Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple under Tim Cook
- Thread starter ImperialX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How about giving it a rest for one day?
Giving what a rest ? What are you and Zalgiris even hinting at ?
Seeing as I don't visit much, I'm confused too. It's a forum; people are entitled to their opinion. I mean, that's what a forum is all about.
I think its a little early to fret over whether Apple will continue to release shiny new things we never knew we wanted. Steve Jobs did not "invent" the iPad or iPhone all on his own. There are legions of engineers and employees who brought those products to market. Additionally, they are filled with patents from other companies that Apple pays royalties on.
All Tim Cook has to achieve is be the talent manager that Steve Jobs was and retain that talent but make sure it has a direction and vision.
All Tim Cook has to achieve is be the talent manager that Steve Jobs was and retain that talent but make sure it has a direction and vision.
Though Tim Cook is a great man and will probably be a great CEO, the void left by Jobs' death will be felt very, very soon.
Cook is no visionary. His background was in operations - basically, getting stuff in from point A to point B at minimal cost. He's a numbers guy. He isn't about making new stuff - that was Steven's role, and Steve picked him not because Cook could emulate his role as Apple's CEO, but rather, because he trusted Cook to maintain how Apple deals with things. However, I sense that Apple's culture will change in the coming years, possibly, becoming more buttoned-up and corporate.
Apple's decline begins now. It's not going bankrupt, but in a few years, it will be more like Microsoft - a great company still posting healthy numbers, but a company that also doesn't lead the pack anymore. And, I suppose that will be fine for most Apple shareholders and its executive board.
But, for average consumers, there might be less of those brilliant iToys to buy in the future, all because of Steve's death. That is the greatest tragedy.
Cook is no visionary. His background was in operations - basically, getting stuff in from point A to point B at minimal cost. He's a numbers guy. He isn't about making new stuff - that was Steven's role, and Steve picked him not because Cook could emulate his role as Apple's CEO, but rather, because he trusted Cook to maintain how Apple deals with things. However, I sense that Apple's culture will change in the coming years, possibly, becoming more buttoned-up and corporate.
Apple's decline begins now. It's not going bankrupt, but in a few years, it will be more like Microsoft - a great company still posting healthy numbers, but a company that also doesn't lead the pack anymore. And, I suppose that will be fine for most Apple shareholders and its executive board.
But, for average consumers, there might be less of those brilliant iToys to buy in the future, all because of Steve's death. That is the greatest tragedy.
Apple got to where it is because of its culture and employees, not because of 1 man. I wouldn't worry too much about them going forward, as long as they retain the same brilliant minds they had before (Scott Forstall, Jonathan Ives and all the great minds that create the stuff Apple puts out).
As long as Steve has passed on his vision of how product development goes (rather than of particular products), these people should be able to carry on the torch without too much issue.
I wouldn't worry too much in the short and mid term for Apple.
As long as Steve has passed on his vision of how product development goes (rather than of particular products), these people should be able to carry on the torch without too much issue.
I wouldn't worry too much in the short and mid term for Apple.
You are correct, just as it was the same for MP3 players. But it was Steve who was intimately involved in green lighting all the fine details. The one who said whether the market needed such a device, and the man who drove his team to develop more than just a gadget, but the entire infrastructure that worked around it.
That's why the iPod worked. Other companies had built music players, but it was Jobs' vision that made it practical with the whole iTunes ecosystem.
There were smartphones before the iPhone, but it was Jobs who shaped it into the mindblowing concept that it ended up as.
And that's why I think Apple will have problems in the future.
1) Because nobody is there with an eye for the fine details.
2) Because nobody is there with the insight that Jobs had for greenlighting devices that nobody thinks that they need yet.
3) Because I think now that Apple devices will be made by committee, which is the very reason why all other companies have not been Apples equal in the past. products by committee are always a compromise, and turn companies into a bureaucratic mess.
I think you're giving Jobs too much credit. Jobs was also "the one behind" things like Ping, MobileMe, iDisk, AppleTV and other products that didn't quite make an impact.
The fact is, even for the iPhone/iPad/Mac line-up, etc.. are probably not "Steve" products so much as products he "approved" in the end, not the beginning. As long as he has passed on his vision of what makes a good product good, the torch will have been passed and the same people will be making the same great products.
I don't think that's the only way to look at it. A lot of us are quite invested in Apple in more than just stock. A "sympathy sale" could easily be made out of fear of dropping sales or stock (although the stock is surprising me today) because we might honestly feel as though, even without Jobs, Apple is still the only company that truly seeks to provide us with the products that we need/want.
