10 ms·

Forstall Out; Ive Up

245 points by rkrishnakumar 14y ago

adrianhoward 14y ago
I'll be interested to see how Ive's does. He is, undoubtedly, hugely talented - as is the team he's built at Apple. However the work that he's done is all about Industrial Design, which operates under many different constraints from the software world. From the Apple folk that I know Ive and his team currently seem to run a bit like an in-house agency rather than being 'part of Apple'. I wonder if they'll try and continue that way - or become more integrated with general product development.
lucian1900 14y ago
"One of the things I admire about Apple is their plainspokenness" What?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
nir 14y ago
"That makes it all the more telling that Apple’s press release contains no quote from Tim Cook offering kind words or thanks to Forstall." Indeed, this has been expected since Jony Ive was observed standing immediately to Tim Cook's right at the last Red Square May Day parade.
- brudgers 14y ago
  What? No airbrush?
- bengl3rt 14y ago
  You joke, but Apple is a pretty terse company. Sometimes you have to read between the tea leaves (pun/misappropriation 100% intended)
  - Steko 14y ago
    Parsing exec shuffles from PR-speak is hardly specific to Apple. What I'm looking forward to are the "anonymous" leaks to All Things D (or whoever) over the next couple days.
  - msbarnett 14y ago
    It's barely even a joke. There's a reason Apple watchers refer to what they do as "Kremlinology".
- sedev 14y ago
  That comment didn't add anything to the discussion. The comparison you made is not helpful to anyone's understanding of the situation. Please don't do that. Hold yourself to a higher standard in the future.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    The comment is non-offensive and draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively. Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers is a legitimate comment on the possibility of editorial bias in the original article. I It is useful because it places the article within a larger historical context. It extends the content, and on HN, that is appropriate.
    - sedev 14y ago
      All right, let's go into specifics here. I strongly disagree with your description of the objectionable comment: * First, saying that it is "non-offensive" to compare someone to Stalin's regime (or more generally to the Soviet regimes) is so blatantly inaccurate that it's difficult to believe that you seriously advanced that claim. Let's set aside "offensive" and say merely that comparing someone to Stalin is in virtually all contexts likely to be inflammatory, perceived as aggressive and hostile, and very likely to derail the discussion. It is not innocuous. So the original claim, with its comparison to Stalin, is immediately suspect because the author has chosen a way to express their disagreement that leads the conversation away from substance. * When you say it "draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively" you elide important points of information. For one, the nature of any comparison to Stalin. For another, the comment did not, I would say, "draw an analogy," it proposed one - and then took it for granted that the analogy was sound and useful. It presented no evidence for this point, it just stated its view as a _fait accompli._ That is not a good way to make an argument. When you advance a position, you're also obliged to advance evidence for it if you want it to be taken seriously. Humor is no defense here: the commenter was using sarcastic humor to advance an argument, and is not excused from the requirement of presenting evidence for the argument. * On your own part, when you say "Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers..." you too are assuming facts not in evidence. Do you mean that Mr. Gruber is a Stalinist? Then please advance the evidence in favor of that, or abandon your argument. You are obliged to present your arguments and their evidence forthrightly, not to wink knowingly and wave in the general direction of something faintly evidence-like. * That the comment "places the article within a larger historical context" is so low a standard as to be useless. Any comment here that referred to events outside of 2012 could be said to do as much. Even if the above critiques did not hold, saying that the comment added "historical context" would be too glib, would not be a substantial point in its favor. If the comment were presenting evidence for its views, that would be one thing, but to say that the comment as it stands adds "historical context" is to say nothing, because by that standard you could defend the legions of facile "Apple would never have done X while Steve Jobs was alive" comments. * The comment advanced, more or less, the argument "Apple's press releases are a form of propaganda; their terseness requires us all to make inferences and guesses about goings-on inside the company that do not serve our understanding well." This is a mere argument - which is a good thing! It is something that we can have a discussion about, reason about, and it is capable of being falsified. For that matter, if the comment had had what I just said appended to its original content, then all would have been forgiven. But instead