It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company. Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?
Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?
It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company. Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?
It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company. Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?
It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company. Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?
Have you read this take? It's not directly about innovation but IMO it speaks to how Apple has recently been pulling off things at a scale that's Jobs Apple never could.It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company. Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?
Have you read this take? It's not directly about innovation but IMO it speaks to how Apple has recently been pulling off things at a scale that's Jobs Apple never could.
http://daringfireball.net/2014/06/only_apple
I really agree with Gruber's take on this. I'd go so far as to say that I sincerely believe that Cook is a far better CEO than Jobs.
Wow, I actually totally agree with Gruber for once. For all the flak the guy takes, the only place where I believe Tim Cook pales in comparison to Steve Jobs is in showmanship. And while stage presence is a nice thing to have, it's not exactly what I'd call a must-have skill for a CEO. When it comes to actually running a company, it seems that Tim Cook is doing a much, much better at job of it.
Apple's bigger and more appealing than they've ever been. Jobs does deserve a ton of credit for this, of course, but while he's always been good at creating a stir and shaking things up, he's never really been able to carry that momentum forward for any length of time. Apple has always been too slow to capitalize and build upon their own good ideas past that initial unveiling, allowing the competition to eventually catch up, and surpass them. They weren't that competitive of a company, and they've kinda suffered because of it. They were more a boutique computer shop that happened to make billions in their own little niche than they were the head of an industry.
Under Cook, Apple has become a much more widely spread consumer focused company without having to sacrifice anything to get there. He's been able to harness that initial burst of momentum and carry it forward in ways Jobs was never able to. Granted, Apple under Cook is a little less likely to unveil that Next Big Thing, but big industry shaking products like the iPhone and iPad only come around once every decade or two, if even that. Beyond that one downside, you're far more likely to be happy living in an all Apple environment for a longer period of time, and you don't feel like you have to sacrifice some things to continue enjoying that quality.
Apple is a much better company overall, and they've got a lot more to offer these days than they ever did under Jobs.
That doesn't mean Cook is uninvolved in product decisions. Since he took over, the company has released a number of upgrades, including a smaller tablet, the iPad Mini. Cook "thought the world would love a smaller and less expensive tablet," said Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of Disney and a member of Apple's board. It was a product that Jobs thought did not have a market, he said.
It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company.
They've always been evolutionary.
They didn't invent the personal computer.
They didn't invent the mouse/GUI.
They didn't invent the laser printer.
They didn't invent networking.
They didn't invent the laptop*
They didn't invent USB
They didn't un-invent the floppy drive
They didn't invent the small-form-factor computer
They didn't invent the MP3 player
They didn't invent the online music store
They didn't invent the smartphone or the tablet computer**.
They didn't invent laptops with > 1080p screens
They didn't invent the solid-state drive
...but Apple products played a major role in popularising these things by doing them well and marketing them well. That's part of innovation.
Their next innovation will come from something that's already out there but hasn't been very well realised or properly marketed. They might do it with the iWatch, they might do it with online TV, they might do it with home automation.
* The Powerbook 100 was the first popular laptop to adopt the modern design with the set-back keyboard and pointing device in the middle of the 'wrist rest'.
** Ironically, the Newton has a stronger claim to being the first tablet computer (and the progenitor for the 'smart' bit of pre-iPhone smartphones) - and that was Scully's baby, which Jobs killed. I think there were pre-Newton attempts at tablets, though.
Apple has never really been revolutionary. For the most part they take existing products and transform them into something desirable and marketable to the general populace. ....
It seems Apple post Jobs is an evolutionary company rather than a revolutionary company. Is there any one working at Apple now that can make Apple what it was (or better)? Ives perhaps?