Hello, article author here. You wrote: "There's lot of focus in this article on failure. I enjoy Apple bashing as much as the next guy, but one has to assume in the same 20 years Apple's head of design would have had as many, if not more successes?"

I point out in the article that Ive (plus Jobs) undoubtedly saved Apple. Without Ive, and the inspirational design of the first iMac, Apple would now be a footnote in history. The Apple Watch is a good design. The "sunflower" iMac was a good design. The unibody MacBook Pro is a good design. The 2001 Titanium laptop was a fantastic design. The iPhone 5 was a delightful design. There's a long, long list of good products. There's also a list of less good products, and I cited some of them.

I use and enjoy Apple products every day. But nothing and nobody should be above careful critique. My motivation was to point out that Ive leaving isn't necessarily a disaster, because he didn't always get it right, and to cite some examples to back that up.

(edited to replace attempt at blockquote HTML with "".)

Jobs made Ive, very publicly, which made Ive untouchable. I think what you're hearing is a mix of catharsis and a hope that someone in Cupertino will actually take note of some of it. The 2012 retina MacBook an the various iPhones were probably the high water mark for the Jobs-Ive collaboration. It is well known that Ives proposed and Jobs disposed. Lacking the disposer, the increased rate of fails was just half a notch higher, but that was the half notch that sent a lot of folks over the edge.

I think this reading appeals to our human desire to interpret things as personality-driven narratives, but I'm not convinced it's accurate. I think many of "Ive's missteps", and the behavior of Apple post-Jobs can be adequately explained by market forces and changes in the incentive structure driving Apple's product development.

During that period, Apple went from being a somewhat niche player for digital artists and enthusiasts to being one of most valuable brands on the planet. They went from having to work very hard to convince consumers that they were worth taking a risk on, to being a coveted status symbol which some customers would pay virtually anything for. I don't think it's surprising that during this period they would push their product line toward higher-margin, less utilitarian products you might want to replace more often for their various flaws.

I also don't think it's surprising that we're seeing Apple signaling a shift towards their old, pro-consumer ways now that the smartphone market is weakening.

Yes it's compelling to think about things in terms of the interplay of a few individuals, and the hubris of a rouge designer, but in general understanding the behavior of corporations through the lens of incentive structures is much more accurate.