[pcharles]

Quote

Any chance we can get Ron Johnson back from JC Penney? I loved what he did with the Apple Stores and a return to its founding principles would be good for the retail operation.

Have you been to JCP lately? They are in a major transition and it is not looking good right now. We actually got a letter from them along the lines of "Please give us a chance to improve your buying experience."

[MacRaven]

Quote

On Browett, maybe they can retrieve Ron Johnson from JCP. From what I understand, the brilliance he showed at Apple hasn't worked the same magic at JCP.

I agree, maybe Johnson is regretting his move at this point. Make him an offer Tim!

[MacRaven]

Quote

...Forstall was never really liked within the company. He apparently wasn't very good at bringing people together and had many ideological disagreements with senior management. He seems to have been protected by Jobs, but now that Jobs is gone so too is that protection. But that is the entire point, I think. If Jobs saw something in Forstall, something outstanding enough to warrant protection for Forstall in spite of his less than friendly demeanor, isn't that telling? In other words, did Jobs protect Forstall because Jobs saw a little (or a lot) of himself in Forstall? And if so, could it not be surmised that Forstall's departure from Apple a genuine loss indeed?

Apple history repeating itself?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

 JDW, on 29 October 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Quote

I haven't seen anyone treat Forstall's departure flippantly.

You yourself are doing so insofar as you are continuing to defend this decision almost as if every decision Apple makes is Divinely sent forth from Heaven above.

Flippant means to treat lightly. Just because I don't think it is a bad move doesn't mean I'm treating it lightly. Quite the contrary, I think it is the most important move Cook has made.

It's funny you accuse me of worshiping Apple, when you are the one making the "in Jobs we trust" argument.

 JDW, on 29 October 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Where you and I break on this topic is that I view Forstall's departure with more concern and curiosity than you apparently do. Your lack of concern and curiosity about this is the driving force behind your continued arguments. Or perhaps you are arguing with me excessively because you think I am suggesting Tim Cook is a "bad CEO"? (I am not.) Or maybe you are arguing with me simply because that's what you prefer to do in these forums.

I've been discussing this because we obviously disagree and I have been exploring why. If you are going to abandon the substantive discussion and start attacking me, then I guess there is little point continuing.

 JDW, on 29 October 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

You say that "Jobs could have chosen Forstall over Cook but Jobs didn't." Well, what kind of revelation is that? Jobs didn't choose Ive or Federighi as CEO either! Again, your attempts to argue with me and make a crystal clear point have thus far not been successful.

Your argument was that Forstall was the most Jobs like of those at Apple and that Jobs wanted Apple to remain "Jobsian." If those two are both true then it would follow that Jobs would have pushed for Forstall to be his successor, he clearly didn't. The fact that he chose Cook say everything really. As for why he didn't choose Federighi or Ive, Ive has never desired the CEO role and rather dislikes that side of the business (which a main reason why he has his own lab at Apple which is separate and secret). Federighi has only been back at Apple for a few years, so he likely was never a serious candidate simply due to not having been there that long.

 JDW, on 29 October 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Had Jobs never defended Forstall in the past as someone "relevant to Apple" I would not be taking the stance I am now. I simply think that Job's protection of Forstall in the past exists as something worth looking into. And if it is looked into and one finds that Forstall is now irrelevant to the greater scheme of things these days, so be it. I am simply curious. "Curiosity" is nothing to argue over endlessly.

I would certainly hope a senior vice president would be relevant to the company, otherwise it would beg the question what they were doing.

[technologist]

 icerabbit, on 29 October 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

IF he was ousted over skeuomorphism, as other sites suggest; I don't really look forward to the future, because that could mean that everything will be stripped of color / fun / ... and rendered in a limited grayscale palette like iTunes, Finder, ... on our desktops. Sure some of the leather effects are whimsy, but things should be allowed to have some identity.

But who knows, there's probably a lot more going on we may find out about in 10 years.

