[subharmonicon]

>> He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.

> This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.

You're saying Steve Jobs designed the Apple II? Or had a substantial hand in the design? Sorry, Woz and history disagree.

> I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?

Yes, and in fact owned the first generation Mac upon release.

> It wasn't. Cook was purging a rival for power, and Maps was just an excuse.

Steve and the board chose Cook over Forstall. He didn't need to "purge a rival". Forstall was difficult to work with, and people wanted him gone.

>> And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same.

> Citations needed.

https://www.engadget.com/2014-06-16-jony-ive-talks-new-mater...

[lapcat]

You citation didn't say what you claimed. There's no mention of Cook saying no to bad ideas. All it said was "We meet on average three times a week." Which is kind of a joke, especially when you compare it to what Ive says about Jobs establishing enduring values and principles.

> Forstall was difficult to work with, and people wanted him gone.

Jobs didn't want him gone and didn't seem to find him difficult to work with.

Ok, now I'm really done.

[subharmonicon]

> There's no mention of Cook saying no to bad ideas.

Ive said:

"Steve established a set of values...with a small team of people [and] Tim was very much part of that team – for that last 15 or 20 years."

And you think in being a part of that team and as CEO he doesn't say "no"?

Sorry, time for you to provide those citations of how Tim Cook green-lights everything.

> Jobs didn't want him gone and didn't seem to find him difficult to work with.

They were friends for nearly two decades. It's not easy to fire friends, and by all accounts they got along. Forstall with the rest of the executive team, not so much.