Sure Apple has it's challenges. I'm sure all of us can agree.
However, to me Steve Job's "visionary son" is not Forstall but Ive. Ive embodies the values that Jobs had regarding innovation (not surprisingly he was one of Jobs' best friends and spent the most time with him of all of Apple's executives).
Personally, I think it's possible Ive can be underrated. Sure, people value his hardware design. But can he design software interfaces? Most people would doubt he could. Yet this is the major task Ive is now entrusted with.
I'm not sure if Ive can do software design well, but I wouldn't be against him. I think he's got years of innovation experience and understanding the essence of simplicity and user experience.
I'm hoping Ive can surprise us all, and lead a resurgence in Apple with some killer new devices. I'd love to see him make a watch (or pendant) that connects with your phone but allows you to access key features. Of course there's also the TV we've been waiting for (and the backend services).
I also think Apple could get into household/home devices (ie., the Nest). It could be interesting if Apple bought Nest and expanded into the automated home.
Lastly, this is a far-fetched dream... I'd like Apple to buy Tesla. It would be pocket change for Apple ($3-4 billion market cap, but probably more to buy them). But could open up a decade of huge innovation that Apple pours into cars. Tesla has a great start, and Apple would just get behind them. Imagine iOS integrated in your car. That would be awesome.
I agree with everything but the last bit about Tesla. First, I don't know if Musk wants to sell. Two, I think Tesla has the potential to be a revolutionary company on the scale of Apple or Ford. I think being owned by Apple could stunt that potential.
There's no way Musk wants to sell. Tesla is still his baby and personal goal as much as SpaceX is. I think he'll only be willing to sell both after he's "solved" space travel and electric cars.
I agree than Elon Musk probably doesn't "want" to sell Tesla. But if Apple offers $10 billion and presents a clear vision of how they're going to take Tesla and propel the electric car movement even far beyond what Tesla is thinking... then, I think it might be interesting to Musk. Elon Musk's main goal with Tesla is to expedite the transition of vehicles to electric power, and if Apple somehow can convince him that they have the same goals and can do it at larger scale, it possibly could work. (Just fyi, here's Musk's "strategy" for Tesla in 2006, http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-p... .)
It would be nice if iOS powered the touchscreen in the Tesla S.
I'm convinced that Tony Fadell is merely proving the automatic home market to Tim Cook, but wouldn't mind being back in the fold, maybe even replacing Scott Forstall.
I am a huge Apple fan. I have had numerous iPhones, MacBooks, iMacs, etc. I've coined it the "law of large companies" - eventually they get their lunch eaten by someone who doesn't yet exist and they could never see coming.
With Apple, Steve Jobs has implemented a lot of policies that try and stave this off (a single P&L, cannabalization of their own products, etc.) but I'm concerned, as "Rands" is, that the ossification of upper management will reduce the agility.
See: IBM, Microsoft, Yahoo. It'll happen to Google, and it'll happen to Apple. It seems as certain as the laws of thermodynamics. As a company gets bigger and exists longer, the probability that someone is going to disrupt them approaches 1.
The skills needed to manage a large company are almost diametrically opposed to the skills needed to manage a disruptive startup.
I think Jobs was one of those exceedingly rare individuals that could gracefully handle either situation. He was just as dangerous as a startup founder as he was the CEO of a huge corporation.
Forstall apparently was one of Jobs' key players, despite having a huge target on his back where other Apple managers were concerned. I bet that Jobs knew exactly what Forstall's strengths and weaknesses were, and he managed to use Forstall for his strengths while keeping his weaknesses contained. With Jobs' passing, Forstall lost his protection, and Apple lost the person that was effectively able to manage someone like Forstall.
Except, as IBM proves, being disrupted need not be fatal. The certainty that another giant will arise seems obviously to approach 1 over time, but that Apple will die rather than successfully re-invent itself less so.
The Hudson's Bay company was incorporated in 1670, and has been in continuous operation since. It's one of the dominant big-box stores in Canada, moreso since Eatons closed down, and in the U.S. owns Zellers and Home Outfitters. The tech industry seems to have a very dark view of corporate lifespans because of the apparently quick cycle of birth and death, but it's not obvious that it has to be that way, even over centuries.
I don't think these product categories can last forever, they've had 3 massively disruptive products since Jobs returned in my view (and many others) iPod, iPhone & iPad.