we got only the version of the comment that flatters the prejudices of people who are already convinced that Apple is a bunch of no-goodniks and which has nothing useful to say to people who are not already convinced of its argument. In summary, I objected to the comment because it advanced its argument by a method that was obviously likely to drag the discussion in unproductive directions, because it advanced its argument without presenting any evidence, and because it was advancing by insult an argument that could have been advanced without the insult just as productively. I disagree with your defense of it because you are neither holding it to a high standard of argument nor addressing any of its flaws - flaws which are obvious enough that my listing them is barely necessary. Now, since you spoke up to defend it, you have heard its measure. It didn't add anything to the discussion, and the comparison it made was not helpful to anyone's understanding of the situation. I'm willing to put effort into explaining exactly why I think that because I think that a high standard for discussions here is important and necessary, and that letting comments like the one I object to slide by without expressing that they do not meet those standards, is part of maintaining that standard of discussion. Silence on community standards serves no one well. When objectionable comments are met with vigorous resistance, it not only shows the people making them "no, that kind of comment is not welcome," it affirms the community standards by setting them out explicitly and bringing them to everyone's mind. This is why I'm willing to write this much telling you and the author of the objectionable comment why I object. It is not about my disagreeing. Disagreement is a normal part of discourse - but there is no productive disagreement to be had unless people make their arguments plainly, make them falsifiable, and make them by going from evidence to conclusion.
JeremyMorgan 14y ago
This is likely been coming for quite some time. IIRC he was brought in by Jobs and was likely protected by him while he was alive. Steve being gone meant the didn't have to keep him around, and the maps debacle was likely the straw big enough to break the camel's back.
bane 14y ago
May be the second time I've found a genuinely insightful piece by Gruber. Skeuomorphic design was a nod to my non-computer using father in the 90s. It no more represents useful metaphors for interfaces than steam engines represent a good way to build cars. iOS is stagnant, reviews of recent Apple designed skeuo-heavy apps bemone the lack of functionality -- while noting what must be hundreds of hours of graphics work -- and not seeing that the tradeoff is worth it. With finite development hours the general public realizes that they'd rather get shit done then look really great sorta getting some things done. So who makes the money at Apple? It's two people, Cook and Ive -- supply chain and product design. Let's give turning the entire device design over to a holistic human interface designer a try instead of running hardware and software as two disjoint efforts. Between Siri and the maps screw up the decision made itself.
- Steko 14y ago
  "iOS is stagnant" iOS only seems stagnant because they don't have to trumpet every year about how they've finally gotten rid of ui lag or completely overhauled the system appearance. These are points in it's favor to most people.
  - ChrisClark 14y ago
    I'd say it is stagnant because when you look at the design, it just feels old. I'm not much of a designer, I can't tell you why, but it just seems dated. Perhaps it is the skeuomorphism, maybe something else, but something is off about it now.
    - qq66 14y ago
      It feels old because it hasn't changed in 5 years, but I personally appreciate that. All of the original mechanics make perfect sense, and the new mechanics (such as app folders and multitasking) have been introduced in a way that minimizes interference with the existing look and feel. As someone who uses a lot of music production apps that can't talk to each other, I do wish there was something like a filesystem, but I also want it to be introduced in a way that does not change the basic look and feel of the device. What's amazing is that an original iPhone and iPhone 5 look and feel largely identical for basic uses, even though the latter is a far more capable device. That's a testament to the strength of the original design.
brudgers 14y ago
The idea that his leaving was based on the Maps debacle, may be correct. But not in the way that Gruber implies. The timing of his stock sale in May, is more consistent with the idea the Forstall foresaw the writing on the wall when he was made responsible for Maps. Selling 95% of his shares was clearly a sign that his long term commitment was in doubt. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57425920-37/apple-exec-scott-forstall-sells-off-95-percent-of-his-shares/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57425920-37/apple-exec-sco...
- erifneerg 14y ago
  Forstall may have been trying to do a move similar to what Jobs did when he returned to Apple. Jobs lost confidence in where the company was going and sold all but one of his shares. The maps may have called Forstall's "bluff".
