[kibwen]

> I don’t know if all the untalented hacks are gone, but the untalented magazine-designer hacks with clout and influence all left with Alan Dye.

As usual for Gruber, this is fanboy cope. Dye may be a convenient scapegoat, but he was not a lone wolf, he was operating with the full assent of executive leadership, which is to say, the same leadership that appointed his successor.

[ckcheng]

It’s important not to forget the (work) politics while looking at the work produced. Unfortunately when you get a politically astute Mad Men (for real, from Ogilvy) in the organization, great damage can be done for a very long time without much recourse.

You’ll note Dye was an Ive decision. And you’ll see the successor was not in Dye’s camp. Because (work) politics.

From https://daringfireball.net/2025/12/bad_dye_job

> Gurman reported that Billy Sorrentino, a Dye deputy who has served as a senior director of design at Apple since 2016, is leaving for Meta with Dye.3 I don’t have any other names, but word on the street is that other members of Dye’s inner circle are leaving Apple for Meta with him. But those who remain — or who might remain, if they’d have been offered the promotion to replace Dye — simply can’t be trusted from the perspective of senior leadership, who were apparently blindsided by Dye’s departure for Meta.

> Putting Alan Dye in charge of user interface design was the one big mistake Jony Ive made as Apple’s Chief Design Officer.

> Dye had no background in user interface design... Before joining Apple, he was design director for the fashion brand Kate Spade, and before that worked on branding for the ad agency Ogilvy.

> Alan Dye is not untalented. But his talents at Apple were in politics. His political skill was so profound that it was his decision to leave, despite the fact that his tenure is considered a disaster by actual designers inside and outside the company. He obviously figured out how to please Apple’s senior leadership. His departure today landed as a total surprise because his stature within the company seemed so secure.

[kibwen]

Whether or not the successor was a friend of Dye isn't relevant here. Let's say for a moment that Apple's design woes were a result of Dye. Dye was appointed by Apple's leadership. The conclusion would that Apple's leadership isn't capable of evaluating whether or not someone is fit for the job. And even if the guy who appointed Dye isn't around any more, the guy who appointed Dye was also appointed by Apple's leadership; despite whatever turnover there may be, there is an entire web of leadership continuity that resulted in Apple not being capable of selecting proper leaders, which means there is no reason to suspect that the current guy will fare any better. Politics is politics; the idea that the last guy was appointed because he was good at politics only goes to show that Apple fundamentally rewards politicking, not ability, so the assumption must be that the new guy is also a politicker first and foremost. Gruber is hoping that the new guy, in addition to politicking, is also good at design, but that's all it is: hope, and hope as a front for refusing to face harsh truths (to wit: the harsh truth that Apple has no magic touch left, especially difficult for a lifelong super-fanboy like Gruber to understand) is called cope.