of the Hermès partnership.
Apple should move all their stores into one large one and place it at Beverly Hills.
 
Maybe he was fired for insubordination. They just kept that internal and released a different message to the public.
We'll know the truth soon enough. If we see him dump all his stocks at the earliest allowed selling point.
 
I'm no Cook fan, but its hard to deny that he's taken Apple to new heights that Jobs never did, where as Ballmer did the opposite.

kinda naive to compare jobs and cook when they both worked for the same company/product at a very diff era (in terms of smart phone market). Jobs introduced the iPhone when people weren't sure if they needed one and convinced the market. Cook build up on that foundation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Todhunter
Yes, exactly my point I was trying to convey. An watch that barely last 4 years shouldn't be considered in the same class and level as those.
No product based upon Moore's Law at this stage of history is designed for longevity, and certainly shouldn't be marketed as such. Paying $17000 for a computerized watch makes even less sense than paying $40000 for a top-spec'd Mac Pro. Regardless of how fancy and shiny they might be in the moment, they are destined for obsolescence and historical footnotes in four or less years. At least the Mac Pro can be updated / upgraded periodically. A luxury product like a Rolex watch isn't dependent on the whims of technology to maintain its worth.
 
Maybe he was fired for insubordination. They just kept that internal and released a different message to the public.
We'll know the truth soon enough. If we see him dump all his stocks at the earliest allowed selling point.

If he was he wouldn’t be going freelance with a public message that Apple would be his first client.
 
No product based upon Moore's Law at this stage of history is designed for longevity, and certainly shouldn't be marketed as such. Paying $17000 for a computerized watch makes even less sense than paying $40000 for a top-spec'd Mac Pro. Regardless of how fancy and shiny they might be in the moment, they are destined for obsolescence and historical footnotes in four or less years. At least the Mac Pro can be updated / upgraded periodically. A luxury product like a Rolex watch isn't dependent on the whims of technology to maintain its worth.
That is too much for a watch anyways...even for a status symbol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are obviously problems on both sides here, but I believe Ive was more correct than not in his initial positioning of the Apple Watch. What Ive's "style first" approach did is to show people who would have been skeptical of a highly-visible wearable from a tech company that the Watch was something they actually wanted to wear. None of the later stuff would have worked nearly as well if people didn't first love the design of the watch -- and, for many, see that the fashion world embraced it. Ive's approach set up the Watch's future success, even if that wasn't immediately apparent to everyone.

If anything, the problem was the initial sales targets, not the approach itself. The fact is, many of Apple's best products have taken time to percolate. The iPod was famously viewed as an extreme niche product when it first came out, to the point that many commentators couldn't figure out why Apple was even bothering with it. The Apple TV was similarly treated as a "hobby" (including by Apple), because they knew they knew it wouldn't command immediate market attention. The Watch should have been exactly the same, except that Apple saddled it with completely unrealistic sales targets initially. If Apple's management were capable of playing the "long game" the way they once did, none of that would have been an issue. They are surely happy with the Watch's performance now.

While I feel strongly that Ive was generally correct, I don't mean that every part of the rollout was correct. The gold watch pricing was clearly absurd, and whoever thought Apple would sell many of those was foolishly mistaken. But does that mean having a gold Watch at rollout was a mistake? Not to me -- it simply should have been a special edition model produced in extremely limited quantities and not included in Apple's general advertising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vidjahgamz
So is this part supposed to be in favour of Jony Ive or against him?

In hindsight, the killer app for the Apple Watch is health tracking, and making it an elite fashion accessory makes little sense when it's still a computer at the end of the day with a limited shelf-life.

I love my Apple Watch, but considering that I will likely have to upgrade it every 3 years on average, it makes little sense to get anything beyond the entry-level sports model.

The article seems to want to paint Apple as being the problem for Jony Ive wanting to leave, yet it highlights some of the worse decisions made by Jony Ive, and doesn't really paint him in a very flattering light either.
Rene Ritchie tweeted this:

4H4WAriC_normal.jpg
Rene Ritchie (@reneritchie)
6/30/19, 11:18 PM
(Jony Ive piece that just hit may well represent the stories of people who are super pissed about what’s happened. But doesn’t match up with stuff I’ve heard pretty directly over the last couple years. Gentle reminder that you often get stuff like this during periods of change.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: vidjahgamz
I'm actually surpised that many details have emerged. Not Apple like. Seems there was some disappointment growing towards Ive's performance.
 
Makes sense, I guess. Jony Ive is gone and all the knives are coming out. Not to mention that Bloomberg and WSJ have traditionally had credibility issues when it comes to reporting on Apple.
It’s hard to tell though if his issue is the piece overall or something specific. I’m sure Gurman is working overtime on his gossip piece; probably The Information too.
 
I imagine Ive sitting alone in his room repeating to himself aloud ‘spandrels, thinness and allure’ while rocking back and forth
 
Good riddance, not showing up for the job that you are paid to do. Which other apple employee has this privilege?
Most do, burnout is a very real problem that many, especially tech companies are acutely aware of, you'll find that a little bit of compassion can go a long way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iSilas
That's the company line. This is the typical way to manage the narrative of high profile people leaving a company. If Apple announced that Ive was resigning and riding off into the sunset, that would have an effect on Apple stock in the short term, and confidence in the Apple brand in the long term.

But by claiming that Ive will still be involved in designing products for Apple, it helps mold people's perception of what's going on, and allows people to think that future Apple products are still being designed by Ive. (no one on the outside would really know)

If you been following the design of apple products after about 2013, you will notice a sharp decline probably with the influences of Ive in the details (except the watch and the corporate office), as he has been trying to leave apple since Jobs' death. I remember reading articles about this, including him running to England and wanting to spend time with his family etc.. and work on Christmas trees designing etc.

I would suspect that an agreement was made with Cook shortly after Jobs' death to first get the design team up to speed before his departure, including weed Ive off of design so when the team can do things without him, it is ok to leave.

I think that the New Mac Pro and screen, MacBooks & New Air etc. had just little oversight by Ive and he just touched up the design a little only. Now the team is ready and can run without him so he can now exit. Possibly also why he did not show up too often in the office, forcing the team to do it on their own without him.

I personally think he did not design the new Mac Pro, but maybe influenced the air holes. It does not look like his designing (but influenced of course).
 
“Ive also grew frustrated as Apple's board became increasingly populated by directors with backgrounds in finance and operations rather than technology or other areas of the company's core business.”

Yep. The money-hungry era.

This sheds new light on the well know problems of Apple. While I have generally been very negative about Ive in recent years, this shows that my negativism should really have been focused on Cook. To be honest, I have been negative on Cook also, but this attempt to put Ive in bad light has really shown the true colors of Apple's current management.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.