Speaker 1: Get in touch with technology with tech Stuff from how
Speaker 1: stuff What's dot Com? Hello everybody, and welcome to tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: My name is Chris Polettin. I'm an editor at how
Speaker 1: Stuff works dot com. Sitting across from me as usual
Speaker 1: as senior writer Jonathan Strickland. Hey there, so, um so,
Speaker 1: there's been some interesting news in technology towards the end
Speaker 1: of two thousand twelve. We're seeing some some big changes
Speaker 1: coming along at the executive level with a couple of
Speaker 1: notable companies. Those notable companies being Apple and Microsoft. Of course,
Speaker 1: we're seeing changes at other companies as well, but we
Speaker 1: wanted to specifically talk about those two companies and uh
Speaker 1: two of the executives that have been playing a very
Speaker 1: large role in products at those companies and and what
Speaker 1: their departure might mean. Yeah, that that's correct. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, there are more than just on the surface.
Speaker 1: It appears that there are surf this m I walked
Speaker 1: into that one. Uh yeah, yeah, there are some quite
Speaker 1: a few similarities between the two the two main people
Speaker 1: were going to talk about um today and uh in
Speaker 1: in kind of striking ways because the proximity or the
Speaker 1: the time, the closeness and time between the two departure
Speaker 1: has led a lot of UH analysts to look at
Speaker 1: the similarities and differences between them and it's and it's
Speaker 1: really kind of amazing. Yeah. The two people were speaking
Speaker 1: of specifically are Scott Forstall, formerly of Apple and Steven
Speaker 1: Snowski formerly of Microsoft. Actually, I should say Forestall currently
Speaker 1: is still with Apple, but in an advisory capacity, not
Speaker 1: an executive capacity. But at any rate, both of these
Speaker 1: these gentlemen were high level executives with their respective companies.
Speaker 1: Both of them had had not long before the announced
Speaker 1: parture of the of each of them had been on
Speaker 1: stage revealing products, big, big products for their respective companies.
Speaker 1: Both men had been with their respective companies for many years. Uh.
Speaker 1: In the case, well, well let's start with Scott Forestall.
Speaker 1: Then he was the one who was announced that he'd
Speaker 1: be leaving Apple earlier. I mean that was in the
Speaker 1: end of October two thousand twelve when that announcement came out.
Speaker 1: That's right, he and John Browitt both at the same
Speaker 1: time Apple announced that the two would be leaving the company. Now,
Speaker 1: Mr Browitt is or uh you know, known for the
Speaker 1: Apple retail presence, right, and he had not been in
Speaker 1: that position for very long. Tim Cook apparently felt that
Speaker 1: it was just a bad fit. That it was, it
Speaker 1: was a bad higher and for that particular role. And
Speaker 1: so that was Browitt leaving. But whereas Brown had not
Speaker 1: been with a company for very long, Forrestall had been
Speaker 1: with the company. Actually had been. Steve Jobs is on.
Speaker 1: Steve was his team way back in the Next Incorporated days,
Speaker 1: and his role at Apple. I don't think I actually
Speaker 1: mentioned it was senior vice president of iOS software. So
Speaker 1: we're talking about the big big stuff mobile iPhone, iPad,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing that I bod touch and is
Speaker 1: the operating system and and those mobile devices account for
Speaker 1: about seventy percent of Apple's revenue. So that's that's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it is hard to exaggerate that that how important that is,
Speaker 1: especially when you start looking at those sales figures. Well,
Speaker 1: Forrestall had been with Apple since Apple acquired Next Incorporated.
Speaker 1: And I guess we can do just a real quick
Speaker 1: summary of that for those who have not listened to
Speaker 1: our episodes about Steve Jobs. Um. So, Steve Jobs had
Speaker 1: left Apple after having some friction with the top level
Speaker 1: executives at that time, and went on to found a
Speaker 1: different company called Next in Core Rated, mainly trying to
Speaker 1: develop computers for educational purposes. Uh. And then Apple once
Speaker 1: it started to really suffer financially. I mean Apple was
Speaker 1: in dire straits and not the band. Yeah, they were.
