Is Tim Cook still the right choice as CEO?

[IJ Reilly]

He seems to be a great manager, that is managing resources, managing people. I see a lack of fire, and a lack of direction with him.

Steve Jobs passed away in October 2011, what has Apple done as a company since his passing?

iPad 3/4/air - thinner iPad with a retina screen
iPad mini - a smaller iPad (now with retina)
iPhone 4s/5/5s/5c - a longer iPhone and now with a plastic case.
RMBP - a MBP with a better screen
nMP - years over due but a complete redesign

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's been no new products from apple since the iPad. Google, Samsung and others are working on different products to bring to the market. Some of them don't work out, but you know what, they're bringing them out.

Google chromecast, google glass, Samsung galaxy watch.

It seems Apple lacks direction and fire. The rumored TV and iWatch appear to be having issues, why has it taken years (both were rumored since 2011) with nothing to show.

The first thing we need to keep in mind is that Tim Cook was running Apple in actual fact long before Steve succumbed. Steve was on leave twice, and we have to assume not spending a whole lot of time running Apple in between. So a lot of what gets credited to Steve is in reality Tim's doing, at least in terms of management and leadership.

The second is that Apple is a huge company now, with tens of thousands of employees. At this stage, either the company's culture is productive and secure, or it isn't. If it is still a cult of personality that can only be run by one person, then Apple is done, or maybe it was never what we thought it was in the first place.

That said, I think we are frustrated with cause. It isn't so much that Apple lacks anything under Cook's leadership that it had in abundance when Steve was with us (with the obvious exception of a rock star spokesman), as much as it seems that the need for moving faster is so apparent, and Apple is not moving faster. I don't want to see them taking potshots at markets like Google or Samsung just so they can say they did, but I do want to see them harness the immense power they've accumulated to blow away some of these half-baked competitor's products on a more regular basis. They should be able to do this and preserve their reputation for getting it right at the same time.

I think Tim is the right person to do this, but I am getting tired of waiting.

 

[Rogifan]

The first thing we need to keep in mind is that Tim Cook was running Apple in actual fact long before Steve succumbed. Steve was on leave twice, and we have to assume not spending a whole lot of time running Apple in between. So a lot of what gets credited to Steve is in reality Tim's doing, at least in terms of management and leadership.

The second is that Apple is a huge company now, with tens of thousands of employees. At this stage, either the company's culture is productive and secure, or it isn't. If it is still a cult of personality that can only be run by one person, then Apple is done, or maybe it was never what we thought it was in the first place.

That said, I think we are frustrated with cause. It isn't so much that Apple lacks anything under Cook's leadership that it had in abundance when Steve was with us (with the obvious exception of a rock star spokesman), as much as it seems that the need for moving faster is so apparent, and Apple is not moving faster. I don't want to see them taking potshots at markets like Google or Samsung just so they can say they did, but I do want to see them harness the immense power they've accumulated to blow away some of these half-baked competitor's products on a more regular basis. They should be able to do this and preserve their reputation for getting it right at the same time.

I think Tim is the right person to do this, but I am getting tired of waiting.

How did you all survive between 2001 and 2007?

 

[maflynn]

The first thing we need to keep in mind is that Tim Cook was running Apple in actual fact long before Steve succumbed. Steve was on leave twice, and we have to assume not spending a whole lot of time running Apple in between. So a lot of what gets credited to Steve is in reality Tim's doing, at least in terms of management and leadership.

I know he was, but Jobs was still making sure that products were being produced in a manner and quality that he expected and he'd call them out if not.

I don't want to see them taking potshots at markets like Google or Samsung just so they can say they did,

There's taking potshots (which Samsung does) and there's taking calculated risks, which Google does. They manage the risks very adeptly. Just look at google glass. If they suddenly released google glass a couple of years ago to general sales it probably would not have the same level of buzz that they now have.

My issue is the slow pace, we've heard about the iWatch and iTV products for so many years and for the iWatch how much trouble apple is having with the design and manufacturing. That is very un-apple like. While issues can arise, I think there's a difference where Jobs would demand a working solution ASAP and Cooks is out looking for someone to hire to help them with the design.