  - brudgers 14y ago
    One thing is pretty certain. The decision to dump Google was probably made above Forestall's pay grade. I suspect that the decision to include Maps in the next release of iOS happened about the same time as the decision to dump the stock. Stock sale announced in May, Maps announced in June.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      I wish this meme (that, in no uncertain terms, Apple dumped Google) woud die. This is a very large contract between two large, competing companies. If I were looking only at the impact of the iOS decision, I would have a hard time believing that Google didn't tell Apple to piss off, but I think even that reading is far too simplistic.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        Agreed. Apple had a set of requirements, and Google had a set of requirements (both sets including, of course, the question of money), and they couldn't come up with a set of mutually agreeable terms, so they parted ways. To place responsibility fully on either company is silly. No company of that size is simply going to say "no". There's always a price, and Apple decided it wasn't worthwhile.
jobu 14y ago
"I wouldn’t read anything more into Browett’s departure than that Tim Cook knows how to recognize a mistake and correct it. (Although it was Cook who hired Browett in the first place.)" Good leaders know when to change their mind. I actually have more respect for Cook being able to recognize that John Browett was not a good fit after personally hiring him.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Cook seems like the kind of CEO who accepts he's imperfect, and rather than justifying a bad decision and keeping someone around will do what needs to be done. Good thing for a leader of a company the size of Apple.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Jonanin 14y ago
Can someone please tell me why this is worthy of HN front page? He hasn't said anything new at all; almost half of the article quotes and the other half has already been iterated countless times in the press release thread. Gruber really isn't adding anything to the discussion, so why do we need him to parse it again for us?
- danilocampos 14y ago
  > Can someone please tell me why this is worthy of HN front page? Sure! I'd be happy to. The way Hacker News works is, people submit content. If people like the content, they vote it up. Sufficiently high-voted content reaches the front page. 55 people have voted this up at the time of this comment, feeling the content was worth their attention. Given the recency of the content relative to the votes it has received, it occupies the position you see on the front page. Is there anything else I can help with?
  - Steko 14y ago
    Crying that something is on HN should really be a bannable offense. I have a feeling these are the same people who are constantly trying to delete relatively popular wikipedia articles over "notability concerns".
  - skeletonjelly 14y ago
    Deferring this all to user voting doesn't make it more relevant though. Just look at the frontpage of reddit.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    And a similar set of people flag down Paul Thurrotts's http://winsupersite.com http://winsupersite.com so much that it's banned from HN just for being a Microsoft insider. Just because a narrowminded mob does something doesn't make it right.
    - GuiA 14y ago
      No, but no one forces you to be part of the mob.
nagrom 14y ago
Hm. There were rumours about 18-24 months ago that Ive wanted out of Apple. I wonder if this decision is a consequence of that previous discord. I also wonder what this means for the future of hardware design at Apple. If Ive must now look after both the hardware and the software, he must be less hands-on in the day-to-day work on individual designs. Does this imply that Apple are not expecting to iterate on the hardware design on a high level from now on and have identified the software as the area with most potential for aesthetic improvement?
- scorpion032 14y ago
  > If Ive must now look after both the hardware and the software, he must be less hands-on in the day-to-day work on individual designs. What this means is that, Ive now gets to chose people and those who do that in turn report to him.
Osmium 14y ago
Congratulations to Tim Cook for making this decision. We might have to wait some time to see if it was the best decision, but at least he didn't just make the safe decision. It may be a risk, but it means Apple won't stagnate. It will change as a result of this. This is all about unity. Unifying iOS and OS X under one person. Unifying human interface, both hardware and software, under one person. Unifying underlying technologies under one person. And fundamentally, unifying the team at the top, and removing discord. No one can deny Forstall's legacy. But from what we've read in recent years I think there's real truth in this comment from Gruber: "Thinking about it some more, though, and considering what I know about Forstall’s reputation within the company, I think that headline, euphemistic though it is, tells the plain truth: Forstall was an obstacle to collaboration within the company." For the future? Integrating the hardware and the software was always Apple's core strength, that this just makes sense. It's an open question whether Ive has the technical knowledge for this role, but he certainly has the taste. He certainly wouldn't have let that new iPod nano UI be seen by the outside world. Modern-day Apple has always shied away from manufacturing directly, and for good reason, but it may just be that they're too big not to anymore. That no one manufacturer can meet their demands, whether due to lack of capacity or politics. Making chips is difficult, and usually best left to the experts, but Apple now has the cash to hire the best and is in the perfect place to benefit from the competitive advantage it'd give. It'll be interesting to see how this new Technologies group turns out.