Speaker 1: They were frequently mentioned with the word beleaguered in front
Speaker 1: of their name. They suggested that they were on a
Speaker 1: sinking ship. Yes, they certainly did not have money for nothing,
Speaker 1: but they ended up acquiring They purchased the company Next Incorporated,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people said at the time that
Speaker 1: they were really buying Steve Jobs back. They weren't buying
Speaker 1: the company so much as they were trying to get
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs back into the fold at Apple, and Steve
Speaker 1: Jobs ended up taking over as a an inter rom
Speaker 1: CEO and then eventually became this the full time CEO
Speaker 1: of Apple and on his team at Next Incorporated with
Speaker 1: Scott Forstall, who had worked for Next Incorporated straight out
Speaker 1: of college. So Uh Forrestall joined Next Incorporate and he
Speaker 1: came over with Apple UH to Apple when Apple purchased
Speaker 1: Next Incorporated and began to work at various departments and
Speaker 1: was was known for being a passionate member of the
Speaker 1: executive team. UM. He was the youngest executive over at
Speaker 1: Apple at the time that he was asked to leave,
Speaker 1: and um, yeah, it was an interesting he was an
Speaker 1: interesting personality over an Apple. One of the things that
Speaker 1: I read, one of the reasons I read that he
Speaker 1: had been asked to leave, uh, had more to do
Speaker 1: with personality issues than anything else. Um. Now we can
Speaker 1: say that this year two thousand twelve, when they did
Speaker 1: announce a lot of the changes to iOS as well
Speaker 1: as the new iPhone, there were some some hiccups in that,
Speaker 1: the main one being I have no idea where I
Speaker 1: am right now because my Maps app tells me that
Speaker 1: the bridge I'm looking at is actually two miles away. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The nice um. Yeah. The the the maps application for
Speaker 1: the iOS devices has been uh, to to put it, bluntly,
Speaker 1: picked on for its inaccuracies. There there are many problems
Speaker 1: with it. Um. And Apple has um you know, and
Speaker 1: its typical fashion sort of at first pretended that that
Speaker 1: wasn't the case and then basically saying, well, we goofed
Speaker 1: it like your first it was you're traveling wrong, yeah,
Speaker 1: And then it was okay, maybe this isn't as fully
Speaker 1: baked as we had hoped. And in fact I mean,
Speaker 1: this was This was big news when it happened. Happened
Speaker 1: Tim Cook. When it happened, Uh, yeah, someone needs some coffee.
Speaker 1: CEO Tim Cook issued an apology for the Maps app
Speaker 1: for for how it was not performing up to their standards.
Speaker 1: This was a big deal because Apple never apologizes, Um,
Speaker 1: very rarely apologizes. Yeah, it's when I say never. It
Speaker 1: is an exaggeration, but it lightly yeah only yeah, just barely.
Speaker 1: Well anyway, One of the things I read, which may
Speaker 1: or may not be true, was from the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: which suggested that Tim Cook wanted for Stall to sign
Speaker 1: the apology letter because Forrestall was the guy who was
Speaker 1: in charge of iOS, and Forstall said nothing doing ain't
Speaker 1: gonna do it. That's not how Steve Jobs do it.
Speaker 1: That's not how I'm going to do it. And um,
Speaker 1: and that might have been one of the flags raised
Speaker 1: at the executive level with Forstall was that, you know,
Speaker 1: he he was unwilling to sign his name to an apology,
Speaker 1: and Tim Cook ended up signing his own name to
Speaker 1: the apology and issuing it out. Now whether or not
Speaker 1: that's true is impossible for us to say, because this
Speaker 1: is all based on what various Apple employees have said
Speaker 1: to the press, but there's never been an official statement,
Speaker 1: and you wouldn't expect one to come out like you
Speaker 1: wouldn't expect Tim Cook to say, well, I wanted him
Speaker 1: to sign us and he didn't, so I fired him.
Speaker 1: That that probably would never, in any sane world ever
Speaker 1: be said. Yeah, although the New York Times did UH
Speaker 1: did also make that argument. Yes, um yeah, And in
Speaker 1: an article on the bits blog, Nick Wingfield and Nick
Speaker 1: Bilton UH said that that had also been told to
Speaker 1: them as well. Um, and I haven't heard, for that matter,
Speaker 1: I haven't heard an Apple executive deny it formally. Um. So,
Speaker 1: so yeah, there may be there may be some fire
Speaker 1: with that smoke. Well, and and it's possible to that
Speaker 1: that it could be a combination of all of these factors. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to suggest that one flubbed app was
Speaker 1: enough to you to oust an executive who had been
Speaker 1: with the company for so long. In fact, there were
Speaker 1: other issues. There was one that apparently there was a
Speaker 1: philosophical debate that centers around the idea of design at Apple,
Speaker 1: and there were two sides, two main sides to this battle.
