Scott Forstall Reportedly Forced Out of Apple

[chuckiej]

Until Yesterday, iOS was the greatest thing in the earth (even people defended the map fiasco for which Scott was directly responsible) now after the announcement, iOS becomes useless, boring etc...

Though he should be held responsible for Maps, let us not forget his contribution to iOS ecosystem without which iPhone or iPad is nothing.

Even in the case of Map there is a business decision over technology resulted in such a mess. It was working fine until iOS 5, so Scott himself alone cannot be held responsible. Tim Cook is right in signing the apology.

Looks like someone feared of Scott and usurped him - since he is perceived as potential leader with his assertive approach. No one would like a smart person competing with them!

Now this I agree with. Under Forstall's tenure a lot of wonderful things happened. We shouldn't just start discarding his contribution out of hand. He has been compensated well and will land somewhere for sure. It may be true that if he had simply signed the apology letter, he would have stayed.

What I can't understand is all of this defending of skeuomorphism (which is now in way too many places in iOS and OSX) in this thread. Why? If I click on an icon that looks like a paper calendar, shouldn't that be enough to clue me in that it is a calendar? Why are torn paper and stitched leather needed? Do they actually help the "soccer mom" someone mentioned. No. Last I checked, paper calendars don't have buttons that you push with a mouse click to change views or add an event.

I was teaching one of the youth at church how to use our lighting board. It uses 3 1/2" floppies to save the settings. He had no idea what one was. And when I showed him it could hold 1.44 MBs he was really surprised. And yet this floppy disk is still what we use for our "save" icon. We need to be forward thinking about these issues, not clinging to the past. For now, that floppy icon means "save" even to people who never used one. But that won't last.

 

[RoboCop001]

Happier times:

Image

(Ive, Schiller, Cue and Forstall on Apple Campus, 2010. Link.)

Hahahaha it looks like Ive is saying... "Why don't you just shut up, Scott."

 

[mono1980]

I think few would argue that iOS has gotten a little stale over the past couple of years. Yes there are new innovations but visually it just looks a bit dull now. I can't wait to see what Jony Ive does with the design. It's bound to be visually stunning and head and shoulders above what anyone else is doing.

Yes. They desperately need to fix the mess that is app management.

 

[Zunjine]

I personally attribute that to marketing and loyal following, not "creating more value" (what does that even mean?).

A loyal following is what happens when you create more value.

This is how I see it:

The value of something is entirely dependant on the user of that thing. Nothing has "value" in and of itself - value is a quality that a person atributes to something.

That value does not have to be purely utility and it is not purely a function of the price of the components. Consider that a painting by two different artists may be made up of exactly the same quality of materials and may have taken exactly the same amount of time to create, but the painting by the more lauded artist will be of higher value - because people want his paintings more. Value is subjective in that regard.

So, if value is subjective, how can we argue, objectively, that Apple has created more value than other tech companies. Simple really - people are willing to pay more for Apple's products than for the products of Apple's competitors.

Unless Apple holds a monopoly position over an essential good then it is true that all transactions Apple's customers agree to are entirely voluntary. We can, therefore, place a dollar amount on the value that Apple's customers see in Apple's products and that amount is no less than the total amount they are willing to pay, collectively, for the products Apple sells.

Apple has created more value purely because people are willing to pay more for Apple's products. It is not for you or me to judge what other people decide to spend their money on. We cannot say they are wrong. This is a matter or personal choice and, we can see, people have chosen to spend their money on Apple products.

 

[sofila]

First Bertrand Serlet, next S.Jobs, now Forstall. Now I'm afraid OS X development has come to an end.

I would like to see how is it possible to make IOS "thinner" now

 

[Bubba Satori]

This is starting to sound like Apple circa late eighties all over again. Board of executives basically fire Steve Jobs over his negative influence with business operations. Today, board of executives basically fire Forstall over negative influence with business operations.

Is Cook the new Sculley?

 

[GenesisST]

Oh no, Grammar Police's long lost uncle! RUN!
Meanwhile, back at my "MAC"...

Don't forget the Iphone "6" and the Itouch!

 

[Bezetos]

(...)
So, if value is subjective, how can we argue, objectively, that Apple has created more value than other tech companies. Simple really - people are willing to pay more for Apple's products than for the products of Apple's competitors.

(...)

Apple has created more value purely because people are willing to pay more for Apple's products.