Contrast has essentially nothing to do with the battle between Skeuomorphism and minimalism. You can have high-contrast skeuomorphic UIs (just choose artifacts that are visually distinctive) and high-contrast minimalist UIs (you can't get more minimalist than black and white, after all.) You can also have low-contrast skeuomorphic UIs (where it's unclear which elements are ornamentation and which elements are functional.)

It's not so much which stylistic philosophy you choose, it's whether you favor style over functionality. Perhaps with the style/ego war settled, we can have more attention paid to functionality.

But I'm not hopeful.

This post has been edited by technologist: 30 October 2012 - 07:04 AM

[JDW]

Quote

Flippant means to treat lightly.

You are treating the departure of Forstall "lightly" insofar as your line of argument thinks it was a good decision. I don't treat it so "lightly" insofar as I think it may potential have more negative significance (due to how much Jobs prized Forstall in the past). Again, this is the fundamental disagreement with you and I.

And if you now wish to argue "the past is the past, and sometimes Jobs has been wrong about people," the same could be argued about Jobs fondness of anyone, including Tim Cook, whom you are staunchly defending in the wake of the axing of Scott Forstall.

Quote

I think it is the most important move Cook has made.

Of course YOU do because you seem to have some kind of personal dislike Forstall (skeuomorphism?). But the reality is that the most important contributions to Apple that Cook has made include to keeping the manufacturing machine well oiled and running smoothly, giving shareholders such as myself dividends, improving Apple PR by giving to charity, fighting the DOJ on eBooks, among other things. One would therefore be hard-pressed to classify the axing of Forstall as "the most important move Cook has made."

Quote

It's funny you accuse me of worshiping Apple, when you are the one making the "in Jobs we trust" argument.

You are worshiping the Tim Cook Apple of today. I am merely recognizing that the Apple of today would not exist today had it not been for Steve Jobs. You should know that. Apple pretty much is Steve Jobs. As such, I give special weight to what Steve Jobs did, and that included the protecting of Scott Forstall. I don't treat that past protecting of Forstall flippantly.

Quote

If you are going to abandon the substantive discussion and start attacking me, then I guess there is little point continuing.

For someone so utterly uninterested in continuing, you're certainly doing a good job of continuing to pound your position. Consider well that I made a comment, you then have continued to comment on my comments ever since. If anyone can be accused of "attacking" to whom does the finger really point?

[JDW]

Quote

Your argument was that Forstall was the most Jobs like of those at Apple and that Jobs wanted Apple to remain "Jobsian." If those two are both true then it would follow that Jobs would have pushed for Forstall to be his successor, he clearly didn't.

It would NOT follow. Why? Because in Jobs' younger days (early 1980's), he knew his own brilliance did not include being the CEO so he brought John Sculley on board. Forstall may have reminded Steve of his younger self -- a man important to Apple but not yet ready to be CEO. And just because someone is not ready to be CEO in no way says they are so irrelevant to Apple that their decision to be fired was a good thing.

Quote

The fact that he chose Cook say everything really.

It does not "say everything."

Consider well that Jobs chose John Sculley as CEO, and they loved each other like father and son for a long while. But as we know, that love affair ended rather badly. I don't say this to attack Tim Cook. I simply present it as a serious point of consideration against your argument.

Quote

As for why he didn't choose Federighi or Ive, Ive has never desired the CEO role and rather dislikes that side of the business (which a main reason why he has his own lab at Apple which is separate and secret). Federighi has only been back at Apple for a few years, so he likely was never a serious candidate simply due to not having been there that long.

Jobs didn't choose Ive or Federighi because they are good people in positions they are in now, but they are not CEO material. Why in THE world would planet earth's best "industrial designer" (Ive) be so qualified to run Apple as CEO? It makes no sense whatsoever. A good design should be designing, not spending a huge amount of time catering to shareholders.

Quote

I would certainly hope a senior vice president would be relevant to the company, otherwise it would beg the question what they were doing.