Speaker 1: On one side, you had people like Scott Forstall, who
Speaker 1: were advocating the use of a design philosophy called skew morphism, Yes,
Speaker 1: which is basically making digital stuff look like uh, real
Speaker 1: world things. He wondered why and eyebooks the the covers
Speaker 1: of the books appear on a set of wooden shelves,
Speaker 1: or or the calendar appears to be made out of
Speaker 1: stitched leather. If you swipe a page and the page
Speaker 1: turns like that, skew morphism. Or if you were to
Speaker 1: ever use any kind of it's not just Apple that
Speaker 1: does this, all sorts of companies, but if you were
Speaker 1: to use say digital music service, and it presented it
Speaker 1: as if they were vinyl albums kids ask your parents
Speaker 1: on turntables, well, that would be an example of skew
Speaker 1: morphism there. There there's some part of that aesthetic philosophy
Speaker 1: that says people are familiar with certain form factors and
Speaker 1: they find that reassuring or they find it satisfying when
Speaker 1: it's involved. Um. There was an example where they showed
Speaker 1: off a uh An app where they were deleting a
Speaker 1: file and the deleting portion ended up looking like a
Speaker 1: piece of paper going through a paper shredder, and the
Speaker 1: critic I read said, how many people in that audience
Speaker 1: have never seen a paper shredder? And I'm thinking, aren't
Speaker 1: those still things? I mean, I never mind anyway, but
Speaker 1: that that's that's skew morphism. And that was that was
Speaker 1: kind of four stalls, uh philosophy. He's he liked including
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff in design. Well, we have a
Speaker 1: trash cans or recycled bins on our desktops or or
Speaker 1: the desktop period to think of it as the top
Speaker 1: of your desk with a stack of documents on it
Speaker 1: or documents on it. Um. So yeah, I mean this
Speaker 1: is but but the skei morphism that that we're talking
Speaker 1: about sort of it it has a range and on
Speaker 1: on one hand it's sort of a you know, just
Speaker 1: an idea, and at the other end, it's actually going
Speaker 1: so far as to add the stitching or you know,
Speaker 1: the grain of the leather or something like that. And um,
Speaker 1: some people that really rubs the wrong way. For example,
Speaker 1: Sir Jonathan I've yes, Sir Jonathan, I've is a designer
Speaker 1: at Apple, famous, famous designer obviously, and he's got a knighthood,
Speaker 1: so clearly he's got some fame going on. Um. But anyway,
Speaker 1: it's because you know, hey, if you're a night, you're
Speaker 1: pretty famous. That's true, at least in certain circles. Look,
Speaker 1: I am just saying I haven't reached the hall of
Speaker 1: fame where I've been knighted yet, But your majesty, I'm
Speaker 1: here and I'm waiting. You know, I'm just as an aside.
Speaker 1: I've never figured out how he designs stuff with the
Speaker 1: visor on his helmet down because it little flips. You know,
Speaker 1: it's hard to see the screen. All of Apple's stuff
Speaker 1: looks like it's meant for jousters. Um no, he he.
Speaker 1: He's famous for designing a lot of the form factors
Speaker 1: that make Apple what it is today. Like when you
Speaker 1: look at a lot of Apple's products, the reason they
Speaker 1: look the way they do is in part due to
Speaker 1: Jonathan I've. And that's that's why a lot of them look.
Speaker 1: They have a similarity to one another. Yeah, it's got
Speaker 1: got sort of a cohesion along their product line. So
Speaker 1: Jonathan I've does not so well, let me not put
Speaker 1: words into his mouth from what from Yeah, well, you
Speaker 1: know me, it's probably you know, I just pick up
Speaker 1: dictionaries lying anywhere. Know. According to a lot of the
Speaker 1: news reports, I read I've is not a fan of
Speaker 1: this design philosophy. He prefers to leave those elements out
Speaker 1: and to not have that clutter up his design, and
Speaker 1: he doesn't necessarily think that it's relevant or that it
Speaker 1: adds anything to the experience. And so you have these
Speaker 1: fundamental differences in philosophy, and uh, something's got to give.
Speaker 1: And eventually it turned out that it was going to
Speaker 1: be for Stall. For for stalls position that would give
Speaker 1: um he was essentially there was an announcement that was
Speaker 1: said that he was going to leave his role move
Speaker 1: into an advisory capacity, and then sometime in the year
Speaker 1: he would actually leave Apple entirely. Now um I've is
Speaker 1: taking over the human Interface team, which is part of
Speaker 1: what for Stall was seeing. So that pretty much answers
Speaker 1: that question about that whole design philosophy argument. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: they're our sources that have been quoted, um indirectly again
Speaker 1: because they don't want to be uh, you know, have
Speaker 1: their names attached to these things. But there are there
Speaker 1: are sources who have told different news outlets and I've
Speaker 1: because I've seen it in more than one place that uh,
Speaker 1: I've and forced all had stopped getting along so well. Um,
Speaker 1: I get the sense that they were they were pretty
Speaker 1: compatible at one point, but that it had they had
Speaker 1: been growing apart in philosophy to the point where I've
Speaker 1: seen more than one news article that suggested that they
Speaker 1: wouldn't even attend each other's meetings anymore because they had
Speaker 1: become so distant. Um, at least in the workplace. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Yeah, and and yeah, I've I've read similar things.
