Comment by AnonC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnonC | Hacker News Reader

In a way, I'm glad that Apple is moving in this direction at this point. Let things get even worse, let Apple be called out widely and let Apple realize how much its cultivated brand value (even with missteps on other fronts) is eroding. Some or most of it may turn out to be irreversible. Apple has fired executives for far less (like Scott Forstall). This needs entire departments to be shutdown.

The desire and the solution are quite simple: Apple wants to increase revenues from services, so provide better quality paid services instead of looking at nooks and crannies to pick up a few (mega) pennies here and there.

Apple may be under the false impression that the competition is far behind and that its loyal user base has nowhere else to go. Sometimes these things turn the other way quite quickly. Considering the regulatory scrutiny and pressure in other areas, Apple would be better off not antagonizing its user base with the "let's put ads everywhere and collect more information from our users" initiative.

> Apple may be under the false impression that the competition is far behind.

I believe Apple is falling into the "arrogance" trap..

When we were kids, we used to be told the "rabbit and turtle race story" and, if you hadn't heard about it, you must have been born directly as a teenager :)

Apple is slowly playing the rabbit role, and yes, it can sleep for as long as it wants then, maybe waking some day to realize what damage the once-believed turtles have already caused to it.

Yes, the "rabbit" role is, by no means, new in tech industry.. Kodak, Blockbuster, Windows (with its epic IE) -to some extents- , were all "rabbits" at some points in the past but not any more. And, guess what? Nokia Mobile was also the big "rabbit" that was taken in no time by.. Apple!

I don't know if there is a proper term to describe this concept, but I will write it in plain English: I always tell myself, friends, and relatives that if any entity, whether it is a single person, a community, a company, or a government, is misbehaving and/or walking in an incorrect path, sooner or later it will pay a high bill in the future that is not apparent at present.

We're seeing the Microsoft under Ballmer story play out on a different time scale at Apple. When the erosion of Apple's innovation engine shows up as a Ballmer revenue growth slump, hopefully Apple will have enough sense to put a creative at the helm.

> Apple has fired executives for far less (like Scott Forstall).

Maps was a cover story. Forstall was fired because he was Tim Cook's only serious rival for power post-Jobs, and also because some other execs (such as Jony Ive) didn't like him. When Steve Jobs died, Forstall lost his only protector in the company.

Spinning up a maps service from scratch to match Google Maps was a monumental task, nearly impossible to do quickly and well. Apple Maps continued to suck for years after Forstall was fired. Not to mention that Siri continues to suck today. Forstall wasn't fired for incompetence. He was a proven executive who was in charge of developing iOS!

In contrast, Hair Force One has overseen a massive downgrade in Apple software design and quality. But he gets along well with the other execs, doesn't rock any boats.

>Maps was a cover story. Forstall was fired because he was Tim Cook's only serious rival for power post-Jobs, and also because some other execs (such as Jony Ive) didn't like him. When Steve Jobs died, Forstall lost his only protector in the company.

This sounds just like The Death of Stalin story.

> This sounds just like The Death of Stalin story.

Funny, I've always likened Tim Cook to Stalin, with Steve Jobs as Lenin, and Forstall Trotsky.

this is not how they are in person, or were. Forstall oversaw a conniving political maneuver nuisance crossing division boundaries and causing serious infighting that was resolved by reorg when he left. Cook and Jobs (having interacted with both) just were positivity-obsessed guys averse to that noise, and I think without evidence perhaps Forstall got intolerable when his old protector had passed.

also, no one is mentioning the behind the scenes participants with far longer engineering creds than Forstall, because it's just pop-culturally easy to simplify the little era into salacious snippets not aligned with reality.

> Forstall oversaw a conniving political maneuver nuisance crossing division boundaries and causing serious infighting that was resolved by reorg when he left.

That's in line with what I said.

> Jobs (having interacted with both) just were positivity-obsessed guys averse to that noise

That's not the Steve Jobs I remember. ;-) Anyway, you don't explain why Jobs protected Forstall in the first place. My understanding is that Jobs encouraged some internal arguing and conflict, whereas Cook discourages it.

> no one is mentioning the behind the scenes participants with far longer engineering creds than Forstall

Mention them in what context? I mean, the Lenin/Stalin thing is just a silly metaphor. The serious point is that Forstall, mentioned by the OP, didn't get fired for incompetence, and Maps was just as excuse, a point that you seem to agree with. But if you're aware of people with longer engineering creds than Forstall who did get fired for incompetence, then I'd be interested to hear about it.

I mean we never see mention in bandwagon discussions what Mansfield influenced, Federhigi, Riccio, etc.

I think you’re right that even Jobs himself gave interviews about having useful internal conflict or at least competition.

Can you expand on last para? Who are you referring to as Hair Force One?

I’m guessing he’s referring to Craig Federighi.

> Let things get even worse

From Tim Cook’s point of view he’s seeing a line go up. Things aren’t getting worse for him, they’re getting better. He’ll probably be gone by the time the consequences of his management have an impact on Apple’s coffers. Assuming that ever happens, because what’s making Apple a crappy company is that it’s becoming indistinguishable from the alternatives.

> This needs entire departments to be shutdown.

This needs Tim Cook to retire.

> This needs Tim Cook to retire.

The problem is that there's no good replacement, because Cook has cooked the entire company. It's "Tim Apple" now. Next in line is likely someone like Cook clone Jeff Williams.

The stockholders own the company, and all they care about is money. Remember way back when Steve Jobs forced Apple stockholders to choose between him and John Sculley? Well, they chose Sculley. Jobs only returned many years later when Apple was desperate and had to acquire NeXT (their second choice behind Be). Apple would have to be in desperate straits again to choose a non-traditional (i.e., non-MBA) CEO candidate.

Good luck going to war with Eddy Cue.

> Apple may be under the false impression that the competition is far behind and that its loyal user base has nowhere else to go.

If they'd be willing to go somewhere else, then they wouldn't be loyal.

And the "somewhere else" can only be Android, and even for non-loyal users, that's a big step (and vice versa).

In my own personal (and thus limited) experience, I know zero users that have made the switch. The Android/Apple choice seems to stick really hard.

I switched from Android to Apple and then back again after a couple of years. Device was fine, just didn't like iOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com