 

[jb1280]

There's taking potshots (which Samsung does) and there's taking calculated risks, which Google does. They manage the risks very adeptly. Just look at google glass. If they suddenly released google glass a couple of years ago to general sales it probably would not have the same level of buzz that they now have.

My issue is the slow pace, we've heard about the iWatch and iTV products for so many years and for the iWatch how much trouble apple is having with the design and manufacturing. That is very un-apple like. While issues can arise, I think there's a difference where Jobs would demand a working solution ASAP and Cooks is out looking for someone to hire to help them with the design.

I think your concern is very much misspent and based on rather superficial observations.

One question already asked is if not Tim Cook, then who? The fact is that any person who has the capability of Steve Jobs will start their own company rather than take the helm at a tech company ending its fourth decade.

Cook seems to exude Apple's culture. The time to worry about Apple is when the executives who were with the company during its revival begin to retire. I'm far more concerned about a post-Cook & Ive Apple than its short term growth.

Sure, since being named CEO in August 2011, Cook has not introduced any new product categories, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been significant change throughout the company and its product line. A few examples.

1. The Fall 2012 dismissal of Forstall and reorganization of the company's executive team. The Apple of 2013 beyond is Tim Cook's Apple for better or worse. A CEO that simply wanted to manage the status quo would never have made such a move.

2. iOS 7. Sure, it remains controversial and buggy to many, but it did not kill Apple's iOS business and those predicting doom with adoption were certainly wrong.

3. Taking OS X on an annual release schedule.

4. iPad Air (and to an extent iPad mini). These really do reflect the epitome of tablet design in a way Macbook Air is the epitome of notebook design. There's something profound of doing to the tablet form factor in four years, what it took nearly two decades for the notebook form factor.

What are some structural perceived and real challenges Apple has going forward?

1. There will be no business as profitable as iPhone again for a company's whose revenues are based on hardware. The combination of carrier subsidies and Cook's supply-chain wizardry has created a uniquely profitable situation.

2. You claim that Apple cannot compete with the R&D chops of companies like Samsung, Google, and Microsoft. What precisely has Samsung, Google, and Microsoft shown that is truly innovative in defining a product category. Samsung certainly hasn't. Microsoft hasn't shown anything that is a blockbuster in recent years. Google Glass is certainly interesting, but it seems like its been talked about for years, yet it still isn't mass market. Apple may or may not have something brewing that is similarly interesting, but it will never be shown until it's basically ready to go.

3. Apple gets no breaks. When Apple has its next media event for a new product category, expectations are for nothing less than a blockbuster. Apple has been criticized for months about the failure of iPhone 5C. I'm sure Samsung, Google, and Microsoft would love sale numbers as bad as iPhone 5C. If Apple had introduced Samsung Galaxy Gear, Nexus Q, Surface, or Glass in the way their respective firms did, everyone would go absolutely crazy and would have every right to do so. The margin for real failure is zero.

4. There is no obvious next step for computing. Before iPhone and iPad there was at least the notion that more mobile and personal devices could be used to communicate, consume content, and be productive. I'm not sold on the idea that wearables (whether sensors or things like Glass) will disrupt mobile platforms at all. Indeed, I think phones, tablets, and devices like chrome books will be the hegemonic computing devices far longer than the PC ever was. As a result, big new growth in devices is probably over. The next decade will be based on adding value to existing platforms, through dongles for televisions, wearables, and sensors for the home. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and it's a problem that I don't even think Steve Jobs could fix.

 

[Plutonius]

I'd love to hear what others think.

Possibly, but we can't really have a good discussion till you tell us who you think should be the CEO. If you don't have a person in mind, how can you say Tim Cook is not the right choice as CEO ?

 

[IJ Reilly]

How did you all survive between 2001 and 2007?

Maybe you missed it, but Apple's earnings were growing like steadily during most of that time, and the stock went up around 2000%. Other than that, it was tough going.

 

[jb1280]

Maybe you missed it, but Apple's earnings were growing like steadily during most of that time, and the stock went up around 2000%. Other than that, it was tough going.