susanhi 14y ago
Is this the new Jony Ive Apple? Ive is Apple's new Product Chief (heads hardware and software design across whole company). Federighi (Mac OS and iOS), Mansfield (Tech), Cue (Services & Content), Williams (Supply Chain), Schiller (Marketing) - all in support roles to Ive. Under Steve Jobs, product and design was consolidated under himself. He had the ultimate say as to what shipped and he was the toughest curator. Now it appears that Apple is returning to that model, except now it's Jony Ive with that role.
- sunraa 14y ago
  It seems it was only a matter of time until Ive took over as true heir apparent to SJ in this respect. Will be interesting to see how the relationship with Cook works and if it pans out in a similar fashion as it did with SJ+Cook.
tnorthcutt 14y ago
Good read. However: One of the things I admire about Apple is their plainspokenness, both in advertising and in press releases. ... Thinking about it some more, though, and considering what I know about Forstall’s reputation within the company, I think that headline, euphemistic though it is, tells the plain truth: This, to me, reads as "Apple is plainspoken. Ok, so they're not, but let me convince you that even when they're not, they really are, it's just in disguise!" Why go to such lengths? Why even bring that up? It's hardly a critical part of the article. I'm genuinely curious, by the way - please, someone show me how I'm wrong.
- thelibrarian 14y ago
  I think what Gruber was trying to say here is that (in his opinion at least) Apple is usually plainspoken, but in this case they were not because they were being polite to Forstall by being euphemistic rather than plainly saying that he was given the arse.
  - Magenta 14y ago
    Sure, but euphemism just doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'plainness,' in any way, shape or form. So you can't be euphemistic and tell the plain truth. It's just a bollocks statement.
akamaka 14y ago
While the majority of people seem to be cheering Forstall's departure, I personally think this is a really bad sign. Software just doesn't get enough respect, and there are few people who realize how important it is. Steve Jobs was one of them, as was proved when he was running NeXT. When things started to go downhill, he made the right decision to turn NeXT into a software company. He knew that software was the most important thing. He brought the best software people over to Apple, including Forstall, who was the key figure behind one of the most important business decisions that Apple ever made -- using OSX as the basis for the iPhone. Software needs to have a strong advocate inside of a company, and there's no substitute for having someone like Forstall -- a real programmer who can fight for the Right Thing, instead of having the developers overrun by the other units of the company. When software stops being so important, the other parts of the company overrule the developers and make bad decisions, like releasing software before its ready (eg. iOS6 maps). Now that the future of Apple is being lead by the hardware people like Cook and Ive, I think we're going to see less innovation on the software side. We're going to see more hardware-only product launches like the iPad mini. More shinier and thinnier cases, and fewer killer apps. What we might end up with is the old post-Jobs Apple, which launched a plethora of new product lines while letting the software stagnate to the point where Microsoft almost killed them.
- seivan 14y ago
  I don't cheer it. I agree with everything you said. Forstall has a track record. He's done well. Forstall has a track record, and the iOS is the best of the products out there compared to similar devices from other companies. So he did _SOMETHING_ right. As a developer, I love the developer environment as well - compare to say BlackBerry, Android and its eclipse and etc.
jroseattle 14y ago
This sets up an environment that Cook prefers, IMHO. A clear-cut decision maker about all things product design, Ive replaces Jobs. Inasmuch as a Cook/Ive pairing can be beneficial, they're missing Jobs as the great overseer. I think this is not finished playing out. As has been seen, mistakes aren't really tolerated when Apple's name is on the line -- someone almost always pays for it with their job. Apple has started to show cracks in the armor, and I imagine we're going to see a few more events of non-perfectness in the future. (Entirely reasonable, but nonetheless those that contribute to an image.) If things don't go Apple-esque perfect in the future, I wonder who starts pointing fingers?

