Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ApfelKuchen

macrumors 601
Aug 28, 2012
4,335
3,012
Between the coasts
There would be no Apple Watch. It is a product without a reason.

There would be no Apple Music. People want to own music.

Siri would be relegated to Accessibility and downgraded in importance. It would never be mentioned as a feature.

Beats would never have been bought.

The iPhone line would have been expanded to all markets like the iPod. Market share would be over 60% as opposed to the 15% it has today.

The iPad line would also have been expanded to all markets, and at the same time, the line would be much more focused.

The App Store and iTunes would both have been completely overhauled. Prices would have been cut to compete with Amazon. Games enticing children into gambling addicts with in-app purchases would have been banned. Discoverability of apps would have been transformed. Developers would be much happier and more successful than they are today.

There would be 13" and 15" Retina MacBook Air models.

The iPhone would come in 64GB, 128GB and 256GB sizes. The iPad would offer a 1TB version.

iPad would gain its own branch of iOS called iPadOS. It would feature a flexible file system like the Mac. All iCloud services would be free and offer 1TB of storage.

iTunes Match would come to films and tv. All DVDs ripped would be accessible via streaming and downloadable from all devices. iBooks would be overhauled, syncing would happen properly, prices reduced, and audiobooks would be similarly synced via iCloud.

The iPad Pro would have still come in 13", but the bezels would be much reduced.

Battery life in all iOS devices would be at least 13 hours compared to 10 hours today.

There would have been no political or social activism by Apple or Jobs whatsoever.

The share price would be around $200.

Yep. If he was alive today, Steve would hate everything I hate, and make all my wishes come true.

For most of human existence, when people wanted a dead person to do something for them, they'd pray, and maybe burn some incense or light a candle. These days, they post on Internet forums. Both approaches are equally effective.

In Disney fandom (and within parts of the Disney organization), they still ask, "WWWD," (What Would Walt Do?). The man will be dead 50 years this coming December! Steve, during his years at Pixar and later as a Disney board member, was undoubtedly aware of this, and of the corporate paralysis that set in at the Walt Disney Company in the decades immediately following Walt's death. Walt kept his cancer a secret until the end, and took almost no steps to prepare his company for his demise. In that regard, Steve did not do what Walt did.

Steve and Walt have probably become fast friends in the Afterlife, considering how much they have in common. I'd like to think they're having a good laugh, on a very regular basis. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa and navaira

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
If Steve Jobs was around there wouldn't be so many bugs in iOS, OS X and watchOS.
I remember getting OS X 1.0 and it was barely stable, it was by far one of the most buggiest versions of OS X. I don't think you can make your claim, given Apple's history of rolling out operating systems under the leadership of Jobs.
 

Beavix

macrumors 6502a
Dec 1, 2010
705
549
Romania
I remember getting OS X 1.0 and it was barely stable, it was by far one of the most buggiest versions of OS X. I don't think you can make your claim, given Apple's history of rolling out operating systems under the leadership of Jobs.

Not a good example. The first couple of Mac OS X versions were emergency releases. Apple had to push them out no matter what, just to show everybody that they were still alive and that they had something, anything, to replace the dated Mac OS 9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
Not a good example. The first couple of Mac OS X versions were emergency releases. Apple had to push them out no matter what, just to show everybody that they were still alive and that they had something, anything, to replace the dated Mac OS 9.
Why not? OS X was Steve's baby he had everything riding on it, yet he chose to release an operating system full of bugs.

You stated that if Steve around, OS X (iOS and and watchOS) would not have as many bugs. You cannot move the goal posts and say those don't count. In fact given how much was riding on apple's succesful transition from the legacy system to OS X, it was even more important to hit the ground running
 
Last edited:

BillyMatt87

macrumors 6502a
Dec 23, 2013
636
823
Steve definitely wouldn't have:

- Fired Scott Forstall, therefore the overall quality of iOS would remain intact.

- Bought Beats, with Steve's extensive knowledge and love of music as well as industry connections, Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre would seem redundant. Therefore Apple Music would have no reason to exist!

- Bloated the product lines the way Tim Cook has been doing. After all, that was one of the very first things Jobs sought to correct when he returned to Apple.

- Hired Angela Ahrenldz and try to turn Apple into a luxury fashion statement.

- Released the Apple Watch, or at least in its current state.

- Released the iPad Pro and Apple Pencil, the iPad mini barely got the green light from Jobs shortly before his passing so anything bigger than 9.7" would be pushing it and cannibalizing the Mac. And we all know how Jobs felt about styluses.

I think it's safe to say there are many things that Tim Cook has done as CEO that Jobs would not approve of. That's not a good thing either...
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,392
19,461
Steve definitely wouldn't have:

- Fired Scott Forstall, therefore the overall quality of iOS would remain intact.