"Spin doctor" comes to mind when I read those words. You twisted my own words to suite your argument. You full well know you don't consider Scott Forstall "relevant" insofar as you think his axing was one of the best decisions Tim Cook ever made.

I can only end by repeating what I said at the end of my last post. I am merely curious about the negative implications of Scott Forstall leaving the company in light of him having been protecting by the man who made Apple great -- Steve Jobs. That is all. It's nothing to keep arguing about. Instead, it's worth a journalist's time looking into.

[macplusplus]

What map data was available to Apple and what that guy failed to purchase with the zillion of cash at his disposal?

If any accurate data was available and he ignored this, then you should fire him a few months ago and you should never release the iOS 6 Maps.

If you released that maps, then you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in at least five years.

If you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in the foreseeable future, then why did you apologize ???!!!!

Data inaccuracies or bugs in the maps are correctable in the next update, but that apology has been a serious bug which is uncorrectable…

And the recent firing of a talent because of a leather background transformed that management bug into a management burlesque…

[Jasonmwa]

Quote

What map data was available to Apple and what that guy failed to purchase with the zillion of cash at his disposal? If any accurate data was available and he ignored this, then you should fire him a few months ago and you should never release the iOS 6 Maps. If you released that maps, then you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in at least five years. If you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in the foreseeable future, then why did you apologize ???!!!! Data inaccuracies or bugs in the maps are correctable in the next update, but that apology has been a serious bug which is uncorrectable… And the recent firing of a talent because of a leather background transformed that management bug into a management burlesque…

The apology was a PR move, plain and simple. Maps is the first big faux pas to occur under Tim Cook. While Apple likes to remain mum, and Steve was prone to silence, perhaps this is the was, as CEO, Tim handles such matters. From what I understand, Forstall was supposed to sign the apology as well. It's his division and his decision to run with maps as is. He refused. CEO obviously is to shoulder the blame. But when he is told by a subordinate who is to blame that the subordinate won't answer for what he did wrong some, administrative fallout will occur. That, and there's been a riff between Forstall and Jonny Ive for years (two meetings scheduled because the two can't be in the same room).

I believe Cook made a decision on what best to do with his company. And while other lesser points were there (ie-design in iOS) I think the deciding fact was what was best for the company. While Jobs was rather untouchable, being prickly and CEO, Forstall was prickly with major mishaps recently. Couple that with friction with Ive, a close friend to Steve with years of accolades to boot, I think even Steve would be hard pressed to keep Forstall around.

As is, Apple is Cook's company now and he's running it as he see fits. Even without Forstall he's surrounded by extremely talented people.

[Hologram]

 Jasonmwa, on 04 November 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Quote

What map data was available to Apple and what that guy failed to purchase with the zillion of cash at his disposal? If any accurate data was available and he ignored this, then you should fire him a few months ago and you should never release the iOS 6 Maps. If you released that maps, then you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in at least five years. If you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in the foreseeable future, then why did you apologize ???!!!! Data inaccuracies or bugs in the maps are correctable in the next update, but that apology has been a serious bug which is uncorrectable… And the recent firing of a talent because of a leather background transformed that management bug into a management burlesque…

The apology was a PR move, plain and simple. Maps is the first big faux pas to occur under Tim Cook. While Apple likes to remain mum, and Steve was prone to silence, perhaps this is the was, as CEO, Tim handles such matters. From what I understand, Forstall was supposed to sign the apology as well. It's his division and his decision to run with maps as is. He refused. CEO obviously is to shoulder the blame. But when he is told by a subordinate who is to blame that the subordinate won't answer for what he did wrong some, administrative fallout will occur. That, and there's been a riff between Forstall and Jonny Ive for years (two meetings scheduled because the two can't be in the same room).

I believe Cook made a decision on what best to do with his company. And while other lesser points were there (ie-design in iOS) I think the deciding fact was what was best for the company. While Jobs was rather untouchable, being prickly and CEO, Forstall was prickly with major mishaps recently. Couple that with friction with Ive, a close friend to Steve with years of accolades to boot, I think even Steve would be hard pressed to keep Forstall around.