245 points by rkrishnakumar 14y ago

I'll be interested to see how Ive's does. He is, undoubtedly, hugely talented - as is the team he's built at Apple. However the work that he's done is all about Industrial Design, which operates under many different constraints from the software world. From the Apple folk that I know Ive and his team currently seem to run a bit like an in-house agency rather than being 'part of Apple'. I wonder if they'll try and continue that way - or become more integrated with general product development.

lucian1900 14y ago

"One of the things I admire about Apple is their plainspokenness" What?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

nir 14y ago

"That makes it all the more telling that Apple’s press release contains no quote from Tim Cook offering kind words or thanks to Forstall." Indeed, this has been expected since Jony Ive was observed standing immediately to Tim Cook's right at the last Red Square May Day parade.

brudgers 14y ago
What? No airbrush?
bengl3rt 14y ago
You joke, but Apple is a pretty terse company. Sometimes you have to read between the tea leaves (pun/misappropriation 100% intended)
- Steko 14y ago
  Parsing exec shuffles from PR-speak is hardly specific to Apple. What I'm looking forward to are the "anonymous" leaks to All Things D (or whoever) over the next couple days.
- msbarnett 14y ago
  It's barely even a joke. There's a reason Apple watchers refer to what they do as "Kremlinology".
sedev 14y ago
That comment didn't add anything to the discussion. The comparison you made is not helpful to anyone's understanding of the situation. Please don't do that. Hold yourself to a higher standard in the future.
- brudgers 14y ago
  The comment is non-offensive and draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively. Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers is a legitimate comment on the possibility of editorial bias in the original article. I It is useful because it places the article within a larger historical context. It extends the content, and on HN, that is appropriate.
  - sedev 14y ago
    All right, let's go into specifics here. I strongly disagree with your description of the objectionable comment: * First, saying that it is "non-offensive" to compare someone to Stalin's regime (or more generally to the Soviet regimes) is so blatantly inaccurate that it's difficult to believe that you seriously advanced that claim. Let's set aside "offensive" and say merely that comparing someone to Stalin is in virtually all contexts likely to be inflammatory, perceived as aggressive and hostile, and very likely to derail the discussion. It is not innocuous. So the original claim, with its comparison to Stalin, is immediately suspect because the author has chosen a way to express their disagreement that leads the conversation away from substance. * When you say it "draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively" you elide important points of information. For one, the nature of any comparison to Stalin. For another, the comment did not, I would say, "draw an analogy," it proposed one - and then took it for granted that the analogy was sound and useful. It presented no evidence for this point, it just stated its view as a _fait accompli._ That is not a good way to make an argument. When you advance a position, you're also obliged to advance evidence for it if you want it to be taken seriously. Humor is no defense here: the commenter was using sarcastic humor to advance an argument, and is not excused from the requirement of presenting evidence for the argument. * On your own part, when you say "Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers..." you too are assuming facts not in evidence. Do you mean that Mr. Gruber is a Stalinist? Then please advance the evidence in favor of that, or abandon your argument. You are obliged to present your arguments and their evidence forthrightly, not to wink knowingly and wave in the general direction of something faintly evidence-like. * That the comment "places the article within a larger historical context" is so low a standard as to be useless. Any comment here that referred to events outside of 2012 could be said to do as much. Even if the above critiques did not hold, saying that the comment added "historical context" would be too glib, would not be a substantial point in its favor. If the comment were presenting evidence for its views, that would be one thing, but to say that the comment as it stands adds "historical context" is to say nothing, because by that standard you could defend the legions of facile "Apple would never have done X while Steve Jobs was alive" comments. * The comment advanced, more or less, the argument "Apple's press releases are a form of propaganda; their terseness requires us all to make inferences and guesses about goings-on inside the company that do not serve our understanding well." This is a mere argument - which is a good thing! It is something that we can have a discussion about, reason about, and it is capable of being falsified. For that matter, if the comment had had what I just said appended to its original content, then all would have been forgiven. But instead we got only the version of the comment that flatters the prejudices of people who are already convinced that Apple is a bunch of no-goodniks and which has nothing useful to say to people who are not already convinced of its argument. In summary, I objected to the comment because it advanced its argument by a method that was obviously likely to drag the discussion in unproductive directions, because it advanced its argument without presenting any evidence, and because it was advancing by insult an argument that could have been advanced without the insult just as productively. I disagree with your defense of it because you are neither holding it to a high standard of argument nor addressing any of its flaws - flaws which are obvious enough that my listing them is barely necessary. Now, since you spoke up to defend it, you have heard its measure. It didn't add anything to the discussion, and the comparison it made was not helpful to anyone's understanding of the situation. I'm willing to put effort into explaining exactly why I think that because I think that a high standard for discussions here is important and necessary, and that letting comments like the one I object to slide by without expressing that they do not meet those standards, is part of maintaining that standard of discussion. Silence on community standards serves no one well. When objectionable comments are met with vigorous resistance, it not only shows the people making them "no, that kind of comment is not welcome," it affirms the community standards by setting them out explicitly and bringing them to everyone's mind. This is why I'm willing to write this much telling you and the author of the objectionable comment why I object. It is not about my disagreeing. Disagreement is a normal part of discourse - but there is no productive disagreement to be had unless people make their arguments plainly, make them falsifiable, and make them by going from evidence to conclusion.

