[Messiahtosh]

Isn't interesting how there are similarities between the personalities and the personal setbacks that each man had/has? Every time I see a news story about Forstall it jogs my memory about his departure and the whole skeuomorphic design fallout. I also can't help but wonder if he will ever make a big return to tech and do something big again? It's a shame they couldn't find a place for him at Apple.

I liked how Steve was able to create the team around him. He also knew how far a guy would go, like Rubenstein, for example. Steve knew that Rubenstein wasn't CEO material, but fit best as a hardware engineering manager - a management support role. I think Tim got rid of Scott, not because Scott was best in a support role, but because he felt threatened by his ability to lead in a similar way to Steve. Just my guess.

[kieran]

I'm definitely interested in hearing what he's been up to the past few years.

Just yesterday it came out that he's been advising Snapchat for a while. Now, I have never used Snapchat, but tons have, so that's a pretty good role for him.

[Quagmire]

Maybe Tim ousted Scott to change him like it did Jobs.

Tim is this era's Sculley...

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Quagmire Maybe Tim ousted Scott to change him like it did Jobs. Tim is this era's Sculley...

He may be. There are some changes that Tim has made that I disagree with, not in terms of his social stance, but in terms of it becoming his persona. Steve never let that happen and was criticized for being too "hands off" or "quiet" on certain things, but he left the focus where he felt he should.

With each passing Keynote, I am less and less impressed by Tim's presence. He should pass off the keynote duties to Schiller, who Jobs had stand in for him when he took his first leave.

[Messiahtosh]

Forstall has too much talent, money and time on his hands for this to be the end for him.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh He may be. There are some changes that Tim has made that I disagree with, not in terms of his social stance, but in terms of it becoming his persona. Steve never let that happen and was criticized for being too "hands off" or "quiet" on certain things, but he left the focus where he felt he should. With each passing Keynote, I am less and less impressed by Tim's presence. He should pass off the keynote duties to Schiller, who Jobs had stand in for him when he took his first leave.

I wasn't being literal that Tim is going to send Apple circling down the drain like Sculley did, but the effect Sculley had on Jobs when he fired him. It changed Jobs for the better because it gave him perspective. Hopefully Tim's firing Scott will do the same thing. Scott has two options, change and possibly find himself back in a prominent position in a tech company or remain his arrogant self that got him fired and be relegated to the corners of the industry.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Quagmire I wasn't being literal that Tim is going to send Apple circling down the drain like Sculley did, but the effect Sculley had on Jobs when he fired him. It changed Jobs for the better because it gave him perspective. Hopefully Tim's firing Scott will do the same thing. Scott has two options, change and possibly find himself back in a prominent position in a tech company or remain his arrogant self that got him fired and be relegated to the corners of the industry.

When Steve left he may have mellowed but he didnt lose his arrogant self or his penchant for crushing souls when necessary. You need some of that at the top.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh When Steve left he may have mellowed but he didnt lose his arrogant self or his penchant for crushing souls when necessary. You need some of that at the top.

I think Apple still has plenty of that (even Cook). It's just not as visible or public anymore.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses I think Apple still has plenty of that (even Cook). It's just not as visible or public anymore.

What makes you think so? Cook seems sharp as can be but he doesn't really have the Steve swagger and confidence or enthusiasm of a Jobs or Forstall.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh What makes you think so? Cook seems sharp as can be but he doesn't really have the Steve swagger and confidence or enthusiasm of a Jobs or Forstall.

I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think you actually used 3 attributes that Tim does without question have.... swagger, confidence, and enthusiasm.

The swagger has only developed in the last year.


Each trait is different than it was for Jobsm But I wouldn't say those three traits were what made Jobs successful.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think you actually used 3 attributes that Tim does without question have.... swagger, confidence, and enthusiasm. The swagger has only developed in the last year. Each trait is different than it was for Jobsm But I wouldn't say those three traits were what made Jobs successful.

Enthusiasm? You mean the speech lessons he took to add some oomph behind his "only Apple could do _." I think Cook forces the enthusiastic emphasis because he is monotone, boring, and downright geeky. Smart as hell, I'm sure, just not someone that has the stage presence of a Jobs or Forstall.

Let me put it this way: Cook is less Gil Amelio and more Jobs but his stage/media presence is more Amelio than Jobs. Bland.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Enthusiasm? You mean the speech lessons he took to add some oomph behind his "only Apple could do _." I think Cook forces the enthusiastic emphasis because he is monotone, boring, and downright geeky. Smart as hell, I'm sure, just not someone that has the stage presence of a Jobs or Forstall. Let me put it this way: Cook is less Gil Amelio and more Jobs but his stage/media presence is more Amelio than Jobs. Bland.

Stage presence? absolutely not his strength. But who cares? Apple's presentations are becoming increasingly meaningless

Actual authentic enthusiasm for what he and Apple are doing in life? Incredibly high

[Robo]

I don't see a lot of support for the idea that Forstall is the next Steve Jobs. Yes, they were both forced out of a company, but just being a jerk who is difficult to get along with doesn't mean you're a misunderstood genius. You should know that, Messiahtosh

A clear difference between the two men is that Jobs was forced out of the company he founded, and then he immediately founded another. Jobs couldn't not be a founder. But Forstall worked for other people at Apple for years.

Anyway, Forstall's gardening leave must be over: he's on Twitter now, and he announced he's co-producing a Broadway musical. So, y'know, there's that.

[Messiahtosh]

There's a reason that Steve brought him on at Next and kept him on afterwards.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh There's a reason that Steve brought him on at Next and kept him on afterwards.

How many NeXT employees followed Steve to Apple?

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses How many NeXT employees followed Steve to Apple?

Many, including Jon Rubenstein, who ran Palm into the ground. Scott never even had a chance though...he was forced out. It'd be interesting to see how things would have turned out for Scott had Steve not died so young.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses How many NeXT employees followed Steve to Apple?

Um, all of them, I think.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Many, including Jon Rubenstein, who ran Palm into the ground.

That's perhaps the worst summary of Jon Rubenstein's work I've ever read.

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Scott never even had a chance though...he was forced out. It'd be interesting to see how things would have turned out for Scott had Steve not died so young.

He never had a chance to do what? Run Apple? He certainly ran iOS as his own little fiefdom, that's why he had to go. And he could have left to start his own company, he certainly wasn't lacking in opportunity to do so. But he didn't.

Have you considered that perhaps Scott Forstall doesn't want to be "the next Steve Jobs story"? Even assuming he'd be up to it, which he probably isn't? I just don't see the similarities you see between the two men.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Many, including Jon Rubenstein, who ran Palm into the ground. Scott never even had a chance though...he was forced out. It'd be interesting to see how things would have turned out for Scott had Steve not died so young.

Originally Posted by kscherer Um, all of them, I think.

That's my point.


Jobs bringing Forstall to Apple from NeXT means jack shit.

[Messiahtosh]

Not a leader: http://www.cnet.com/news/former-palm...in-out-at-hp/#!

His own fiefdom? Like the Macintosh team?

[addabox]

I think Forstall was largely a creature of Jobs. Jobs liked him and trusted him and they saw eye to eye, so Jobs gave him a protected space to do his thing, within an ascendent division within an ascendent company. Without Jobs, it appears that Forstall had problems being part of a team and staying ahead of the curve. That's one thing if you are Jobs and bend the world to your will, but I don't think that Forstall had or has anything like that kind of vision or drive.

Outside of the bubble Jobs built for him, I'm sure he'll do fine and be involved in some interesting activities. But think there's basically zero chance that he'll reemerge as galvanizing figure in the tech industry.