Better Apple CEO not named Jobs?

[AppleStart2013]

Both Tim Cook and John Sculley served around 10-years as CEO, who do you think did a better job?

 

[casperes1996]

If anyone picks Sculley they're mental

 

[ruslan120]

Jobs and Cook both served at the appropriate time. More innovation and creativity under Jobs while Apple was smaller, transitioning to a profit-driven tech behemoth while managing the growth well under Cook.

Plus, better is subjective. Better under Jobs as a consumer for getting cool products. Better under Cook as a shareholder for profit.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

For sure, Steve would say Tim.

After all Steve picked Tim to stand in as interim CEO twice (during medical leaves of absence) and personally endorsed Tim as his successor when he was dying of cancer.

For AAPL shareholders (both direct and indirect) this is a no-brainer.

 

[SnacksGU]

Apple is today what Jobs created. Cook has successfully not blown it.

 

[pmiles]

There was a time when they fired Jobs... and at that time... it was the best move ever. It put a fire under Jobs to get his act together.

Tim Cook is doing exactly what the shareholders want him to do. The Company has never been more profitable... it's just not the same Company it used to be. This Company is poised to be around for a very long time because of it.

 

[mpetrides]

I couldn't agree more with pmiles. Tim Cook has stabilized the company after Steve Jobs' brilliant innovation accompanied by mercurial business leadership. Under Cook's leadership iPhone and, to a lesser extent, iPad continue to do well. In addition, we've had Apple Watch and the move to Apple Silicon Macs, which I profoundly hope marks the resurgence of the Mac, not to mention the ever burgeoning Apple Services market. I don't understand folks who denigrate Cook for lack of innovation. Not everything Steve Jobs touched was a success and not every innovation of his was a brilliant step forward for Apple.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Cook.