JeremyMorgan 14y ago

This is likely been coming for quite some time. IIRC he was brought in by Jobs and was likely protected by him while he was alive. Steve being gone meant the didn't have to keep him around, and the maps debacle was likely the straw big enough to break the camel's back.

bane 14y ago

May be the second time I've found a genuinely insightful piece by Gruber. Skeuomorphic design was a nod to my non-computer using father in the 90s. It no more represents useful metaphors for interfaces than steam engines represent a good way to build cars. iOS is stagnant, reviews of recent Apple designed skeuo-heavy apps bemone the lack of functionality -- while noting what must be hundreds of hours of graphics work -- and not seeing that the tradeoff is worth it. With finite development hours the general public realizes that they'd rather get shit done then look really great sorta getting some things done. So who makes the money at Apple? It's two people, Cook and Ive -- supply chain and product design. Let's give turning the entire device design over to a holistic human interface designer a try instead of running hardware and software as two disjoint efforts. Between Siri and the maps screw up the decision made itself.

Steko 14y ago
"iOS is stagnant" iOS only seems stagnant because they don't have to trumpet every year about how they've finally gotten rid of ui lag or completely overhauled the system appearance. These are points in it's favor to most people.
- ChrisClark 14y ago
  I'd say it is stagnant because when you look at the design, it just feels old. I'm not much of a designer, I can't tell you why, but it just seems dated. Perhaps it is the skeuomorphism, maybe something else, but something is off about it now.
  - qq66 14y ago
    It feels old because it hasn't changed in 5 years, but I personally appreciate that. All of the original mechanics make perfect sense, and the new mechanics (such as app folders and multitasking) have been introduced in a way that minimizes interference with the existing look and feel. As someone who uses a lot of music production apps that can't talk to each other, I do wish there was something like a filesystem, but I also want it to be introduced in a way that does not change the basic look and feel of the device. What's amazing is that an original iPhone and iPhone 5 look and feel largely identical for basic uses, even though the latter is a far more capable device. That's a testament to the strength of the original design.

brudgers 14y ago

The idea that his leaving was based on the Maps debacle, may be correct. But not in the way that Gruber implies. The timing of his stock sale in May, is more consistent with the idea the Forstall foresaw the writing on the wall when he was made responsible for Maps. Selling 95% of his shares was clearly a sign that his long term commitment was in doubt. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57425920-37/apple-exec-scott-forstall-sells-off-95-percent-of-his-shares/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57425920-37/apple-exec-sco...

