It's an early access developer toy. There never will be any apps without some working hardware to develop them with.
The oculus dev kit didn't hit mass market either.
🤷♂️
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.
The end of Tim Cook's reign is near.
- Thread starter Pearple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's an early access developer toy. There never will be any apps without some working hardware to develop them with.
The oculus dev kit didn't hit mass market either.
🤷♂️
This.
I think Craig is too involved in the software side to be focused on running the business in its entirety. i.e., the boring stuff like dealing with manufacturers.
MLS has higher attendance than MLB now, so your assessment that it isn’t a “serious sports league” is flawed.
Really? Oof, baseball’s in dire straits, I guess. It’s a shame, too, there’s just something about the culture of baseball and baseball fandom that makes me wish I was more into it (more so than any other pro sport).
Just wait until something GLOBAL and actually exciting to watch first person gets onboard like say MotoGP.
Okay, I vent about Apple as much as the next MR commenter. Okay, a lot more than that.
But there are so many assumptions and so much hyperbole here that I almost don't know where to start.
The main point about Tim Cook's spot at Apple being overshadowed by a handful or failures when he's predominantly led the company to almost non-stop growth in all markets after his takeover is flat out false.
While one maybe could argue that Tim Cook's should be failing considering how little innovation they've brought to consumer tech post iPhone. Sure, that's my own, personal take.
But, unfortunately, Tim Cook as proved that it's far more profitable and very possible for Apple to find other much less expensive ways to dominate tech without having to compete on raw hardware performance or genuinely new products, year after year, like Apple's competitors are forced to.
In part, this success is a consequence of the relentlessness pursuit of trapping more and more consumers in the walled garden. But that's another discussion.
In terms of revenue, and in the eyes of the shareholders, which is what's most important to any business, Tim Cook is a winner and an asset for Apple, through and through.
Cook was CEO when Apple's value to went above $3 trillion in 2023 not even a full year ago. That's not something that just happens because these products are so popular that they sell themselves (not at all even if it looks that way).
-When he steps down it will only be on his volition.
*Yes, AVP is a huge failure. But Tim Cook has more than a few laurels to fall back on, most of them still blindly green(💵!).
Yes. It makes us look like fools for buying anything Apple.Well, you DID have people (who’d never be in the market for one) complaining about the cost of the ProDisplay XDR stand!
The new ifixit video on YouTube shows clearly why the charging pad would never had worked and why Apple clearly abandoned the idea. The Tesla device is obviously what Apple were hoping to do. After watching how much this will degrade your phone battery, I'm glad they didn't.
Well, he‘s nearing retirement age, Vision Pro was probably even less successfull than expected, iPhones sales are slowing down or even decreasing in more volatile markets like China, regulations are increasingly conflicting with Apple’s increasingly consumer-hostile designs, and all other cost cutting measures (like no base RAM updates for Macs for years, compared to pre 2012 when it practically doubled every two years, or 5GB of iCloud Space over a period where storage space has at least gone down by 2/3) are now slowly coming back to haunt him. ******tification only works so far and he‘s not Mr. Sympathetic, with his wooden behavior and his frozen smile that doesn’t reach the eyes - so he‘s already being blamed for everything bad about Apple. So, yeah, I wouldn‘t be surprised if, after the earning call next week, he‘ll be slowly on the way out.
Last edited:
The thing I find so terribly depressing about all this is that in the good old days, we used to talk about the end of Apple, and how it was coming real soon. Today, there's so little imagination left, we're stuck at having to debate one single old guy.
The internet isn't what it used to be.
The internet isn't what it used to be.
Actually I would say all phones are "boring" as we are in the refinement stage of smartphones at least IMHO and in this article I feel states it pretty well. Of course we all have our preferences so you may be quite happy to change when upgrade time comes. I'm fine for awhile yet.
The Best Phones Have Boring Designs (And That's a Good Thing)
Just IMHO of course...
Really? All of Apple's CEOs except for Tim Cook and Steve Jobs were bad? Huh?
Michael Scott (1977 - 1981): I'd say he was acceptable enough. He did get dismissed after firing 40 people and then held a party after that. He did allow Apple to become a public company. If I had to give him a grade, it'll be C. Without him, there would be no Apple.
Mike Markkula (1981 - 1983): Acceptable enough. He was employee number 3 at Apple (third employee hired), and an investor in Apple as well. He also wrote a few of Apple's programs. He served as CEO before retiring, but stayed on the board. I don't think he wanted the job though. Grade: C
John Sculley (1983 - 1993). Acceptable. He forced out Jobs (Jobs NEEDED to go though and would have ruined the company). He oversaw Apple's first "golden age", and was forced out after one bad quarter. Grade: B
Michael Spindler (1993 - 1996). BAD!! He was not a people person, and oversaw the "Channel Stuffing" to boost profits temporarily, which ended up crashing the next quarter. This was the era of Performa/ Power PC models. Grade: F
Gilbert Frank Amelio (1996 - 1997). BAD! Apple needed new ideas, and the plan of having Gil being the "brains" and Steve being the "face" of Apple clashed hard. He did "buy out" NeXT Computers, which brought in Apple. Grade: D
Steve Jobs/ Time Cook (1997 - current). We know that history.
I would say it's two average CEOs, Two great CEOs, one decent CEO, and two bad CEOs.
Yes they were "bad" and you proved me right:
So in summary: every CEO would be a downgrade compared to Tim Cook.
The exception is arguably Scully but he was a marketer and not a great CEO for a tech company. Decades later he inadvertently admits that Jobs was right for the contentious issue he had Jobs fired for:
"We had to have the profits of the Apple II and we couldn't afford to cut the price of the Macintosh because we needed the profits from the Apple II to show our earnings - not just to cover the Mac's problems."
"That's what led to the disagreement and the showdown between me and Steve and eventually the board investigated it and agreed that my position was the one they wanted to support."
"Ironically it was all about Moore's law and it wasn't about Steve and me. Computers just weren't powerful enough in 1985 to do the very rigorous graphics that you had to be able to do for laser printing, and ironically it was only 18 months later when computers were powerful enough that we renamed the Mac Office, Desktop Publishing and it became wildly successful."
"It wasn't my idea, it was all Steve's stuff, but he was just a year and a half too early."
So Jobs, the tech visionary, wants to skate to where the puck will be in a year or two—they fight about it—and Scully kicks him out of Apple. A year and a half later proves Job correct, but Scully gets the credit.(So what did Jobs do? He built NeXT computers—the very technology we're using right now on Macs, iPhones and iPads—so Jobs was right the whole time)
Yes, Scully does grow the company for many years—he deserves that credit—but then he gets fired. Why? Not because of a bad quarter, but because he allowed Apple to get conned by IBM into going in the direction of the PowerPC, the consequence being Intel eats their lunch for a decade until Jobs can come back and save the company. YOU CALL SCULLY A GREAT CEO? He was good at marketing so he should have been the CMO—give him a product and he knew how to put it in the market—but he couldn't see 10 years in front of his face like Jobs and Cook can.
So no, he's not a great CEO for Apple.
Every one of those CEOs would be a downgrade from Cook and that's my point.
Last edited:
I think people forget that they are CUSTOMER satisfaction scores. If someone’s still using an 8 year old Mac and don’t want to buy anything Apple’s selling, they’re not a customer and, as a result, not included in the satisfaction scores.
Yeah, I’ve been amazed that Forstall was even able to leave Apple, like Steve Jobs did, and use his visionary prowess to form another innovative tech company! /s