If I was worried about Apple, I'd gladly go buy something today. I'm not, because the stock isn't dropping off a cliff and they have plenty of cash reserves, but I'd do my part to stop the company from being a victim of a complete loss in consumer confidence were such a thing needed.
I think you missed my point of not obeying the status quo. Making the iPhone 4S is perfectly fine. However if they just stick to making iPhone and iPad, and not making anything entirely new, Apple isn't going to stay at the top like when Steve was in charge.
Apple has never been about making something 'entirely new' though. What Apple is about is figuring how to make stuff work best, in a way that's efficient, elegant and user-friendly and also about working hard on how to introduce the most advanced technology to the public in a seamless way.
The Sculley v. Cook comparison also seems incorrect to me. Sculley was a 100% marketing guy and had no prior background to hi-tech before Jobs asked him to join Apple. Cook is an industrial engineer and he's been in the computer business for his whole career with the last 14 years at Apple. Totally different.
Besides Cook, the Apple executive team is extremely solid. They are among the brightest guys in the tech world and more importantly they love the company in a way that, I believe, we outsiders cannot fathom.
Cook's job will be essentially to retain those guys and the fantastic engineering teams that are behind all those ground-breaking innovations and keep them happy to work at Apple and give it their best day-in day-out.
Even if Cook were a 2nd Sculley, look at the Apple Execs right now who will help Apple stay pretty much focused as before:
- Scott Forstall
- Jonathan Ive
- Eddy Cue
- Bob Mansfield
- Phil Schiller
All of these guys have worked years and years with Steve at Apple, and even in Scott's case with Steve at NeXT as well. They have all led parts of Apple which made Apple such a huge success.
Cook himself has been at Apple for 14 years now and even though he can't be compared to Steve he should know how to steer the mothership.
I just wonder if there might be more compromises, i.e. meetings where some tend to disagree and Tim might end up picking the middle lane, if you know what I mean. I'm pretty sure Steve would have vetoed anything hie didn't like from everyone.
- Scott Forstall
- Jonathan Ive
- Eddy Cue
- Bob Mansfield
- Phil Schiller
All of these guys have worked years and years with Steve at Apple, and even in Scott's case with Steve at NeXT as well. They have all led parts of Apple which made Apple such a huge success.
Cook himself has been at Apple for 14 years now and even though he can't be compared to Steve he should know how to steer the mothership.
I just wonder if there might be more compromises, i.e. meetings where some tend to disagree and Tim might end up picking the middle lane, if you know what I mean. I'm pretty sure Steve would have vetoed anything hie didn't like from everyone.
I tend to disagree with this. At least, Steve thought they were his products.
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles...facts-little-known-about-the-apple-wizard.htm
See the section "We", not "I".
My guess is over the next 5 years, we'll see the innovation slowly decline. While (most of the) leadership has been there under Steve for a long time, things will change without him there, as he was the innovator and poured over the details. The rest of the team were about execution of the products he came up with. He's not known for accepting everyone's input, even designers. It was his way or the highway.
The iMac was a Jonathan Ives design which he couldn't get the old board to sign off on. It was when Steve came back that he got the go for production.
A lot of Apple projects are like that I bet. Steve is the final "approval" stamp, but the innovation is in the employees. As long as Steve has taught them what works and what doesn't, they don't really need him.
Anyway, again, it's not like Steve was perfect. Not everything under his reign was a huge success and made a huge impact. He's had his hits and misses like everyone else.
The only thing I'm worried about post-Jobs is that the misses will get much more coverage as failures than they did under Jobs. Seriously, Ping ? Pretty much swept under the rug under Jobs, no one mentions it, talks about it. Under Cook ? I'd bet we wouldn't hear the end of it. "Cook failed". Media coverage is going to be different that's a given. How much of that contributes to Apple's decline or not will remain to be seen.
He rarely shared credit by name.
I'd like to know who was the glass keyboard prototype designer who also showed him a sample tablet GUI that made Jobs interested in doing a touch phone in the first place. We all owe that person.
Anyone can say "Let's build a phone", but you need the right people and the right product mission definition. Steve gave the latter, by being the ultimate customer that everyone had to please. A great talent, but useless without others to innovate and execute.
I'd also like to know the name of the guy who showed him inertial scrolling. If that had never happened, the iPhone would have had scrollbars and our experience would be much different now.
As for the future, I think that now we might see more new features more often, instead of being trickled out or delayed for a long time simply because Jobs wasn't that interested in them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Cook introduced more features from competing devices such as WebOS style multitasking and Android style widgets. At least, I hope so
you talk like an IBM guu to me. Steve chose Tim, yes. If he chose somebody else, without a degree, it would give a great demo. But you cannot find anybody else like Steve. Tim is going to be a great CEO, he's already served as CEO before, when Jobs had been on leave.