Gurman rumor re: John ternus
- Thread starter Cmaier
- Start date
Sorry, you replied as I was writing this comment.
Further comment:
painting Apple picking someone to lead design (although this article intentionally tries to state it both way: they are and aren't giving responsibility to Ternus) as a "strange arrangement" (and Bloomberg has now blocked their website from being archived, so I can't even verify what is actually said anymore) is just bullshit.
Bloomberg and Gurman always paint everything somehow in a bad light. If Apple doesn't pick a specific SVP for Design, then Gurman labels it as a disaster. When they do pick someone to lead design, then it's labeled as a disaster.
He also strangely says in another tweet that Jony Ive led design until 2019. The imprecision is unsurprising, and he continues the imprecision by saying that both Tim Cook and Jony Ive were in charge of Apple's design team from 2015-2017. Yes, you read that correctly. Bloomberg is falsely claiming that even as Tim Cook promoted Jony Ive to Chief Design Officer, giving him 100% control and even more power, that somehow Tim Cook was still the one in charge of Apple's design team, even as Bloomberg ALSO claims that Tim Cook distances himself from the design team and that he doesn't involve himself in it.
How the fuck is any of this allowed to be published?
Further comment:
painting Apple picking someone to lead design (although this article intentionally tries to state it both way: they are and aren't giving responsibility to Ternus) as a "strange arrangement" (and Bloomberg has now blocked their website from being archived, so I can't even verify what is actually said anymore) is just bullshit.
Bloomberg and Gurman always paint everything somehow in a bad light. If Apple doesn't pick a specific SVP for Design, then Gurman labels it as a disaster. When they do pick someone to lead design, then it's labeled as a disaster.
He also strangely says in another tweet that Jony Ive led design until 2019. The imprecision is unsurprising, and he continues the imprecision by saying that both Tim Cook and Jony Ive were in charge of Apple's design team from 2015-2017. Yes, you read that correctly. Bloomberg is falsely claiming that even as Tim Cook promoted Jony Ive to Chief Design Officer, giving him 100% control and even more power, that somehow Tim Cook was still the one in charge of Apple's design team, even as Bloomberg ALSO claims that Tim Cook distances himself from the design team and that he doesn't involve himself in it.
How the fuck is any of this allowed to be published?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 7,710
- Main Camera
- Sony
oh, I am now confused. When it said Ternus was in charge of hardware and software design, I didn’t read that as him being in charge of the way stuff looks (other than the “how it looks” design team may report to him). I was thinking “design” in the sense that I was a designer - making it work.
Specifically, the article is based on this:
That's it.
What does an "executive sponsor" mean? I could write what Gurman wrote after, but the fact is he didn't attribute his characterization of what an executive sponsor is to any source, so it's likely his opinion when considering how he described it.
Notice the first quoted sentence is a paraphrase of the second... interesting, isn't it lol?
I'm going to keep discussing that aspect of this article, because it's a disturbing and misleading characteristic of his... work.
Gurman specifically contradicts his own reporting -- supposedly is fool-proof according to social media -- that Jony Ive led the Design team
(which under Tim Cook and Jony Ive, was unified to include Human Interface Design and Industrial Design, which moved HID from under Software Engineering to a unified team)
Specifically Gurman wrote, in a standalone paragraph proceeding the prior quoted piece:
He attributes Jony Ive not leading the Design team to... nothing. There is no source for this claim. If it were true, and "reported" by someone else, he doesn't attribute it to them. It's pretty knowingly FALSE.
Also what is "the role?" The piece is extremely confusing, probably intentionally, on what this is referring to. SVP of Design? Executive sponsor? Reporting on this topic from him and others always tries to pin "care" for Design at Apple on one person, rather than attributing it to a company-wide value, probably because it's juicy gossip if that person is suddenly gone for one reason or another. Interesting to keep in mind.
The next attributable piece of info in the article:
Guess: Some employee found that Ternus has been assigned to "executive sponsor" on a document, or this is grapevine gossip at lunch, Gurman shopped this information around to his "sources," asked for their opinion of whatever this is, and paraphrased it as "strange arrangement." (Gurman's words)
Notice the lack of direct quotes for that characterization (which honestly not that means much; Bloomberg is quite willing to not adhere to journalism standard's , nevertheless).
This info is attributed to a source, but that makes zero distinction if it's an employee's educated guess.
As I'm writing this comment I am now finding it amusing that the entire piece is literally centered around the narrative that Ternus is being prepared to potentially become CEO eventually, yet then in the details of the article Gurman constantly is casting doubt on why Tim Cook would "expose Ternus to more parts of the company's operations."
