|
|
|
|
|
by kibwen
5 days ago
|
|
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. |
|