Speaker 1: And there's also been quite a few reports saying that
Speaker 1: Forrestall was a pretty demanding and sometimes abrasive person to
Speaker 1: work with, and that that also may have played a
Speaker 1: part in it. Um, So I read I read one
Speaker 1: very exhaustive profile on for Stall. It actually was written
Speaker 1: before for Stall was leaving, and in that report it
Speaker 1: was essentially said that he was um kind of kind
Speaker 1: of the person who would say that's not how Steve
Speaker 1: would have wanted it done, and that and that some
Speaker 1: people that Apple feel like that ends up holding the
Speaker 1: company back if you just keep parroting out you know,
Speaker 1: Steve would not have done it this way, And you know,
Speaker 1: there's their arguments be made, is Apple, should Apple remain
Speaker 1: the Steve Jobs company should strike out and to have
Speaker 1: its own identity where it was obviously evolved from what
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs wanted. There are arguments to be made on
Speaker 1: both sides. I've seen the same sort of arguments applied
Speaker 1: to the Walt Disney company, where you would have certain
Speaker 1: executives say, you can't just say Walt wouldn't have done
Speaker 1: it that way, because if you keep doing that, then
Speaker 1: nothing new happened, whereas other people say, that's you're twisting
Speaker 1: our words. What we're saying is well, would would have
Speaker 1: focused on this sort of thing as opposed to the
Speaker 1: thing you are focused on. And so these kind of
Speaker 1: arguments happen in lots of different companies, particularly you have
Speaker 1: a very centralized, iconic kind of founder or leader and
Speaker 1: that person leaves the company, then we see this happen
Speaker 1: over and over. Oh sure, sure, And of course, um,
Speaker 1: it's difficult to know what somebody like Walt Disney or
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs would do in a given situation, because especially
Speaker 1: the longer that goes on, because um, you know, for example,
Speaker 1: with with Disney, you don't know what he would have
Speaker 1: wanted to do with some of the technologies that are
Speaker 1: available now that weren't during his lifetime, and so there
Speaker 1: might those factors would obviously change. Of course, Um, Mr
Speaker 1: Jobs has not been gone for as long, so it's
Speaker 1: it's a little easier to hew closer to his his visions. Um.
Speaker 1: People of course, have pointed to the iPad many as
Speaker 1: an example of something that Steve was quoted as saying
Speaker 1: he didn't want, and hey, look there it is saying
Speaker 1: that he would never ever do that, and then it happened.
Speaker 1: So um, you know, I I think it's uh trying
Speaker 1: to hit that middle ground. I mean, that's my personal
Speaker 1: feeling on it is you know you kind of look
Speaker 1: at that and say, Okay, well maybe he wouldn't necessarily,
Speaker 1: but taking these things into an account, maybe I don't know.
Speaker 1: So Um. Yeah. As a matter of fact, I've seen
Speaker 1: um Forstall's name suggested as the quote unquote closest thing
Speaker 1: to Steve Jobs that Apple still had. Um. Actually the
Speaker 1: same has been said for Mr Sonofsky for Microsoft, which
Speaker 1: is one of the similarities. But yeah, apparently he was. Uh.
Speaker 1: People on the outside the media have been saying, you know,
Speaker 1: this is not good. He was, you know for Stall
Speaker 1: as a leader. Uh, he has somebody that that has
Speaker 1: a lot to do with the Apple d NA and
Speaker 1: a lot of people ding dong the witch is dead right, Well,
Speaker 1: he was. He was a guy who was very passionate
Speaker 1: about arguing to adapt the mac os so that that
Speaker 1: would serve as the foundation for iOS as opposed to
Speaker 1: creating an embedded uh OS just for mobile devices. He
Speaker 1: wanted to he wanted to have a more robust operating
Speaker 1: system that was related to the desktop system. He did
Speaker 1: not want it to go the iPod route, not iPod Touch,
Speaker 1: but the other iPods which have you know, an embedded
Speaker 1: specific operating system just for those devices that doesn't really
Speaker 1: have much of a relationship with the desktop version. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's there's no shared look and feel yea. So he
Speaker 1: he was one of those people who really argued for
Speaker 1: that uh and his his responsibilities will go to more
Speaker 1: than just Jonathan. I've Eddie Q will take on some
Speaker 1: of the responsibility. He's going to be heading up departments
Speaker 1: that are overseeing things like Siri and Maps, which those
Speaker 1: are two of the products that had some criticisms directed
Speaker 1: at them. Siri when it first came out, everyone I thought,
Speaker 1: everyone I knew who played with Siri was initially very
Speaker 1: much impressed, and it became less so the more they
Speaker 1: used it until about a few months ago in twelve,
Speaker 1: like sometime around September October twelve, when siries started to
Speaker 1: seem to improve. Uh. And then of course maps had
Speaker 1: that same sort of initial problem. UH. And then you've
Speaker 1: also got Craig fed Federighi, which I could be totally
Speaker 1: mispronouncing his name in case I do apologize, But he
Speaker 1: will be leading both the iOS and O S X
Speaker 1: side of the R S ten I know, I if
Speaker 1: they don't use Roman numerals, people call I X I,
Speaker 1: I call I x I. Um they yeah, so OS
Speaker 1: ten um. But yeah, he'll be overseeing both of those departments. Um.
Speaker 1: So that's where four stalls responsibilities are going to go
Speaker 1: to while he is what are you just doing the math?
Speaker 1: I was just wondering. I was wondering where that came from.
Speaker 1: What I X I I hercules anyway, disneys hercules? Um.