I believe he was referencing the gap between iPod and iPhone and people's demand for a new product category in 2014.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I know he was, but Jobs was still making sure that products were being produced in a manner and quality that he expected and he'd call them out if not.


There's taking potshots (which Samsung does) and there's taking calculated risks, which Google does. They manage the risks very adeptly. Just look at google glass. If they suddenly released google glass a couple of years ago to general sales it probably would not have the same level of buzz that they now have.

My issue is the slow pace, we've heard about the iWatch and iTV products for so many years and for the iWatch how much trouble apple is having with the design and manufacturing. That is very un-apple like. While issues can arise, I think there's a difference where Jobs would demand a working solution ASAP and Cooks is out looking for someone to hire to help them with the design.

So goes the story, but we have absolutely no evidence that Cook conducts himself any differently. As you will recall, the iPhone was a rumored product for years before it ever saw the light of day, and the reason, or so we were told, is that Jobs rejected one attempt after another until he thought they'd got it right. It could very well be that the same thing is happening with new products in the pipeline at this very moment. I have no reason to think otherwise, do you? In fact the process ongoing now looks very Apple-like to me, perhaps too much so, in that it takes them a lot of time to bring new products to market. I do think they need to move more quickly than in the past.

I see Google as a company with corporate ADD. Almost nothing looks finished before they move onto something else. Glass got them a lot of attention, but some of it was quite negative, and I can only imagine the criticism Apple would take if they released a product that wasn't wildly profitable right out of the gate, no matter how buzz worthy it was. So I don't see releasing unprofitable, half-baked products as managing risk, I see it as not very good business. I don't want Apple to be more like Google. I want to see them be like Apple on jet fuel.

----------

I believe he was referencing the gap between iPod and iPhone and people's demand for a new product category in 2014.

I know exactly what he was referencing, but he didn't actually respond to anything I said. We "survived" that time period because Apple was already growing earnings at a gangbusters rate on the basis of the products they were already selling. At this point, they are not. Also, the iTunes store was opened during this time period, when supposedly nothing was happening at Apple -- making the statement highly misleading, at the very least.

 

[jb1280]

I know exactly what he was referencing, but he didn't actually respond to anything I said. We "survived" that time period because Apple was already growing earnings at a gangbusters rate on the basis of the products they were already selling. At this point, they are not. Also, the iTunes store was opened during this time period, when supposedly nothing was happening at Apple -- making the statement highly misleading, at the very least.

I apologize for not closely reading the following posts. You are absolutely right that during that period Apple was rolling out significant products and services. There was the growth of iTunes services and the expansion of the iPod line. That said, at its height, there were less than 60 million iPods sold per year with many retail prices below $300. In FY 2013, Apple sold over 150 million iPhones and over 71 million iPads with the entry price above $300 going as high as $929.

There are two questions about Apple's future growth. Will iPad numbers equal iPhone numbers as phone growth slows? Can Apple create a market where they can eventually sell hundred of millions of units a year at high retail prices and high margins?

I think Apple's growth period is over, and even Steve Jobs wouldn't be able to fix that. Paradoxically, I think Apple's best days as far as technologies, services, and devices are still ahead.

Edit: I invision a situation where in the next few years Apple releases a compelling refresh to Apple TV, some sort of wearable device, and something similar to a Nest, all with a MSRP around $100. Let's say 10% of people buying a new iOS device each year buy one of each ancillary device. That's 45 million or more new devices sold each year, but it certainly won't grow the company in as meaningful a way as iPhone or iPad. It does add value to the platform, it does innovate in various areas, and it adds stickiness to the platform.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

When Tim Cook first took over the helm for Steve, I was enthusiastic and very much in favor of this move, based upon what I had heard and read about Tim's performance and skills in his previous role.

As time has passed and Apple has undergone some significant changes, I honestly believe that Tim Cook is not the right person to be in the CEO role. I must assume, without knowing for certain, that he is still just as qualified and skilled in his operations abilities, but I can't get away from the sense that Apple is significantly lacking in the top management sphere. I am trying not to compare his public performances with those remembered from the Jobs days, but Tim is far from inspiring or exciting from my public perception.

