Hmm, sounds like the Apple variation of the 3 envelopes joke. I expect the Scott is going take a lot of the heat here as the designated person but with most things I expect the story is more nuanced.
This account is written to portray Scott as the bad guy, one could speculate that perhaps he had been arguing all along that there needed to be a different option, which no one accepted, and when the choice to ship turned out to be a poor one and he was asked to take the blame for it, he might have said "No way, I told you we shouldn't ship it, you overrode me, you sign it."
The version with Scott as the hero, refusing to compromise his principles, also fits all the 'known' facts (maps kinda sucks, Tim signed the apology) and might be communicated by nameless "people familiar with the matter" who liked Scott.
But we won't know. Some folks will know, and some folks will think they know, but having been high enough in the food chain to directly witness some executive shifts like this first hand, and to see how they got spun to the public and to others. the one thing I know is that those of us out here in the peanut gallery, we don't have an ice cube's chance in hell of knowing the 'real' story.
I don't know Scott at all, I don't think I've even casually met him. My advice here is to not stress over the "why" of his departure, unless he tells you honestly why he left, or Tim tells you, everything else is just speculation.
Yes, and Steve Jobs was also ousted from Apple for (in part) that reason. One of the articles even described Forstall as "mini-Steve".
I'm just pointing out that "Forstall was a problem" isn't a new narrative that is being spun due to his departure, but one that has been around for some time.
With this in mind, the "never fit into the culture of Apple" line in the WSJ article is telling. Jobs never fit into the culture of Apple either -- rather, the culture of apple fit into Jobs.
It sounds like Forstall wanted to be like Steve, and, for better or for worse, he wasn't allowed to.
Over the years I have certainly seen what I think are cases of hindsight or survivorship bias where people think "if I want to be Steve Jobs I have to be a jerk!" People can work this in a PR push like Forstall may have done in the BW profile.
Sure, and I'll bet it's all in the family of psychological rationalization. I've never read it, but maybe one can come out of "What Color Is Your Parachute?" with the answer, "be Steve Jobs," or one of those old-timey employment predictors like "You are: A Jerk; Possible careers: Steve Jobs or bad police officer."
"This account is written to portray Scott as the bad guy"
Journalistically, the technical term is "hatchet job."
The piece flows like an official leak. On the surface the narrative seems plausible as that of a press event. In depth, it is not.
Forestall cashed out his shares in May, more than a month before the release of the Maps app was announced and almost five months before the letter of apology. Usually, when a senior executive cashes out, it is a clear statement that the direction of the company is such that it no longer appears to be a wise investment - it expresses a loss of faith in the company.
What I find interesting in this officially unofficial narrative is what its truth would imply about Apple's leadership. In an a distorted reality where Forstall signed the letter rather than Cook, consumers would have said, "Who's that?"
More importantly, Wall Street would have said, "Who's in charge?" Forstall would have been taking on the responsibility as the face of Apple, and Cook would have looked ineffectual as a leader by failing to take responsibility.
A letter bearing Forstall's signature would be a clear statement that he was so vital to Apple's future that he was allowed to atone for such a grave error rather than being summarily sacked. It would have made it nearly impossible to fire him, because of the contradictory signals leadership would be sending.
So I doubt the narrative. I doubt that Apple's leadership is so inept as to have considered anyone but Cook signing a letter. I doubt that Cook is so inept as to not seriously consider not apologizing. I doubt that anyone at Apple is so naive as to have misunderstood what Forstall's stock sale meant.
I believe the truth is simple.
At his level, it's pretty much up or out for "Type A personalities." Forstall did not succeed Jobs as CEO. Six months after Job's death, he sold his stock. A year later he publicly took the fall for Maps. In return, Apple lets 75,000 options vest while he advises Cook over the next year. By signing the apology, Cook looks compassionate to consumers. By sacking Forstall, he looks decisive to Wall Street.
The officially unofficial narrative serves it's purpose. It's more interesting than one about a negotiated severance package and the implementation of a succession plan.
And by getting the media to accuse him of acting Jobsian, Forstall displays a Jobsian brilliance. I suspect there is already a queue of companies seeking him as CEO.
Apple CEO Tim Cook also cashed out all of his vested shares around the same time. Does that indicate a lack of faith in the company? No. When you have a ton of shares and the stock is at an all-time high, and you have even more shares vesting, it makes sense to sell. In fact, executives have very little say over when they can sell--as the ultimate insiders, they usually arrange to sell their stock months, if not years, in advance, by filing a plan under SEC Rule 10b5-1. These plans typically say "sell x shares whenever the stock goes above y". In this way, shares can be eventually sold, but not at the executive's discretion.
If what I've read about Forstall is true (from the links posted below) it seems Tim Cook just took a golden opportunity to take out a competitor for his position.
> ...might be communicated by nameless "people familiar with the matter" who liked Scott.
Good luck finding such people, though. I'm not sure what it says (you could take it as evidence that Forstall was as bad as this story portrays, or as evidence that people had it out for him and would be willing to unjustly badmouth him), but he does not seem to be well liked at all, especially among insiders.
Good comment. One thing seems to be clear: This article (and others) is a strategic part (pawn) of a pre-meditated PR strategy. The optics look like a purge; at the 1 yr mark of a new CEO this is quite typical. Some may be given the kiss of death, others handed just enough rope to do themselves in. Etc. Like you say, the peanut gallery comprised of us outside the situation know less than many much closer, who themselves likely know next to nothing at this stage.
This account is written to portray Scott as the bad guy, one could speculate that perhaps he had been arguing all along that there needed to be a different option, which no one accepted, and when the choice to ship turned out to be a poor one and he was asked to take the blame for it, he might have said "No way, I told you we shouldn't ship it, you overrode me, you sign it."
The version with Scott as the hero, refusing to compromise his principles, also fits all the 'known' facts (maps kinda sucks, Tim signed the apology) and might be communicated by nameless "people familiar with the matter" who liked Scott.
But we won't know. Some folks will know, and some folks will think they know, but having been high enough in the food chain to directly witness some executive shifts like this first hand, and to see how they got spun to the public and to others. the one thing I know is that those of us out here in the peanut gallery, we don't have an ice cube's chance in hell of knowing the 'real' story.