Speaker 1: So so yeah, that wasn't That wasn't just I wish
Speaker 1: I were witty enough to have come up with that
Speaker 1: on the fly. So anyway, Yeah, there are people who
Speaker 1: have a lot of experience at Apple who will be
Speaker 1: picking up his duties. Now, the question is how smooth
Speaker 1: the transition is it going to be. You know, it
Speaker 1: may very well be that we won't see a huge change,
Speaker 1: But it is kind of interesting that this happened shortly
Speaker 1: after Apple had had its big event unveiling things like
Speaker 1: the iPhone five and the iPad, the new the new
Speaker 1: iPad and also the iPad Mini. For all of that
Speaker 1: to happen, and then for the guy who's essentially in
Speaker 1: charge of all that stuff get kind of pushed off,
Speaker 1: that was a big story, which then brings us to
Speaker 1: our second person we're chatting about today, Steven Snowsky. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to make one point, but we can
Speaker 1: still use this as a transition because both this is
Speaker 1: another way in which these two guys are similar. UM. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, uh Mr Sinofsky has his UM has had
Speaker 1: the same kinds of things. He's the the Steve, the
Speaker 1: closest thing they have to Steve jobs, etcetera, etcetera. And
Speaker 1: and they had similar personalities and that there are conflicts
Speaker 1: between different groups. But UM, one of the things the
Speaker 1: media has said again about both of these guys is that,
Speaker 1: uh they had UM, they had a devoted group of
Speaker 1: followers within their company. UM. And UH, I think that
Speaker 1: in in the case of again both of these guys,
Speaker 1: this could prove to be a problem because while there
Speaker 1: are people who are saying, holy cow, this is great.
Speaker 1: I am so glad that he's not going to be
Speaker 1: here anymore, there are a lot of people are saying, dude,
Speaker 1: this guy, are you gotta be kidding me? He was
Speaker 1: a visionary and in both cases, In both cases I
Speaker 1: read about how the people working directly for these two
Speaker 1: men were often the ones who felt like they were
Speaker 1: working the hardest of the whole company. But some people
Speaker 1: thrive on that. So there are folks, well, we don't
Speaker 1: mean to suggest that both of these guys or either
Speaker 1: of them were you reviled within their own companies. There
Speaker 1: were people who were very much supporters of of what
Speaker 1: they did, and there's their work style, saying, look, these
Speaker 1: guys get results. So and in fact, you know, you
Speaker 1: can if you look at the revenues for Apple and
Speaker 1: you look at how well those mobile devices did, you
Speaker 1: can't argue that. I mean, for Stall clearly had a
Speaker 1: big you know, he had a lot to do with that,
Speaker 1: and so uh, it's clear that he had a very
Speaker 1: important role at the company. Sonofsky, same thing he was
Speaker 1: he was the president of the Windows Division at Microsoft
Speaker 1: until mid November two thousand and twelve. Now he uh,
Speaker 1: he came in before I guess, in between Vista and
Speaker 1: Windows seven, so as the president of Windows. Yes, right,
Speaker 1: so he had a lot to do with the Windows
Speaker 1: seven yes improvements. Yeah, yeah, he came in. Uh, he
Speaker 1: came in as the leader of the Windows division right
Speaker 1: when Microsoft was really struggling. Because if you don't remember
Speaker 1: when Windows Vista came out, it initially had a lot
Speaker 1: of problems and mostly things like driver compatibility, device driver compatibility,
Speaker 1: software compatibility. Uh. There were also some just some user
Speaker 1: interface stuff that was rubbing people the wrong way. Plus uh,
Speaker 1: some of the Windows user interface stuff. The new stuff
Speaker 1: was a real processor suck. It was using a lot
Speaker 1: of computing power and people were complaining about that, right,
Speaker 1: people saying like, well, why do I need all these
Speaker 1: bells and whistles. I just want an operating system that
Speaker 1: gives me access to the applications I actually want to run.
Speaker 1: I don't want my operating system to be taking up
Speaker 1: all the computer assets so that my processes don't run anymore.
Speaker 1: That's very irritating. The ironic thing for me is that,
Speaker 1: you know, that the design was one of one of
Speaker 1: the things that they were trying to make it look nicer,
Speaker 1: and people were complaining about the design. It's like, who
Speaker 1: are they trying to be Apple? Yeah, yeah, we see
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff all the time. Well, Snowski came
Speaker 1: in to head the Windows division. He had actually been
Speaker 1: working for Microsoft since he started as a software design engineer.
Speaker 1: Uh he came he had a master's degree in computer
Speaker 1: science from the University of Massachusetts and uh then he
Speaker 1: went from being a software design engineer to becoming the
Speaker 1: technical assistant for Bill Gates. You may have heard of him.
Speaker 1: Name sounds familiar. So that's ten years after he joined.
Speaker 1: He became the senior vice president of the Office division.