Pick a lane, Gurman, you jackass.
And... that's all folks. No, really. The rest of the article is literally conjecture, references to previous reporting of his (which is also almost always just conjecture), and obvious and public info about any positions at Apple, so Like...
Because I respect people's intelligence, and I don't want to give more clicks to him, here's the entire piece below, which you can read for yourself.
Isn't it interesting when you break the article down into its actual components it becomes glaringly obvious this is just narrative writing?
Apple Inc. has expanded the job of hardware chief John Ternus to include design work, solidifying his status as a leading contender to eventually succeed Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook.
Cook, who has led Apple since 2011 and turned 65 in November, quietly tapped Ternus to manage the company’s design teams at the end of last year, according to people with knowledge of the matter. That widens Ternus’ role to add one of the company’s most critical functions.
The responsibilities have special significance at Apple. The role, which includes overseeing both hardware and software design, has long been entrusted to a senior leader. Going back to the Steve Jobs era, the company’s success has always been closely linked to how its products look and feel.
The role was held by Jony Ive, Jobs’ longtime design partner, until his departure in 2019. Cook oversaw design from 2015 to 2017, when Ive temporarily stepped back from the position. Jeff Williams, Apple’s longtime chief operating officer and Cook’s top deputy, most recently held the job until his retirement at the end of 2025.
Ternus is now billed internally as the “executive sponsor” of all design on Cook’s management team, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the change wasn’t public. That entails being a bridge between design staff and Apple’s top brass. He represents the design organization in executive team gatherings and manages the group’s leaders.
A spokesman for Cupertino, California-based Apple declined to comment.
Even with the change, there are no signs within Apple that Cook is poised to step down soon. And when he does eventually retire, the executive is expected to stick around as chairman. Apple told shareholders this month that its current chairman, Art Levinson, would remain in his role past the company’s February shareholder meeting — despite the fact that he’s now 75, the usual retirement age for directors. That implies a chairman transition won’t happen until at least 2027.
The Ternus move was made discreetly: The heads of Apple’s design teams continue to report directly to Cook in both internal organizational charts and the company’s public disclosures. People with knowledge of the move said that Cook himself is trying to expose Ternus to more parts of the company’s operations.
As senior vice president of hardware engineering, Ternus already worked closely with the industrial design team, which focuses on hardware. But he hadn’t previously been responsible for that group or the one developing the user interface in Apple’s software.
The move is seen as an acknowledgment that Ternus may be better suited to the design role. Cook, who rose through Apple’s sales and operations ranks to become CEO, is known to keep a distance from design decisions. He’s had limited involvement with product design since taking the reins.
Still, Ternus isn’t the final arbiter for design decisions, which have been made by consensus for several years. Craig Federighi, who runs software engineering, is heavily influential in software design, and marketing chief Greg Joswiak is also a strong voice. Ternus was already part of that process on the hardware engineering side.
Having Ternus oversee the design teams while they still technically report to Cook is a strange arrangement, according to Apple employees. But it’s a sensitive situation. Changing the reporting structure would affirm Ternus’ status as a rising star, at a time when the company is still keeping its succession planning under wraps.
Such an acknowledgment also risks undermining Cook by making it seem like he retreated from the design role. Apple only announced that he would take on the duties six months ago.
Bloomberg News first reported in 2024 that Ternus was a frontrunner to eventually take over for Cook and that Apple had intensified its succession planning. In October, Bloomberg reported that Ternus’ stature had grown further, with the executive becoming a key decision-maker on product road maps, features and strategy — duties that went beyond the traditional scope of a hardware chief.
At 50, Ternus is the youngest member of Apple’s executive team, giving him the longest potential runway as chief executive. He is well regarded by Cook and former COO Williams and is viewed by some board members as a leader capable of reshaping Apple’s devices for the artificial intelligence era.
Beyond Ternus, the other internal CEO candidate is Sabih Khan, Apple’s newly appointed chief operating officer. Khan oversees the company’s supply chain and occupies the same role Cook held prior to becoming CEO. His predecessor, Williams, had also been viewed as a contender for the top job.
In the more immediate term, the company is undergoing a broader shake-up — with several top executives announcing their departures late last year. Other senior vice presidents are also nearing the ages when Apple executives have traditionally retired.
Johny Srouji, Apple’s executive in charge of custom silicon chips and related technologies, told Cook at the end of last year that he was seriously considering leaving the company and could take a role elsewhere, Bloomberg reported. Though he later told employees he wasn’t departing “anytime soon,” the discussion underscored growing uncertainty within Apple’s leadership ranks.