There is clearly strong competition for the iPhone with Android, with Nexus 4 (and others) coming at much cheaper price point it's not clear they can hold the margins they had.
The iPad seems to still be doing well and particularly the mini seems to be well received - but how long is that going to last with the Nexus 7 & Kindle Fire bringing the price expectations down.
Apple really needs another product category - something you can see that Steve Jobs with is background as a entrepreneur, particularly failing at NeXT while away from Apple - was a master of. It's not clear who will lead the new product category, neither Tim Cook or Johnathon Ive are entrepreneurs and it's not something they are likely to learn while at Apple.
Well what product is really burning with suckage and can be really improved? The music player, the smartphone and the tablet were all there and apple approached what it should be. The smart tv? Cameras?
Why can't I watch any movie ever made at the touch of a button/tablet?
Why can't I watch any series produced in the U.S. (or anywhere) as soon as it's available from U.K. (or any non-US country)?
Why do [in the UK] do Sky & Virgin control much of what you can watch?
Why do I have to manually choose what to watch, shouldn't the TV know what type of thing I like?
I've missed the 5 episodes of a series, why does the next episode only catch me up on one?
and so on.
Not sure about cameras, the main problem with discrete cameras is that it's too hard to upload the photos on the move, but that's changing quite quickly now with WiFi and/or Android cameras. Essentially Apple have a solution to that anyway, which is to just use your iPhone which many are happy with.
Apple may not collapse or be doomed, but it could definitely stagnate and become passé. I once worked with for a Jobs-ish type GM and agree with Lopp's thesis that a leader who can maintain a high level of discord without letting it destroy the organization is much more likely to see brilliant innovation arise.
As much as it is possible for a large company to reflect a single person's taste and judgments, Apple reflected Steve Jobs.
Can anyone imagine Jobs working under someone else in some multi-billion dollar corporation like Apple? I can't. Scott Forstall can -- take that for what you will.
Jobs founded Apple. No other person (besides Wozniak) has that kind of claim on Apple, or could run it the same way as Jobs did.
Looking for the next Steve Jobs at Apple is pointless: people like Elon Musk will found their own companies, just like Jobs did with Apple.
Conflicting methodologies is a great way spur innovation by forcing the best of each to try and out do each other. This, however, isn't why Apply is successful.
Employees famously hated even being on the elevator with Steve. What ever the employees made, it wasn't good enough. Even if it was. This turned mediocre, or even great, products into top products.
I really don't understand the last sentence:
>Love him or hate him, Scott Forstall’s departure makes Apple a more stable company, and I wonder if that is how it begins.
What does he mean by 'it'? Demise of Apple or being a stable company?
The concept of fighting is not mutually exclusive from the concept of collaboration. However to achieve results, each participant must be willing to fight in good faith, and bow to the better idea when it becomes obvious. Going by the published accounts, Forstall no longer was doing this in Apple.
- focus on data, like google does, by massively investing in siri (they should make forstall in charge)
- focus on design, but expand out of consumer electronics (which will shrink) into cars and robots, like tesla and rethink robotics (tim cook and jony ive are the right people for that)
Their current niche, square screens and possibly google glass is a dead end
However, to me Steve Job's "visionary son" is not Forstall but Ive. Ive embodies the values that Jobs had regarding innovation (not surprisingly he was one of Jobs' best friends and spent the most time with him of all of Apple's executives).
Personally, I think it's possible Ive can be underrated. Sure, people value his hardware design. But can he design software interfaces? Most people would doubt he could. Yet this is the major task Ive is now entrusted with.
I'm not sure if Ive can do software design well, but I wouldn't be against him. I think he's got years of innovation experience and understanding the essence of simplicity and user experience.
I'm hoping Ive can surprise us all, and lead a resurgence in Apple with some killer new devices. I'd love to see him make a watch (or pendant) that connects with your phone but allows you to access key features. Of course there's also the TV we've been waiting for (and the backend services).
I also think Apple could get into household/home devices (ie., the Nest). It could be interesting if Apple bought Nest and expanded into the automated home.
Lastly, this is a far-fetched dream... I'd like Apple to buy Tesla. It would be pocket change for Apple ($3-4 billion market cap, but probably more to buy them). But could open up a decade of huge innovation that Apple pours into cars. Tesla has a great start, and Apple would just get behind them. Imagine iOS integrated in your car. That would be awesome.