Speaker 1: Not the Microsoft office as in the physical place where
Speaker 1: they work, but rather the software suite office like word,
Speaker 1: power point, that kind of stuff. I figured. He was
Speaker 1: in charge of making sure that you could watch reruns
Speaker 1: of the office the Office. So he became a head
Speaker 1: of dunder Mifflin in nineteen No. In two thousand and
Speaker 1: six he became the senior vice president of Windows and
Speaker 1: the Windows Life Group, And in two thousand nine that's
Speaker 1: when became the president of the Windows Division. Well, he
Speaker 1: helped turn around this perception problem that Microsoft had with
Speaker 1: Windows Vista. Now we should also say Microsoft did a
Speaker 1: lot of work trying to patch and fix Windows Vista,
Speaker 1: and by the end of that cycle of patches, Windows
Speaker 1: Vista was actually not a bad operating system. But the
Speaker 1: the early word, all of those criticisms that were directed
Speaker 1: towards Microsoft really hurt the adoption rate for Vista. Yeah,
Speaker 1: anybody who follows tech, and that's probably just about everybody
Speaker 1: listening to us right now, we all know that there's
Speaker 1: this thing about getting whatever it is, a gadget, an
Speaker 1: operating system, whatever, right after it comes out, because hey,
Speaker 1: you know it's cool, we want a new we want
Speaker 1: the newest, we want the best stuff. It's just a thing.
Speaker 1: Um And uh yeah, I mean all the people who
Speaker 1: rushed out to buy Vista, it wasn't quite baked enough.
Speaker 1: It was kind of soft and squishy in the middle.
Speaker 1: And even Microsoft has said pretty much the same thing.
Speaker 1: They said that, you know, they the part of the
Speaker 1: problems were the fact that it was rushed through development
Speaker 1: and it was rushed into production, and that it probably
Speaker 1: could have waited a while longer before launching. But I mean,
Speaker 1: they had a lot of pressures on them at the
Speaker 1: same time. I mean, XP was really starting to show
Speaker 1: its age. Yeah, and then the early adopters too, are
Speaker 1: the ones who a lot of the other people listened to.
Speaker 1: Oh hey, Bill, I know you buy stuff right after
Speaker 1: it comes out. How is it? It's no, it's not good, Ted,
Speaker 1: It's it's really not that great. So I know, I
Speaker 1: just did I just did that in my head. Um,
Speaker 1: but yeah, he said, you know dude, Um whoa. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that word of mouth spread and UH and
Speaker 1: and damaged the relief of Vista, and they had a
Speaker 1: real problem. They they found themselves going, well, how are
Speaker 1: we going to generate the right word of mouth? And
Speaker 1: they said, well, let's let's do this with the next release.
Speaker 1: So Sunofski, you know, he's the head of Windows at
Speaker 1: this point, and he starts to spearhead the development for
Speaker 1: Windows seven and really pushes for UH to to address
Speaker 1: all the problems that Vista had and to kind of
Speaker 1: head those off and Windows seven. Some people say that
Speaker 1: Windows seven is the upbringting system that Vista was supposed
Speaker 1: to be. Um, that's probably an oversimplification, I think so.
Speaker 1: I think so because there were a lot of things
Speaker 1: that changed between Vista and seven. We had a lot
Speaker 1: more developments going on, even just on the Internet side
Speaker 1: of things. But uh so Windows seven comes out and
Speaker 1: it has it receives much more positive reviews on its
Speaker 1: initial release and has a far faster rate of adoption
Speaker 1: than Invested did UM. In fact, as of the recording
Speaker 1: of this podcast, it hasn't been that long since Windows
Speaker 1: seven surpassed Windows XP out in the market share, which
Speaker 1: was a big deal because XP was something that a
Speaker 1: lot of companies were depending upon for you know, a decade, yes,
Speaker 1: and so to make that switch is a big that's
Speaker 1: a that's a big commitment now and um upon the
Speaker 1: announcement that Sinofsky made and and here's one of the differences.
Speaker 1: While Apple itself said that that Forstall would be leaving
Speaker 1: the company, uh, Mr Sinofsky actually said, Hey, I'm leaving
Speaker 1: the company. And uh the uh you know, Steve Balmer,
Speaker 1: the CEO of Microsoft, has said very positive things about
Speaker 1: Mr Sinoff Geeson. You know, hey, he's he's the man,
Speaker 1: he knows what he's doing. This is this is he's
Speaker 1: had such a great uh series of accomplishments with the company.
Speaker 1: Were very sorry to see him go. Yeah, there's uh.
Speaker 1: But there's more going on under the surface here, folks.
Speaker 1: For one thing, the timing of his announcement one thing,
Speaker 1: Uh sorry, did I steal that? No? No, No, that's
Speaker 1: a great that's a great way of going into this.
Speaker 1: Microsoft unveils Windows eight and the Surface, so the Surface tablet.
Speaker 1: Both of these are big, big products for Microsoft. The
Speaker 1: Surface tablet, Microsoft might say, is not as important a
Speaker 1: in the grand scheme of things, because they've been positioning
Speaker 1: that as an example of hardware that could run Windows
Speaker 1: eighty and that other manufacturers could build tablets that could
Speaker 1: equal or or exceed the Surface. Yes, it was. It
Speaker 1: was more about a proof of concept. This is a
Speaker 1: scratching the surface. Yes, it's the company line. That's the
Speaker 1: company line. Now. Whether or not that's oh, the genuine
Speaker 1: feeling Microsoft has behind the service tablet, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It could be that they're hoping that this will become
Speaker 1: their version of the iPad um. I can't say, because
Speaker 1: I'm not in those meetings. They won't let me in.