- Bought Beats, with Steve's extensive knowledge and love of music as well as industry connections, Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre would seem redundant. Therefore Apple Music would have no reason to exist!

- Bloated the product lines the way Tim Cook has been doing. After all, that was one of the very first things Jobs sought to correct when he returned to Apple.

- Hired Angela Ahrenldz and try to turn Apple into a luxury fashion statement.

- Released the Apple Watch, or at least in its current state.

- Released the iPad Pro and Apple Pencil, the iPad mini barely got the green light from Jobs shortly before his passing so anything bigger than 9.7" would be pushing it and cannibalizing the Mac. And we all know how Jobs felt about styluses.

I think it's safe to say there are many things that Tim Cook has done as CEO that Jobs would not approve of. That's not a good thing either...
"Definitely"?
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
I think it's safe to say there are many things that Tim Cook has done as CEO that Jobs would not approve of. That's not a good thing either...
Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, and he's not trying to be and that's not a bad thing. Even Steve Jobs approved moves that Cook made while Jobs was alive but no longer running Apple. Even though Jobs would not have made those type of decisions the way Cook did. He was ok with it.

Walt Disney died in 1966, during the late 60s and 70s, the Disney corporation tried to make decisions that Walt would have made, basically they tried to run it like Walt. That almost turned disastrous because there was only one Walt Disney. They barely survived a number of take over attempts, they were not making a lot of money. It wasn't until they brought in a new CEO to turn things around and not run things as Walt used too.

My point in bringing that up is, it would be bad for Apple for people to keep asking What would Steve do. Instead Cook is running it the best way he can. Some things I may agree with, some things I don't. Guess what, I felt the same way when Jobs was running the show. I agreed with some of his moves and not others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy

BillyMatt87

macrumors 6502a
Dec 23, 2013
636
823
Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, and he's not trying to be and that's not a bad thing. Even Steve Jobs approved moves that Cook made while Jobs was alive but no longer running Apple. Even though Jobs would not have made those type of decisions the way Cook did. He was ok with it.

Walt Disney died in 1966, during the late 60s and 70s, the Disney corporation tried to make decisions that Walt would have made, basically they tried to run it like Walt. That almost turned disastrous because there was only one Walt Disney. They barely survived a number of take over attempts, they were not making a lot of money. It wasn't until they brought in a new CEO to turn things around and not run things as Walt used too.

My point in bringing that up is, it would be bad for Apple for people to keep asking What would Steve do. Instead Cook is running it the best way he can. Some things I may agree with, some things I don't. Guess what, I felt the same way when Jobs was running the show. I agreed with some of his moves and not others.

I think it also has to do with Tim Cook deliberately throwing away a winning formula instead of working with what Steve left for him. For example, software was much better under Forstall before he was let go, Jony Ive didn't have absolute control over the entire design process, the product lineup was simple and streamlined and they had a retail VP that didn't try to market Apple as a fashion brand. Just to name a few.

It's one thing to not completely emulate your predecessor but it's something entirely else when you try to undo all the things that made Apple so successful for the sake of profits and trying to make your own mark. It's like he's actively trying to be the opposite of Steve just for the sake of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,392
19,461
I think it also has to do with Tim Cook deliberately throwing away a winning formula instead of working with what Steve left for him. For example, software was much better under Forstall before he was let go, Jony Ive didn't have absolute control over the entire design process, the product lineup was simple and streamlined and they had a retail VP that didn't try to market Apple as a fashion brand. Just to name a few.

It's one thing to not completely emulate your predecessor but it's something entirely else when you try to undo all the things that made Apple so successful for the sake of profits and trying to make your own mark. It's like he's actively trying to be the opposite of Steve just for the sake of it.
Profits wouldn't really be there if things that are being done aren't successful, right?
 

BillyMatt87

macrumors 6502a
Dec 23, 2013
636
823
Profits wouldn't really be there if things that are being done aren't successful, right?
At the cost of quality and focus? It's all a matter of what Cook really care about, the products or the profits? At least Jobs found a balance but Cook is known for his bean-counting expertise so his involvement in the creation and development process is probably very little to none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,392
19,461
At the cost of quality and focus? It's all a matter of what Cook really care about, the products or the profits? At least Jobs found a balance but Cook is known for his bean-counting expertise so his involvement in the creation and development process is probably very little to none.
Well, if quality and focus would suffer so much that would mean so would success and accordingly so would profits, right?
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
35,142
25,216
Gotta be in it to win it
Well, if quality and focus would suffer so much that would mean so would success and accordingly so would profits, right?
As long as units, sales and profits are basically on the upswing it means TC is doing his job, whether one likes him or not.

Seems like this is the new apple; and I like their products and am about to get my first macbook pro.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
Well, if quality and focus would suffer so much that would mean so would success and accordingly so would profits, right?
Not just profits, but how in the computer line they're actually increasing market share while the industry has sales shrinking.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.