Ternus’ duties expanded further last year, when he assumed oversight of robotics teams and took sole responsibility for hardware engineering on the Apple Watch. That followed the breakup of the company’s artificial intelligence group and Williams’ retirement.
Apple has also increasingly positioned Ternus as a public face of the company. He introduced the iPhone Air and has led many of the major interviews following recent product announcements, often taking a more prominent role than Cook.
The latest shift marks another leadership change within Apple’s design organization. In 2024, the company named team veteran Molly Anderson as head of industrial design. Alan Dye, the company’s chief of human interface design, departed for Meta Platforms Inc. in December. Many staffers who worked under Ive, meanwhile, have since left for his design studio, LoveFrom, or startups such as OpenAI.
Cook, who has led Apple since 2011 and turned 65 in November, quietly tapped Ternus to manage the company’s design teams at the end of last year, according to people with knowledge of the matter. That widens Ternus’ role to add one of the company’s most critical functions.
The responsibilities have special significance at Apple. The role, which includes overseeing both hardware and software design, has long been entrusted to a senior leader. Going back to the Steve Jobs era, the company’s success has always been closely linked to how its products look and feel.
The role was held by Jony Ive, Jobs’ longtime design partner, until his departure in 2019. Cook oversaw design from 2015 to 2017, when Ive temporarily stepped back from the position. Jeff Williams, Apple’s longtime chief operating officer and Cook’s top deputy, most recently held the job until his retirement at the end of 2025.
Ternus is now billed internally as the “executive sponsor” of all design on Cook’s management team, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the change wasn’t public. That entails being a bridge between design staff and Apple’s top brass. He represents the design organization in executive team gatherings and manages the group’s leaders.
A spokesman for Cupertino, California-based Apple declined to comment.
Even with the change, there are no signs within Apple that Cook is poised to step down soon. And when he does eventually retire, the executive is expected to stick around as chairman. Apple told shareholders this month that its current chairman, Art Levinson, would remain in his role past the company’s February shareholder meeting — despite the fact that he’s now 75, the usual retirement age for directors. That implies a chairman transition won’t happen until at least 2027.
The Ternus move was made discreetly: The heads of Apple’s design teams continue to report directly to Cook in both internal organizational charts and the company’s public disclosures. People with knowledge of the move said that Cook himself is trying to expose Ternus to more parts of the company’s operations.
As senior vice president of hardware engineering, Ternus already worked closely with the industrial design team, which focuses on hardware. But he hadn’t previously been responsible for that group or the one developing the user interface in Apple’s software.
The move is seen as an acknowledgment that Ternus may be better suited to the design role. Cook, who rose through Apple’s sales and operations ranks to become CEO, is known to keep a distance from design decisions. He’s had limited involvement with product design since taking the reins.
Still, Ternus isn’t the final arbiter for design decisions, which have been made by consensus for several years. Craig Federighi, who runs software engineering, is heavily influential in software design, and marketing chief Greg Joswiak is also a strong voice. Ternus was already part of that process on the hardware engineering side.
Having Ternus oversee the design teams while they still technically report to Cook is a strange arrangement, according to Apple employees. But it’s a sensitive situation. Changing the reporting structure would affirm Ternus’ status as a rising star, at a time when the company is still keeping its succession planning under wraps.
Such an acknowledgment also risks undermining Cook by making it seem like he retreated from the design role. Apple only announced that he would take on the duties six months ago.
Bloomberg News first reported in 2024 that Ternus was a frontrunner to eventually take over for Cook and that Apple had intensified its succession planning. In October, Bloomberg reported that Ternus’ stature had grown further, with the executive becoming a key decision-maker on product road maps, features and strategy — duties that went beyond the traditional scope of a hardware chief.
At 50, Ternus is the youngest member of Apple’s executive team, giving him the longest potential runway as chief executive. He is well regarded by Cook and former COO Williams and is viewed by some board members as a leader capable of reshaping Apple’s devices for the artificial intelligence era.
Beyond Ternus, the other internal CEO candidate is Sabih Khan, Apple’s newly appointed chief operating officer. Khan oversees the company’s supply chain and occupies the same role Cook held prior to becoming CEO. His predecessor, Williams, had also been viewed as a contender for the top job.
In the more immediate term, the company is undergoing a broader shake-up — with several top executives announcing their departures late last year. Other senior vice presidents are also nearing the ages when Apple executives have traditionally retired.
Johny Srouji, Apple’s executive in charge of custom silicon chips and related technologies, told Cook at the end of last year that he was seriously considering leaving the company and could take a role elsewhere, Bloomberg reported. Though he later told employees he wasn’t departing “anytime soon,” the discussion underscored growing uncertainty within Apple’s leadership ranks.