Nobody, but, nobody, was better at marketing than Steve, and, everybody knew it, so, Wall Street had to back off. But, you knew, even then, that when Steve passed away, the Wall Street vultures would start circling, and, they have. Now, Apple's cash, which meant that Apple could always pay cash on the barrel head for components, has become a liability. The vultures want that cash, and they want Apple to take on debt like everybody else.

Steve also made costly mistakes, but, his huge successes made Wall Street shut up-- Apple was his company twice over. His successor will never be able to make that many costly mistakes, and therefore, won't have the risky successes either. So, in my humble opinion, the changes that you are seeing and will continue to see are almost inevitable. In may ways Apple is a perfect example of the successful side of capitalism; now you are going to see the bad side, as Wall Street drags Apple down into mediocrity.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There are two questions about Apple's future growth. Will iPad numbers equal iPhone numbers as phone growth slows? Can Apple create a market where they can eventually sell hundred of millions of units a year at high retail prices and high margins?

I think Apple's growth period is over, and even Steve Jobs wouldn't be able to fix that. Paradoxically, I think Apple's best days as far as technologies, services, and devices are still ahead.

Edit: I invision a situation where in the next few years Apple releases a compelling refresh to Apple TV, some sort of wearable device, and something similar to a Nest, all with a MSRP around $100. Let's say 10% of people buying a new iOS device each year buy one of each ancillary device. That's 45 million or more new devices sold each year, but it certainly won't grow the company in as meaningful a way as iPhone or iPad. It does add value to the platform, it does innovate in various areas, and it adds stickiness to the platform.

Apple's period of 30-40% annual growth may be over, but growth at a more modest rate is certainly possible if the new products come, and they are successful. A 10% annual rate of earnings growth would be quite achievable and satisfactory at this point.

----------

Nobody, but, nobody, was better at marketing than Steve, and, everybody knew it, so, Wall Street had to back off. But, you knew, even then, that when Steve passed away, the Wall Street vultures would start circling, and, they have. Now, Apple's cash, which meant that Apple could always pay cash on the barrel head for components, has become a liability. The vultures want that cash, and they want Apple to take on debt like everybody else.

Steve also made costly mistakes, but, his huge successes made Wall Street shut up-- Apple was his company twice over. His successor will never be able to make that many costly mistakes, and therefore, won't have the risky successes either. So, in my humble opinion, the changes that you are seeing and will continue to see are almost inevitable. In may ways Apple is a perfect example of the successful side of capitalism; now you are going to see the bad side, as Wall Street drags Apple down into mediocrity.

When a company succeeds, someone always says it was because of "marketing," whatever that means. No, it's about making products that people want. No amount of "marketing" can overcome undesirable products. The "Wall Street Vultures" (another vague but familiar target) have nothing to do with Apple's current position, which is predicated entirely on declining earnings. Wall Street can't "drag" Apple anywhere that they didn't go all by themselves.

 

[sixrom]

It's senseless and irrelevant to compare Tim to Steve. Considering Cook has had his hands full with internal power struggles between top execs, much of which has not been published, I believe he's done a stellar job. Perfect..No, but I doubt anyone could satisfy those who worshiped Jobs.

In regards to the lack of exciting new products, and the repeated claims of big things to come, it's highly likely that is a far more complex issue than many can imagine.

I have confidence that once Apple resolves their inner conflicts, they'll return to the once productive company they were. At least during the lull, they've still coasted along making massive profits.

This is a New Apple like it or not, their once competitive advantage is gone, they're playing on a level playing field were competition is formidable.

Times change and things change, Apple has it's work cut out for them. Google's on a roll like never before. Like them or hate them, they've pulled out a very substantial lead at warp speed.

One that has tarnished Apples reputation in the eyes of many.

 

[maflynn]

I can only imagine the criticism Apple would take if they released a product that wasn't wildly profitable right out of the gate, no matter how buzz worthy it was.

Not quite a new product but I think the iPhone 5c falls under this category. Apple had to cut back manufacturing a number of times because of less demand then expected.