As is, Apple is Cook's company now and he's running it as he see fits. Even without Forstall he's surrounded by extremely talented people.

What "faux pas"?

Apple maps for iOS blows the snot out of the old crippled version of Google maps for iOS. Many of the issues repeated ad nauseam by bloggers too lazy to do their own research were present in Google's version of maps.

Location of the Washington Monument is a case in point. Apple was widely criticized for locating the Washington Monument a feet hundred feet from its actual location. Anybody with even the slightest bit of curiosity would have looked up the same POI in Google and found that Google placed it in the middle of an intersection a few hundred feet away too! Apple has since corrected the location of the pin, while Google still arrogantly insists that the WM is in the middle Madison Dr. NW and 15th St. NW.

Go look them up for yourself and come to your own conclusion about the "faux pas" and not the conclusion of people paid to tell you what your opinion is.

This post has been edited by Hologram: 05 November 2012 - 07:13 AM

[Stewsburntmonkey]

 Hologram, on 05 November 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

 Jasonmwa, on 04 November 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Quote

What map data was available to Apple and what that guy failed to purchase with the zillion of cash at his disposal? If any accurate data was available and he ignored this, then you should fire him a few months ago and you should never release the iOS 6 Maps. If you released that maps, then you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in at least five years. If you were aware that you will not be able to deliver any better Maps in the foreseeable future, then why did you apologize ???!!!! Data inaccuracies or bugs in the maps are correctable in the next update, but that apology has been a serious bug which is uncorrectable… And the recent firing of a talent because of a leather background transformed that management bug into a management burlesque…

The apology was a PR move, plain and simple. Maps is the first big faux pas to occur under Tim Cook. While Apple likes to remain mum, and Steve was prone to silence, perhaps this is the was, as CEO, Tim handles such matters. From what I understand, Forstall was supposed to sign the apology as well. It's his division and his decision to run with maps as is. He refused. CEO obviously is to shoulder the blame. But when he is told by a subordinate who is to blame that the subordinate won't answer for what he did wrong some, administrative fallout will occur. That, and there's been a riff between Forstall and Jonny Ive for years (two meetings scheduled because the two can't be in the same room).

I believe Cook made a decision on what best to do with his company. And while other lesser points were there (ie-design in iOS) I think the deciding fact was what was best for the company. While Jobs was rather untouchable, being prickly and CEO, Forstall was prickly with major mishaps recently. Couple that with friction with Ive, a close friend to Steve with years of accolades to boot, I think even Steve would be hard pressed to keep Forstall around.

As is, Apple is Cook's company now and he's running it as he see fits. Even without Forstall he's surrounded by extremely talented people.

What "faux pas"?

Apple maps for iOS blows the snot out of the old crippled version of Google maps for iOS. Many of the issues repeated ad nauseam by bloggers too lazy to do their own research were present in Google's version of maps.

Location of the Washington Monument is a case in point. Apple was widely criticized for locating the Washington Monument a feet hundred feet from its actual location. Anybody with even the slightest bit of curiosity would have looked up the same POI in Google and found that Google placed it in the middle of an intersection a few hundred feet away too! Apple has since corrected the location of the pin, while Google still arrogantly insists that the WM is in the middle Madison Dr. NW and 15th St. NW.

Go look them up for yourself and come to your own conclusion about the "faux pas" and not the conclusion of people paid to tell you what your opinion is.

Interestingly I got an email last week from Google saying they had corrected a misplaced Panera I had twice reported and twice been told was correctly located on Google Maps (it wasn't). It seems that Apple's maps are forcing Google to do a better jobs, which is great. Having two serious mobile mapping solutions will force each to be better than they might be otherwise.

[mnomolos]

Just realized...Scott Forstall will now go off and start his own company, produce a groundbreaking product that never quite takes off, but which, a dozen years from now, he will sell to Apple, shortly before they hire him back as CEO, after which he will lead the company to unimagined new heights!

Or not.