Ternus’ duties expanded further last year, when he assumed oversight of robotics teams and took sole responsibility for hardware engineering on the Apple Watch. That followed the breakup of the company’s artificial intelligence group and Williams’ retirement.
Apple has also increasingly positioned Ternus as a public face of the company. He introduced the iPhone Air and has led many of the major interviews following recent product announcements, often taking a more prominent role than Cook.
The latest shift marks another leadership change within Apple’s design organization. In 2024, the company named team veteran Molly Anderson as head of industrial design. Alan Dye, the company’s chief of human interface design, departed for Meta Platforms Inc. in December. Many staffers who worked under Ive, meanwhile, have since left for his design studio, LoveFrom, or startups such as OpenAI.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 7,710
- Main Camera
- Sony
Reading the whole article, I now have no idea what even is being claimed. It seems that what this is is just matrix management, which happens all the time in silicon valley. For a long time I was able to tell people in various groups at AMD what to do, even though none of them reported to me (i.e. I didn’t do their reviews, I had no power to hire/fire them, etc.) If they didn’t like what I told them, they could whine to their org-chart manager, but that generally wouldn’t get them anywhere. That isn’t strange around here, assuming that’s what Gurman is trying to say is happening (it’s really not clear what he is trying to say).
Neither do I, honestly, and probably neither does he.
Thank you for contributing insight on how companies work especially at a higher level in tech.
It's funny, because i was going to say something similar: I've personally read multiple articles online that Apple is famous for stuff similar to what you've said. Positions, titles, management structure doesn't mean anything actually for products.
Can you further explain anything more? Not necessarily guessing about whatever this is, but how product development worked with "matrix management," vs official titles, etc?
Thank you for contributing insight on how companies work especially at a higher level in tech.
It's funny, because i was going to say something similar: I've personally read multiple articles online that Apple is famous for stuff similar to what you've said. Positions, titles, management structure doesn't mean anything actually for products.
Can you further explain anything more? Not necessarily guessing about whatever this is, but how product development worked with "matrix management," vs official titles, etc?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 7,710
- Main Camera
- Sony
It wasn’t really a formally-defined thing. People tended to end up responsible for the things that they were most interested in/best able to do. So, for example, at times I was on what we called the “logic design” team, but I was in charge of deciding how our electronic design automation tools would work; as a result, I’d tell the “CAD team” what to do. Or on Opteron, I was technically in charge of the scheduler and integer execution units (and had no reports, since I did it myself) but at the same time I was designing the design methodology for the entire chip, which resulted in various other folks reporting to me on technical stuff even though they didn’t work for me. This went on for most of my time at AMD, where toward the end things got *really* weird because it wasn’t even clear who I worked for (I was on the circuit design team for awhile but didn’t do any circuit design with them, and didn’t interact with them other than them telling me what problems they hoped the CAD team would someday be able to solve for them). At various times I was on the circuit team, logic team, CAD team, I was the co-methodology lead, manager of advanced technology, and reported to the CTO. It never really mattered who I reported to or what team I was on, other than if I wanted a raise or something that’s who I’d talk to.
Instead, it was always problem-oriented. This block needs to be designed. Get it done. We need a better methodology for designing the chip. Create it. The circuit guys are having problems because our CAD tools can’t do what they were able to do when they worked at DEC. Find a way to help them. We need a floor plan for the chip. Create it. Whatever needed to be done, if I was the best one to do it, I’d do it, which meant I reported (for the purposes of that task) to someone other than my “real” boss, and I would often hijack people off of various other teams to work for me with respect to that task. All of this made reviews somewhat awkward. Towards the end they got into the GE “top x% / bottom x%” stuff, and that got really silly since your boss couldn’t rate you because he/she may not have worked with you at all that year.
I know you said in another comment somewhere here that you rarely paid attention to reporting about AMD when you worked at it. Can you recall any times you read or heard a rumor and knew it was the exact opposite, or was mischaracterized and knew likely how because you had more information than the leaker had
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 7,710
- Main Camera
- Sony
We’d see reporting on our average chip prices or on sales quantities, and they were always wrong (IDC and all those other sources were terribly off) When I was at Exponential Technology, when they’d print rumors about what we were working on, they were always wrong too.
Do you have guesses or can you tell us if you knew where they were potentially getting their information from, even if it was completely wrong?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 7,710
- Main Camera
- Sony
No idea. It was so far off that it couldn’t have come from anyone in the company. I assume voodoo and whispers from “industry sources.”