erifneerg 14y ago
Forstall may have been trying to do a move similar to what Jobs did when he returned to Apple. Jobs lost confidence in where the company was going and sold all but one of his shares. The maps may have called Forstall's "bluff".
- brudgers 14y ago
  One thing is pretty certain. The decision to dump Google was probably made above Forestall's pay grade. I suspect that the decision to include Maps in the next release of iOS happened about the same time as the decision to dump the stock. Stock sale announced in May, Maps announced in June.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    I wish this meme (that, in no uncertain terms, Apple dumped Google) woud die. This is a very large contract between two large, competing companies. If I were looking only at the impact of the iOS decision, I would have a hard time believing that Google didn't tell Apple to piss off, but I think even that reading is far too simplistic.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Agreed. Apple had a set of requirements, and Google had a set of requirements (both sets including, of course, the question of money), and they couldn't come up with a set of mutually agreeable terms, so they parted ways. To place responsibility fully on either company is silly. No company of that size is simply going to say "no". There's always a price, and Apple decided it wasn't worthwhile.

jobu 14y ago

"I wouldn’t read anything more into Browett’s departure than that Tim Cook knows how to recognize a mistake and correct it. (Although it was Cook who hired Browett in the first place.)" Good leaders know when to change their mind. I actually have more respect for Cook being able to recognize that John Browett was not a good fit after personally hiring him.

nicholassmith 14y ago
Cook seems like the kind of CEO who accepts he's imperfect, and rather than justifying a bad decision and keeping someone around will do what needs to be done. Good thing for a leader of a company the size of Apple.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Jonanin 14y ago

Can someone please tell me why this is worthy of HN front page? He hasn't said anything new at all; almost half of the article quotes and the other half has already been iterated countless times in the press release thread. Gruber really isn't adding anything to the discussion, so why do we need him to parse it again for us?

danilocampos 14y ago
> Can someone please tell me why this is worthy of HN front page? Sure! I'd be happy to. The way Hacker News works is, people submit content. If people like the content, they vote it up. Sufficiently high-voted content reaches the front page. 55 people have voted this up at the time of this comment, feeling the content was worth their attention. Given the recency of the content relative to the votes it has received, it occupies the position you see on the front page. Is there anything else I can help with?
- Steko 14y ago
  Crying that something is on HN should really be a bannable offense. I have a feeling these are the same people who are constantly trying to delete relatively popular wikipedia articles over "notability concerns".
- skeletonjelly 14y ago
  Deferring this all to user voting doesn't make it more relevant though. Just look at the frontpage of reddit.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  And a similar set of people flag down Paul Thurrotts's http://winsupersite.com http://winsupersite.com so much that it's banned from HN just for being a Microsoft insider. Just because a narrowminded mob does something doesn't make it right.
  - GuiA 14y ago
    No, but no one forces you to be part of the mob.

nagrom 14y ago

Hm. There were rumours about 18-24 months ago that Ive wanted out of Apple. I wonder if this decision is a consequence of that previous discord. I also wonder what this means for the future of hardware design at Apple. If Ive must now look after both the hardware and the software, he must be less hands-on in the day-to-day work on individual designs. Does this imply that Apple are not expecting to iterate on the hardware design on a high level from now on and have identified the software as the area with most potential for aesthetic improvement?

scorpion032 14y ago
> If Ive must now look after both the hardware and the software, he must be less hands-on in the day-to-day work on individual designs. What this means is that, Ive now gets to chose people and those who do that in turn report to him.

Osmium 14y ago

Congratulations to Tim Cook for making this decision. We might have to wait some time to see if it was the best decision, but at least he didn't just make the safe decision. It may be a risk, but it means Apple won't stagnate. It will change as a result of this. This is all about unity. Unifying iOS and OS X under one person. Unifying human interface, both hardware and software, under one person. Unifying underlying technologies under one person. And fundamentally, unifying the team at the top, and removing discord. No one can deny Forstall's legacy. But from what we've read in recent years I think there's real truth in this comment from Gruber: "Thinking about it some more, though, and considering what I know about Forstall’s reputation within the company, I think that headline, euphemistic though it is, tells the plain truth: Forstall was an obstacle to collaboration within the company." For the future? Integrating the hardware and the software was always Apple's core strength, that this just makes sense. It's an open question whether Ive has the technical knowledge for this role, but he certainly has the taste. He certainly wouldn't have let that new iPod nano UI be seen by the outside world. Modern-day Apple has always shied away from manufacturing directly, and for good reason, but it may just be that they're too big not to anymore. That no one manufacturer can meet their demands, whether due to lack of capacity or politics. Making chips is difficult, and usually best left to the experts, but Apple now has the cash to hire the best and is in the perfect place to benefit from the competitive advantage it'd give. It'll be interesting to see how this new Technologies group turns out.

