
Forstall Out; Ive Up - rkrishnakumar
http://daringfireball.net/2012/10/forstall_out
======
bane
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
"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
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
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.

~~~
gurkendoktor
> It feels old because it hasn't changed in 5 years, but I personally
> appreciate that.

And I think Apple is betting on a "conservative" majority that does not want
change for the sake of change (I'm certainly part of it) - just observe how
similar all the iPhones look, or all the laptops, displays... The only
exception I can think of are the cheaper iPods.

~~~
bluesaunders
And that's because they are cheap enough to buy on impulse, and/or to make an
affordable gift for the holiday season that is clearly the hottest and newest
available.

------
akamaka
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
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.

------
nir
"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.

~~~
sedev
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
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
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.

~~~
usea
Comparing two things is different from equating them. It's not offensive to
compare Stalin to anything, including those things you hold sacred. It doesn't
imply they are equal in all respects, and any inference to that effect on your
part is in error.

~~~
redbad

        > Comparing two things is different from equating them.
    

True, obviously.

    
    
        > It's not offensive to compare Stalin to anything,
    

False.

    
    
        > including those things you hold sacred. It doesn't
        > imply they are equal in all respects, and any inference 
        > to that effect on your part is in error.
    

When you compare X to Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or the devil, you're
necessarily invoking an element of offense to make your broader point. Rightly
or wrongly, those figures are inexorably bound to offend. It's not possible to
simply assert that away.

------
jobu
"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
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.

------
brudgers
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-
sco...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57425920-37/apple-exec-scott-
forstall-sells-off-95-percent-of-his-shares/)

~~~
erifneerg
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
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
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.

~~~
brudgers
Perhaps it is too simplistic, but the alternative Apple chose suggests hubris.
I suspect that TomTom or Garmin or even OpenStreetMap would have been glad to
partner with them to develop an app to replace Google Maps. Instead, Apple
chose a homegrown solution, quality be damned and then threw TomTom under the
bus when Maps was released half baked.

The decision to adopt not invented here as corporate policy backfired.
Forestall was probably prescient enough to see where it was headed.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The problem is I can just as easily come up with a situation where Google is
being "evil" and doing everything it can to screw Apple:

Apple and Google have become _serious_ competitors. Apple realized that and
started working on its mapping solution, but recognized it wasn't ready in
time for iOS 6. Unfortunately, the license was going to run out before iOS 7,
so a new contract would have to be negotiated[1].

Google came back and said "piss off" (or "pay $50/phone" or whatever "evil"
terms you want). Apple couldn't make the terms work within their constraints,
so quickly made a deal with Tom Tom and tried to integrate their data into the
nascent mapping system[2].

The iOS 6 beta comes along and the data is nowhere near where it needs to be.
Apple has a decision to make here and, with a choice of "go for it" or "pull a
major feature in iOS 6.x"[3], they decide to cross their fingers and go for
it.

Now, iOS 6 release hits. They know the maps aren't ready, but the bridges have
been burned. Their choices now are "put some lipstick on a pig" or "pull a
major feature from iOS 6.0". They decide on lipstick. Sometimes you get away
with it; sometimes you don't. They didn't.

 _I'm not saying this is what happened!_

My point is that when major companies are in "coopetition"[4], nothing is
simple and obvious. Maybe Apple thought they could shroud everybody in a
reality distorition field. It is possible, even plausible. I just don't think
it is the _most_ possible scenario, and it is tiring to hear it expressed as
the "only" possible solution.[5]

1\.
[http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/timing_of_apples_map_switc...](http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/timing_of_apples_map_switch)
(that's the best I've got to "source" the end of the Apple/Google deal
happening before iOS 7 would release)

2\.
[http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/427347/apple_signs_glo...](http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/427347/apple_signs_global_agreement_tomtom_maps/)

3\. iOS releases seem to have stabilized on an October time-frame. Based on my
experience, it is unlikely that you could pull up the release of an OS by 6
months, so maps would have to change in a "dot" release.

4\. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition>

5\. Regardless of what _really_ happened, I would have loved to be a fly on
the wall in those meetings. Those would have been awesome bizdev
meetings...unless Apple really did say "piss off". :)

------
Osmium
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.

------
tnorthcutt
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
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
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.

------
susanhi
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
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.

------
nagrom
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
> 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.

------
JeremyMorgan
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.

------
adrianhoward
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.

------
jroseattle
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?

------
lucian1900
"One of the things I admire about Apple is their plainspokenness"

What?

------
Jonanin
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
> 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?

~~~
recoiledsnake
him: why did people elect Hitler?

you: Explaining how votes are tallied.

Technically correct but totally useless.

~~~
Karunamon
Reductio Ad Hitlerum - For when you have nothing to go on but a cheap appeal
to emotion.