Speaker 1: There was that, and there was the actual unveiling of
Speaker 1: Windows eight and the launch of Windows eight, and then
Speaker 1: Sonofsky and Microsoft cut ties shortly thereafter, and that raised
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. Again, just like Forestall leaving shortly
Speaker 1: after the iPad miny and and iPhone five announcements and
Speaker 1: all that, the timing question comes into play now. Snofsky
Speaker 1: says that during any lull in a product development cycle,
Speaker 1: you tend to stop and take measure of where you
Speaker 1: are and try and decide what you want to do next,
Speaker 1: so that it's a natural thing when a product launches
Speaker 1: and you're at that lull to really think about what
Speaker 1: you're doing. Other people are saying, well, this kind of
Speaker 1: seems weird, because you would think that you would need
Speaker 1: to really nurture and support wind Os eight because it's
Speaker 1: such a huge change for Microsoft. I mean, the the
Speaker 1: user interface of this operating system is an enormous change
Speaker 1: from previous versions of Windows. Yes that you know, even
Speaker 1: even if someone is absolutely loves the Windows eight interface
Speaker 1: as soon as they pick it up, it's communicating that
Speaker 1: to your potential audience and and teaching them about the
Speaker 1: user interface and explaining how it can be used across
Speaker 1: various platforms. That becomes an important role of getting that
Speaker 1: Windows version of Windows adopted wide spread. Right yep, yep, um. So,
Speaker 1: while we talked about Scott Forestall's devotion to Skew morphic design.
Speaker 1: Um the probably the big change in Windows eight from
Speaker 1: previous versions of Windows that Zinowski is uh uh, I
Speaker 1: don't know credited with, but he's associated with the disappearance
Speaker 1: of the start menu option in Windows eight. And I've
Speaker 1: actually seen, Hey, if he's gone, does that mean we
Speaker 1: can have the start menu button back there? There have
Speaker 1: been against I've read some reporters who have you know,
Speaker 1: their work, and I've seen that according to the reporters,
Speaker 1: it seems like Sonofsky's philosophy was if this wasn't a
Speaker 1: feature that I introduced, I don't want it in Windows
Speaker 1: all the way down to perhaps even the structure of
Speaker 1: their file management system, which is huge. That's that's a
Speaker 1: key part of an operating system is how does it
Speaker 1: manage and organize files? And so whether that's true or not,
Speaker 1: I can't say. Again, this is stuff that I've read
Speaker 1: and and you know it's on the internet, so it
Speaker 1: must be true, right, But anyway, the that that's again
Speaker 1: like for Stall Sinofsky, a lot of the reports about
Speaker 1: him have said that he was kind of he was
Speaker 1: kind of difficult to work with at times, that he
Speaker 1: was very demanding, that he could be abrasive. Also, one
Speaker 1: report I read in Bloomberg said that, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Microsoft was trying to get to this point where they
Speaker 1: wanted to have a a kind of an aligned approach
Speaker 1: with their products so that you would get a similar
Speaker 1: experience going from one thing to another, so Windows Phone
Speaker 1: to Xbox to Windows eight device or whatever. This way,
Speaker 1: he would have a lot of the same features that
Speaker 1: were supported across these platforms, and that you could you
Speaker 1: could support your experience from one platform to the next
Speaker 1: as seamlessly as possible. But that Snofsky was not as
Speaker 1: keen on working with other departments, and that he was
Speaker 1: very focused on his department, but he didn't want to
Speaker 1: necessarily work with anyone else. And in fact, Bloomberg went
Speaker 1: so far as to say that, uh, the environment and
Speaker 1: Microsoft's executive suite resembled something out of Game of Thrones,
Speaker 1: with division heads poaching talent from one another and thwarting
Speaker 1: attempts from other groups to collaborate on products. As an aside,
Speaker 1: I hope it's considerably less bloody than Game of Thrones,
Speaker 1: I hope. So, you know, in the literal sense here,
Speaker 1: what's the iron price for Windows eight? Um? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a but, but it made it sound pretty grim that
Speaker 1: the idea that these different divisions were actively trying to
Speaker 1: get talent from other departments for their own benefit and
Speaker 1: at the detriment of the other departments within Microsoft. So
Speaker 1: it's like each division is acting as a competing company
Speaker 1: with the other divisions, which is not a great message
Speaker 1: to give when you are talking about an entire company.
Speaker 1: H Q four is coming nice, nice, Uh, it's stark contrast.
Speaker 1: I would say, Uh, I gotta work a Tyrian Lanister
Speaker 1: joke in there somewhere. It'll be a short joke, I promise.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Um, yeah, hey I did it, didn't I? So?