susanhi 14y ago

Is this the new Jony Ive Apple? Ive is Apple's new Product Chief (heads hardware and software design across whole company). Federighi (Mac OS and iOS), Mansfield (Tech), Cue (Services & Content), Williams (Supply Chain), Schiller (Marketing) - all in support roles to Ive. Under Steve Jobs, product and design was consolidated under himself. He had the ultimate say as to what shipped and he was the toughest curator. Now it appears that Apple is returning to that model, except now it's Jony Ive with that role.

sunraa 14y ago
It seems it was only a matter of time until Ive took over as true heir apparent to SJ in this respect. Will be interesting to see how the relationship with Cook works and if it pans out in a similar fashion as it did with SJ+Cook.

tnorthcutt 14y ago

Good read. However: One of the things I admire about Apple is their plainspokenness, both in advertising and in press releases. ... Thinking about it some more, though, and considering what I know about Forstall’s reputation within the company, I think that headline, euphemistic though it is, tells the plain truth: This, to me, reads as "Apple is plainspoken. Ok, so they're not, but let me convince you that even when they're not, they really are, it's just in disguise!" Why go to such lengths? Why even bring that up? It's hardly a critical part of the article. I'm genuinely curious, by the way - please, someone show me how I'm wrong.

thelibrarian 14y ago
I think what Gruber was trying to say here is that (in his opinion at least) Apple is usually plainspoken, but in this case they were not because they were being polite to Forstall by being euphemistic rather than plainly saying that he was given the arse.
- Magenta 14y ago
  Sure, but euphemism just doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'plainness,' in any way, shape or form. So you can't be euphemistic and tell the plain truth. It's just a bollocks statement.

akamaka 14y ago

While the majority of people seem to be cheering Forstall's departure, I personally think this is a really bad sign. Software just doesn't get enough respect, and there are few people who realize how important it is. Steve Jobs was one of them, as was proved when he was running NeXT. When things started to go downhill, he made the right decision to turn NeXT into a software company. He knew that software was the most important thing. He brought the best software people over to Apple, including Forstall, who was the key figure behind one of the most important business decisions that Apple ever made -- using OSX as the basis for the iPhone. Software needs to have a strong advocate inside of a company, and there's no substitute for having someone like Forstall -- a real programmer who can fight for the Right Thing, instead of having the developers overrun by the other units of the company. When software stops being so important, the other parts of the company overrule the developers and make bad decisions, like releasing software before its ready (eg. iOS6 maps). Now that the future of Apple is being lead by the hardware people like Cook and Ive, I think we're going to see less innovation on the software side. We're going to see more hardware-only product launches like the iPad mini. More shinier and thinnier cases, and fewer killer apps. What we might end up with is the old post-Jobs Apple, which launched a plethora of new product lines while letting the software stagnate to the point where Microsoft almost killed them.

seivan 14y ago
I don't cheer it. I agree with everything you said. Forstall has a track record. He's done well. Forstall has a track record, and the iOS is the best of the products out there compared to similar devices from other companies. So he did _SOMETHING_ right. As a developer, I love the developer environment as well - compare to say BlackBerry, Android and its eclipse and etc.

jroseattle 14y ago

This sets up an environment that Cook prefers, IMHO. A clear-cut decision maker about all things product design, Ive replaces Jobs. Inasmuch as a Cook/Ive pairing can be beneficial, they're missing Jobs as the great overseer. I think this is not finished playing out. As has been seen, mistakes aren't really tolerated when Apple's name is on the line -- someone almost always pays for it with their job. Apple has started to show cracks in the armor, and I imagine we're going to see a few more events of non-perfectness in the future. (Entirely reasonable, but nonetheless those that contribute to an image.) If things don't go Apple-esque perfect in the future, I wonder who starts pointing fingers?