So I don't see releasing unprofitable, half-baked products as managing risk, I see it as not very good business. I don't want Apple to be more like Google. I want to see them be like Apple on jet fuel.

Agreed, but by the same token, I want Apple to do something. All we have is Cook saying for the past couple of years wait and see. He keeps promising that they have some great products in the pipeline. Promises only get you so far and with growth of the iPhones slowing/stabilizing as they are Investors and people are looking to apple to see what's next.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Not quite a new product but I think the iPhone 5c falls under this category. Apple had to cut back manufacturing a number of times because of less demand then expected.


Agreed, but by the same token, I want Apple to do something. All we have is Cook saying for the past couple of years wait and see. He keeps promising that they have some great products in the pipeline. Promises only get you so far and with growth of the iPhones slowing/stabilizing as they are Investors and people are looking to apple to see what's next.

I'd say promises get you exactly nowhere, unless you're willing to float new products that you have absolutely no intention of releasing, just to hamstring the competition. This is not Apple's way of doing business, but once in awhile I wouldn't mind if they ripped that page from Microsoft's playbook. If they aren't going to make a move in a market, or if that move is a ways off, they shouldn't allow the competition to get a leg up through inaction.

 

[thekev]

This is not Apple's way of doing business, but once in awhile I wouldn't mind if they ripped that page from Microsoft's playbook. If they aren't going to make a move in a market, or if that move is a ways off, they shouldn't allow the competition to get a leg up through inaction.

You really want Apple to become everything that is wrong with the corporate world? Blah my statement sounds a bit hyperbolic, but while there's nothing wrong with researching things they might do, that does not necessitate stifling smaller players.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

When a company succeeds, someone always says it was because of "marketing," whatever that means. No, it's about making products that people want. No amount of "marketing" can overcome undesirable products.

You have it backwards. The woods are littered with forgotten quality products and the companies that made them. Having a quality product is step one, "helping" people understand that they want it is step two. Steve was a marketing genius. I'm not sure why someone would object to that observation.

The "Wall Street Vultures" (another vague but familiar target) have nothing to do with Apple's current position, which is predicated entirely on declining earnings. Wall Street can't "drag" Apple anywhere that they didn't go all by themselves.

We will have to agree to disagree about this. I have total contempt for those individuals who manipulate the system to gain control over companies, pull money out, and then declare bankruptcy over the bones. It may be legal (sometimes), but, it is immoral. And, not only do they often succeed in destroying shareholder value (to the advantage of their own bank accounts), they also defraud employees depending on pensions and 401k's, as well as other stakeholders who worked with a company with the understanding that certain shared values would be upheld. When people talk about "Wall Street Vultures", they are talking about a defect in the system that lets financial manipulation for personal gain destroy valuable assets of public companies.

 

[IJ Reilly]

You really want Apple to become everything that is wrong with the corporate world? Blah my statement sounds a bit hyperbolic, but while there's nothing wrong with researching things they might do, that does not necessitate stifling smaller players.

I want them to defend their turf. If this means not being so secretive about products that are coming down the pipeline, then I think that's a good tradeoff against a growing perception that their competitors are running rings around them.

----------

You have it backwards. The woods are littered with forgotten quality products and the companies that made them. Having a quality product is step one, "helping" people understand that they want it is step two. Steve was a marketing genius. I'm not sure why someone would object to that observation.



We will have to agree to disagree about this. I have total contempt for those individuals who manipulate the system to gain control over companies, pull money out, and then declare bankruptcy over the bones. It may be legal (sometimes), but, it is immoral. And, not only do they often succeed in destroying shareholder value (to the advantage of their own bank accounts), they also defraud employees depending on pensions and 401k's, as well as other stakeholders who worked with a company with the understanding that certain shared values would be upheld. When people talk about "Wall Street Vultures", they are talking about a defect in the system that lets financial manipulation for personal gain destroy valuable assets of public companies.