I disagree. I think this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument which is a logical fallacy.

The perception of value is created due to marketing, which Apple is really good at. There is no clear co-relation between this ambiguous "value" you speak off and the iPhone's popularity (and willingness to pay more). Most of my friends who own iPhones bought it because they think it's "cool and hip" - thanks to marketing. Customers are a lot more shallow than you think.

Unless of course one argues that this "value" is indeed just "marketing".

 

[phpmaven]

Going from Full Service and 3G to 'No Service' in seconds because my skin touched a certain area of the phone is not and never was a non issue.

It made for great fodder for parlor tricks and late night tv jokes but was never a real issue for the dozens of iPhone 4 owners I know. Do you notice how nobody ever talks about it anymore? Did all those phones just magically heal themselves?

I do know literally dozens of people with iPhones, and not 1 of them, not 1, has ever complained about dropped calls or antennae issues.

The only reason Apple felt forced to have to respond was because of the press which just salivates like a hungry dog for any negative Apple press they can blow out of proportion.

 

[kirk26]

Apple maps is much better than Google Maps. At least apple maps shows my house which is 4 years old. Google maps has yet to update their maps to show my house!

 

[interconnect]

My guess is he still has a non-compete in place that would prevent him from working in the same field for a direct competitor for a while. He'll probably do something more like Tony Fadell. Work on something completely different for a while like Nest.

B

Those never hold up in court as you can't take away a man's livelihood.

 

[Anuba]

Is Cook the new Sculley?

Well, Jobs hired Cook to run the business side of things, just like he hired Sculley once upon a time. Jobs also hired Forstall and brought him with him to Apple from NeXT. Neither of the three are exactly popular with Apple fans... unlike Jony Ive, who wasn't hired by Jobs, but by Robert Brunner who in turn was hired by Sculley. The most important guy @ Apple wasn't hired by Jobs. Hmm.

 

[oliversl]

Scott was a veteran, he was in volved in NeXT and was the head of iOS. How does Tim let go a person like he?

Tim should never apologized for maps! The Verge acted like Gizmodo in the Antenna Gate. iOS Maps is great, uses more caching, location is better than google's, but it need more data, so what, let put some more data and let that thing shine.

Steve Jobs never apologized about iPhone 4 antenna, it was not a real problem, 5% of failed reception is not like 100% of failed reception. Apple's enemies will always make something up.

Who cares about texture in the UI? Its great! If you want 2D squares in UI use Windows 8, he is great at hardware design but who knows his work in UI?

Tim should have put Scott in his place, and his place is not outside Apple.

This is big loss at the long run, you don't fire your own DNA out of the door.

The bad press, the humanity ...

 

[interconnect]

I don't know what he was like as a person, so this isn't personal. But if was responsible for skeuomorphism, then I am glad to see him go if it means skeuomorphism goes with him.

I agree. Skeuomorphism doesn't bother me so much in iOS, but just pisses me off in OS X. I can't stand Calendar and Contacts in Lion & Mountain Lion.

 

[melendezest]

A loyal following is what happens when you create more value.

This is how I see it:

The value of something is entirely dependant on the user of that thing. Nothing has "value" in and of itself - value is a quality that a person atributes to something.

That value does not have to be purely utility and it is not purely a function of the price of the components. Consider that a painting by two different artists may be made up of exactly the same quality of materials and may have taken exactly the same amount of time to create, but the painting by the more lauded artist will be of higher value - because people want his paintings more. Value is subjective in that regard.

So, if value is subjective, how can we argue, objectively, that Apple has created more value than other tech companies. Simple really - people are willing to pay more for Apple's products than for the products of Apple's competitors.

Unless Apple holds a monopoly position over an essential good then it is true that all transactions Apple's customers agree to are entirely voluntary. We can, therefore, place a dollar amount on the value that Apple's customers see in Apple's products and that amount is no less than the total amount they are willing to pay, collectively, for the products Apple sells.

Apple has created more value purely because people are willing to pay more for Apple's products. It is not for you or me to judge what other people decide to spend their money on. We cannot say they are wrong. This is a matter or personal choice and, we can see, people have chosen to spend their money on Apple products.

I think it's the other way around: people are willing to pay more for Apple products because Apple has consistently been able to gauge what people consider "a good value", and tune their products accordingly.

While I agree that value is largely subjective, it is not absolutely so. I think it is easy to underestimate the power of Apple's marketing team, and the research they perform to ensure that their products are perceived as valuable.