Speaker 1: So yeah. Sinofski again very much an important player at Microsoft,
Speaker 1: and and it's it'll be interesting to see where Microsoft
Speaker 1: goes from this point forward, because you know, Windows eight
Speaker 1: is a baby out there in the upgrading system world,
Speaker 1: and uh, it'll be it'll be interesting to see how
Speaker 1: how the company continues to develop and uh and present
Speaker 1: the Windows eight to the market with Sinofsky gone. And
Speaker 1: whether or not that I've seen some questions from people
Speaker 1: asking like, well, does this mean that Microsoft is going
Speaker 1: to do a one eight and move away from the
Speaker 1: Windows eight tiled interface and uh and go back to
Speaker 1: something more traditional with the next release of Windows. And personally,
Speaker 1: I think that that might not be the right message
Speaker 1: to say, wow, you know, because I think Windows eight
Speaker 1: is truly an innovative product. I think I think, I
Speaker 1: think there are a lot of great ideas there, and
Speaker 1: I do think that there is a need to create
Speaker 1: an operating system that can work across multiple platforms because
Speaker 1: more and more of us are using mobile devices for
Speaker 1: our computing, and yet we'll still need to use desktops
Speaker 1: and laptops on occasion. And the more we can meld
Speaker 1: those worlds together so that we could easily work on
Speaker 1: the same stuff no matter which form factor we happen
Speaker 1: to have at our access right then and there, I think,
Speaker 1: the better wealth we are. Yeah, well, there are definitely
Speaker 1: some some similarities in strategy there. The way that Windows
Speaker 1: and the Apple operating systems have been converging, you know,
Speaker 1: between the the computer world and the mobile device world.
Speaker 1: Similarities in the operating systems um that's been increasing over
Speaker 1: the last few years. I think it's a testament to
Speaker 1: the design philosophies of both of these men. Um and
Speaker 1: and Yeah, I mean it's it's going to have an
Speaker 1: impact both on the comp any UH strategies and on
Speaker 1: the company the relations within the departments, whether or not
Speaker 1: there's going to be turf wars and things like that. Um.
Speaker 1: I think it's a little too early to tell that,
Speaker 1: but it could have very you know, very well effected
Speaker 1: the UH corporate culture as well. Definitely, it'll be uh
Speaker 1: probably a little while before we know for sure. But
Speaker 1: and And these are big companies. This is not the
Speaker 1: first time that either company has lost a an executive
Speaker 1: that people thought was you know what was an iconic
Speaker 1: person at that company. Or Jobs and Gates right right,
Speaker 1: Because Gates and Jobs of course are no longer really
Speaker 1: the influence on these companies. I mean there they still
Speaker 1: have influence even though they're no longer directly involved in them,
Speaker 1: because everyone says, well, these companies were founded upon the
Speaker 1: philosophies of their founders, so we want to stay true
Speaker 1: to that to a point, but not to the detriment
Speaker 1: of the success of the company, right right. Well, they proved,
Speaker 1: both of them proved so integral to the success at
Speaker 1: the company. UM that you know it. They're legend has
Speaker 1: a lot to do with you know, the way people think,
Speaker 1: what am I gonna you know, how would this work
Speaker 1: if he were going to be telling me what to do?
Speaker 1: So yeah, so it'll be interesting to see the the
Speaker 1: next few months how they unfold for both Apple and Microsoft.
Speaker 1: I would imagine both companies will will you know, have
Speaker 1: a couple of bumps, but they'll get back on track. Uh.
Speaker 1: It'll really be interesting to see a year from now,
Speaker 1: or in the case of Microsoft, maybe a few years
Speaker 1: from now when we see the next generation of products
Speaker 1: that would the likely still have quite a few uh
Speaker 1: fingerprints from these guys on them, because you know, they're
Speaker 1: not only phobic from ye. By the development cycles do
Speaker 1: tend to extend well, like by the time a product
Speaker 1: is released, then the succeeding product is already well in
Speaker 1: to develop of it. So you like, when you get
Speaker 1: Windows eight, you can be sure that Microsoft has been
Speaker 1: working on Windows nine for some time. So yeah, same
Speaker 1: thing with iOS and get iOS you get the launch
Speaker 1: of iOS six. You know io S seven has been
Speaker 1: in development for a while as well. It's just the
Speaker 1: way that it works, because if they waited then it
Speaker 1: would take even longer between generations, and that tends to
Speaker 1: not be great for sales. Yeah, and of course, like
Speaker 1: I said, all of us are waiting for the next
Speaker 1: big thing. Yeah, we've kind of, we've kind of It's
Speaker 1: a it's a feedback loop, right, because the companies come
Speaker 1: out with a new thing, we get all excited, We
Speaker 1: go out and we buy the new thing, which then
Speaker 1: pushes the companies to develop the next new things that
Speaker 1: will come out. We'll buy the next new thing, and
Speaker 1: as a cyclogue, it's integral to the company's bottom line. Yep.
Speaker 1: So yeah, we'll see what happens. Guys, if you have
Speaker 1: any suggestions for future topics for tech Stuff podcasts, you
Speaker 1: should let us know. Send us an email all addresses
Speaker 1: tech stuffs at Discovery dot com, or send us a
Speaker 1: message via Twitter or Facebook. You can find us at
Speaker 1: those locations with the handled tech Stuff H S. W
Speaker 1: and Chris and I will talk to you again releasing.
Speaker 1: For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit
Speaker 1: how staff works dot com.