Nope, I have it forwards, no matter how hard you try to twist my point to something more convenient for you. When people talk about "Wall Street Vultures" they are trying to make an emotional point rather than a logical one, as you have demonstrated quite neatly here.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Nope, I have it forwards, no matter how hard you try to twist my point to something more convenient for you. When people talk about "Wall Street Vultures" they are trying to make an emotional point rather than a logical one, as you have demonstrated quite neatly here.

I'm not sure what logical point you are trying to make.


Here is a little light reading on "Wall Street Vultures".

Raiders work their wizardry on an all-American company
When takeover artists targeted Simplicity Pattern Co., it had $100 million in reserves. Today, it is $100 million in debt.

--

Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS
POSTED: Saturday, October 26, 1991, 3:00 AM

Editor's note: The following story ran Oct. 26, 1991, on Day Seven of the nine-day "America: What went wrong?" series published in the Inquirer.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/From_the_archive_Raiders_work_their_wizardry_on_an_All-American_company.html

 

[Rogifan]

Not quite a new product but I think the iPhone 5c falls under this category. Apple had to cut back manufacturing a number of times because of less demand then expected.

Source?

 

[pdjudd]

While I don’t have a link, Tim Cook in the earnings admitted that the 5c didn’t meet their expectations but did day that the 5s sold way more than expected. I don’t know about the “a number of times” since we have no way to accurately determine anything about their manufacturing numbers with any certainty.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure what logical point you are trying to make.

I wasn't trying to make a "logical point" aside from noting that you had failed to make one yourself. You can't expect to make an emotional point and then demand a logical response.

Your corporate raiders link does not make your point, which seemed to be about Apple.

 

[thekev]

If they aren't going to make a move in a market

I want them to defend their turf. If this means not being so secretive about products that are coming down the pipeline, then I think that's a good tradeoff against a growing perception that their competitors are running rings around them.

Perhaps I interpreted this incorrectly? I was looking more at the first condition than the second part of that sentence. You qualified it with "if they aren't going to make a move". At that point how is it defending their turf? It sounds like you suggested that they meddle with markets where they don't currently intend to develop products just to slow others in case they ever change their minds.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps I interpreted this incorrectly? I was looking more at the first condition than the second part of that sentence. You qualified it with "if they aren't going to make a move". At that point how is it defending their turf? It sounds like you suggested that they meddle with markets where they don't currently intend to develop products just to slow others in case they ever change their minds.

Both, and not mutually exclusive concepts. Apple no doubt thinks a lot about how they'd work into any number of product markets, some of which they enter, many others, they don't, or just haven't yet. Even in markets where they are tentative participants, in the long run, they can't afford to have consumers believe that they are asleep. The "smart TV" market is one where consumers are making product choices right now, choices that will last them five years or more and foreclose a lot of opportunity for Apple. It wouldn't be "meddling" in that market for Apple to talk about how they're working on solving the TV problem.

 

[thekev]

It wouldn't be "meddling" in that market for Apple to talk about how they're working on solving the TV problem.

I may have misunderstood. I wasn't implying that. What I meant to discourage was the act of attempting to develop IP for the sole purpose of litigation in a market where they don't intend to participate. This was what came to mind when you mentioned Microsoft's playbook. I dislike attempts to ensure that a market does not develop simply because one company is uninterested in it. There is however nothing wrong with saying you're working on something if you are in fact working on it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I may have misunderstood. I wasn't implying that. What I meant to discourage was the act of attempting to develop IP for the sole purpose of litigation in a market where they don't intend to participate. This was what came to mind when you mentioned Microsoft's playbook. I dislike attempts to ensure that a market does not develop simply because one company is uninterested in it. There is however nothing wrong with saying you're working on something if you are in fact working on it.

Microsoft has taken things to one extreme, Apple to another. In the former case Microsoft making their plans public hasn't necessarily been for the purposes of litigating, so much as to suck the air out of a competitor's sails. In some instances they clearly never had the intention of actually shipping. That's just nasty, and potentially illegal. Apple's extreme of not wanting anyone to know anything about forthcoming products until they jump out of the magic hat fully-formed seems unwise in the present competitive environment. I wouldn't mind them throwing their weight around a little. Everybody else does.