I believe (purely theoretically) even Sir Ive is limited by that constraint; build the ABSOLUTE BEST product that can be built within a particular value threshold, i.e. cost/profit. I believe that any product has to have trade-offs to be profitable, but Apple is extremely good at figuring out which trade-off most consumers are willing to live with.

 

[BvizioN]

If iPhone 6 or 7 has GS3 size screen .

I hope that day will never come.

 

[johncrab]

He bucked his boss, leaving his boss to take responsibility for complaints generated by something under his command while refusing any responsibility for it. Anyone who did not see this coming has never worked in industry. Tim Cook made a pragmatic and ruthless move yesterday with the stock market shut down which will dampen the share price bump. But this shows that Cook places a higher priority on the customer experience than on internal empire building. YES! It's about time a CEO thought this way. It's not like Scott will end up in the gutter, either.

 

[avanpelt]

Apple maps is much better than Google Maps. At least apple maps shows my house which is 4 years old. Google maps has yet to update their maps to show my house!

I'm glad Apple Maps is better than Google Maps for you, but I think you're in the minority. Tim Cook wouldn't have released an apology letter about Apple Maps if there wasn't a serious problem.

 

[Rogifan]

First Bertrand Serlet, next S.Jobs, now Forstall. Now I'm afraid OS X development has come to an end.

I would like to see how is it possible to make IOS "thinner" now

Er, Jony Ive is not responsible for software engineering, that's Craig Federighi.

 

[allan]

Perhaps Scott will join his brother Bruce at Microsoft:

Forstall’s older brother, Bruce, has been a senior software design engineer at Microsoft (MSFT) for 20 years; imagine the Thanksgiving dinner conversations.​

Link.

 

[Mac21ND]

Success at an early age. Too arrogant to work with others. Passionate about focus and direction. That sounds familiar.

And it's what got Job's forced out the first time at Apple. Sounds familiar

 

[Zunjine]

I disagree. I think this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument which is a logical fallacy.

The perception of value is created due to marketing, which Apple is really good at. There is no clear co-relation between this ambiguous "value" you speak off and the iPhone's popularity (and willingness to pay more). Most of my friends who own iPhones bought it because they think it's "cool and hip" - thanks to marketing. Customers are a lot more shallow than you think.

Unless of course one argues that this "value" is indeed just "marketing".

I am aware of what logical fallacies are.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the false cause fallacy. I did not imply a causal relationship. I merely stated that value is subjective and that we can measure the value that each individual places on a product by the sum he or she is willing to pay for that object.

Something being "cool" is badge value. It is no less a meaure of value than any other - that's why a signed photograph is worth more than a non-signed photograph. I'm not saying customers are shallow or deep, that is not a judgement for me or you to make - merely that what they choose to pay for a product is a measure of the value THEY place on it at the time of the transaction.

There is no other way to measure value that is not subjective. I personally see no value in a ticket to a One Direction concert but that does not mean that it has no value to anyone else. I have no right to judge what others find to be valuable.

 

[Vidd]

Does this mean iOS7 might be something of note? I'm bored of iOS at the moment.

 

[Anuba]

I would like to see how is it possible to make IOS "thinner" now

That's easier than stealing candy from a baby. iOS and OS X go deeper along the Z-axis than pretty much everything else. The drop shadow on the frontmost OS X window is huge, it's sitting like 10 imaginary inches above the rest of the desktop. There's plenty of 3D for Ive to steamroll, he can easily get it down to a picometer of perceived depth.

 

[Zunjine]

I think it's the other way around: people are willing to pay more for Apple products because Apple has consistently been able to gauge what people consider "a good value", and tune their products accordingly.

While I agree that value is largely subjective, it is not absolutely so. I think it is easy to underestimate the power of Apple's marketing team, and the research they perform to ensure that their products are perceived as valuable.

I believe (purely theoretically) even Sir Ive is limited by that constraint; build the ABSOLUTE BEST product that can be built within a particular value threshold, i.e. cost/profit. I believe that any product has to have trade-offs to be profitable, but Apple is extremely good at figuring out which trade-off most consumers are willing to live with.

What you have just said is exactly what my argument is - Apple creates more value by being better at understanding what people want and tuning their products to be more valuable.

Perception is reality, in this context. There is no destinction between percieved value and so called "real" value.