Sam OliverAccording to sources who spoke with The Wall Street Journal, Papermaster's departure came as a result of a "falling out" with Jobs. How much the iPhone 4 antenna controversy played a part in his exit was said to be "unclear," as those anonymous sources said the departure was chiefly a result of "cultural incompatibility."
"Mr. Papermaster had lost the confidence of Mr. Jobs months ago and hasn't been part of the decision-making process for some time, these people said," authors Yukari Iwatani Kane and Ian Sherr wrote. "They added that Mr. Papermaster didn't appear to have the type of creative thinking expected at Apple and wasn't used to Apple's corporate culture, where even senior executives are expected to keep on top of the smallest details of their areas of responsibility and often have to handle many tasks directly, as opposed to delegating them."
Apple revealed on Saturday that Papermaster, the head of its iPod and iPhone division, had departed the company. Apple recruited Papermaster away from IBM less than 2 years ago, and was not the iPhone maker's ideal pick for the position.
The report noted that Jobs, not Papermaster, decided to move forward with the development of a new iPhone with an external antenna despite allegedly knowing about the signal degradation caused by touching the external metal band. That conflicts with the official line from Apple, as the company has claimed that it only learned of the iPhone 4 antenna issue after the product was released.
Separately, John Gruber of Daring Fireball said he was told that Papermaster was viewed internally at Apple as "the guy responsible for the antenna." He also indicated that the signal loss issue when holding the phone was allegedly filed two years ago.
"This is not a problem they didn't catch, or caught too late," he wrote. "So, on one hand, clearly the fundamental antenna design predated Papermaster's time at the company. But on the other hand, there was plenty of time to find a solution to the problem."
In addition, the New York Times reported that Papermaster was pushed out after a number of hardware-related problems, "including some related to the iPod touch." That could be a reference to last year's iPod touch refresh, which was originally planned to include a camera. But that feature was scrapped due to bad parts with the obtained camera modules.
The Journal noted that Papermaster joined Apple when Jobs was on sick leave, and he joined at a time when executives had freedom to make decisions. It said that Papermaster "was likely ill-prepared" for the return of Jobs, who is known for taking a hands-on approach in his management style.
"Mr. Papermaster's departure shows how difficult it can be for an outsider to succeed at Apple," the report said. "While some of the company's top executives who came from other corporations have thrived—notably Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, who was previously at Compaq Computer Corp., and retail chief Ron Johnson, who joined from Target Corp.—others haven't fared as well. For instance, Apple has gone through general counsels that it hired from IBM and Oracle Corp. since 2006."
-m.jpg)
Oliver Haslam
Andrew Orr
Amber Neely
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
61 Comments
Maybe because he wears a suit to work that makes him "culturally incompatible" with Apple..
This is potentially problematic for Tim Cook. It's the second major flub during his six months of leadership at Apple (the other being the ill-advised deal in China with the non-wifi phone that few people bought, millions of which probably just had to be trashed).
It also reinforces the market's belief that Apple is Jobs and Jobs, Apple. Given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life, the Jobs 'put' will now be back in a big way in Apple's share price. Hope Apple's Board is getting on board by putting in place a succession plan, and will plan to publicize it.
This is potentially problematic for Tim Cook. It's the second major flub ...the other being the ill-advised deal in China with the non-wifi phone that few people bought, millions of which probably just had to be trashed).
Wow, you must have tons of money. Unlike the poor people in China. :-) If a phone works and does what you want it to when you bought it, it does not stop working when something better comes out.... however, you can sell it to your poorer cousin..... JAT.
Again, with the wild guessing... I guess that makes Steve Ballmer .... no Bill Gates!!! While that is true, everyone brings different things to the table. Apple without Steve Jobs may not be as good, but if Steve lasts 5 more years..... Apple may be the biggest computer company in the US..... oh wait... I think it already is.... Maybe by then it will be bigger than Dell with respect to hardware.... oh wait.....
Just a thought on this monday morn.
en
It also reinforces the market's belief that Apple is Jobs and Jobs, Apple. Given his (unfortunately) finite lease on life, the Jobs 'put' will now be back in a big way in Apple's share price. Hope Apple's Board is getting on board by putting in place a succession plan, and will plan to publicize it.
Apple's best long term succession plan would be to start cultivating more talent internally instead of hiring from outside.
Mark Papermaster's departure from Apple is said to be a result of "cultural incompatibility" and losing the trust of Chief Executive Steve Jobs, and not solely a result of the iPhone 4 "antennagate."...
Funny how the article is based on the idea that Papermaster wasn't fired over the antenna and how Apple has gone out of it's way to leak that fact, but then by half-way down you're already recycling those rumours about how he *was* fired for the antenna. You even mix in a little controversy by equating knowledge of the fact that signals degrade when antennas are held, with Apple's knowledge of a "problem" with the antenna.
The only controversy here is manufactured by the author. The only rational way to read Gruber's quotes is also that Papermaster "didn't fit in." The only way this guy could possibly be connected to the antenna problem is simply by the fact that he knew about it.
Other than the basic facts at the beginning, this whole article is just wild speculation based on nothing at all IMO. It tries to argue the opposite argument to what it's sources are implying.