Tim Cook and future

[skaertus]

Without innovation, Apple will die in the long term. The iPhone will not sustain a 2 trillion dollar company forever. Kodak was once a Dow 30 company, one of the largest in the US. Now they are nothing. Nokia once owned the cell phone world. What goes up, can and will come down. Innovation will sustain Apple, if they have the leader to lead them there. Tim Cook is not that person.

Apple may need to innovate, but it does not mean it has to deliver new products.

What a company needs is innovation in terms of value propositions. Apple is offering this. Apple may not be bringing new and exciting products like it did in Steve Jobs' era. But Tim Cook is a good manager and the improvements this management brings result in added value to customers.

Look at the M1 chip, for instance. A MacBook with an M1 chip is a value proposition like no other in the industry: there is no other laptop with this performance and battery life and size/weight selling for this price. The 24-inch iMac as well: a thin-and-light high-performance colorful all-in-one like no other.

So Apple keeps opening up new market spaces and creating new demand. One thing is to be innovative in terms of sheer creativity and deliver brand-new products to revolutionize the industry. Another thing is to innovate through the delivery of new value which dramatically improves customers' experience in already existing products. From a management perspective, there may be little difference between both.

While Tim Cook is not the creative genius that takes new products out of the hat, he is constantly delivering new value propositions which are keeping Apple ahead of competitors. And, as boring as it may seem, this more down-to-earth approach seems to be more consistent and more likely to keep Apple a trillion-dollar company for years to come.

My 2c.

 

[theluggage]

Apple may need to innovate, but it does not mean it has to deliver new products.

Yes they do, if they want to survive in the long run. They're very dependent on the iPhone at the moment - it directly accounts about half of their revenue (see their last figures) and, indirectly, probably at least half of their services and accessories revenue. It will even be contributing to Mac sales - with iPhones raising the profile of the brand plus the appeal of tight MacOS/iOS integration). If the iPhone took a dive, that would decimate Apple - and that's a market, founded at least partly in fashion, that could vanish overnight if a new shiny thing comes along (I dunno, smart glasses? Implants? Circular phones, Vegan smartphones? If I knew I'd be at the stock exchange getting rich...). It's pretty important that Apple do a better job than me at guessing what the Next Big Thing is going to be.

...which was really Jobs' big triumph - if he hadn't come up with the iPhone when he did then Apple would have taken a fatal haircut a few years later when the iPod was wiped out by music-playing phones (which would have happened without the iPhone - music players were already appearing on "feature phones" by then, there was even an feeble attempt to license iTunes to Motorola). Still, it also took courage to release a product like the iPhone which was obviously going to contribute to the iPod's demise.

So, yes, they need "new products" - Microsoft & Intel bottomed out when they got complacent with their Windows near-monopoly and failed to get in to the mobile market (turns out that nobody wants Windows on their phone where the vast library of desktop Windows software doesn't work...) - they're still big players, but they've taken a beating, and Apple doesn't have anything like Wintel's massive toe-hold in corporate computing to save them.

Look at the M1 chip, for instance. A MacBook with an M1 chip is a value proposition like no other in the industry: there is no other laptop with this performance and battery life and size/weight selling for this price.

Well, the M1 Macs probably count as "new products" - yes, they're still basically Macs, but the innards have been totally re-thought, and the target demographic for their users has probably shifted. They're not the first personal computers to use non-x86 chips (not even first to use the ARM instruction set) - but they're probably the biggest and most credible attempt to break away from x86 in recent history. Also, give it a year for the transition to be complete and if the Mac model line up is still a clone of what it was under Intel that will be a missed opportunity.

Meanwhile, the M1 Macs are great, but I wouldn't wax too lyrical about them: Intel will play catchup, AMD are probably closer already and/or MS will double-down on Windows-for-ARM - right now there's nothing to match the M1 in the "ultrabook" class, but that's going to be a honeymoon. Apple are also going to need to show some originality in scaling M1s to the higher-end Macs - we've yet to see how they're going to implement larger RAM sizes and mid/high-end GPU capabilities when a lot of the M1's advantages seem to stem from having everything integrated on the package.

 

[I7guy]

Yes they do, if they want to survive in the long run.[...]

What "new" products do other companies release? Or does their success revolve around iterating on existing product lines. Intel hasn't released a new product in ages. Their x86 chips are iterations of a previous model, for example.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

Well, it is basically all he has launched in terms of new products in 10 years as CEO. And they are both accessories to go with other Apple products. The AirPods are really great, but the Apple Watch, although successful, is just a follow-up to other smartwatches the market already had. There was also the HomePod, another product following existing ones.

And there are services. Apple Music and Apple TV+, for instance. Both services copied business models already existing and added little to them.

Steve Jobs said they didn't try to be first to market in anything. There were already portable MP3 players when the iPod was introduced. There were already smartphones like the Blackberry when the iPhone was introduced. Microsoft had already tried several unsuccessful attempts at tablets when the iPad was introduced. Etc., etc.

 

[theluggage]

What "new" products do other companies release? Or does their success revolve around iterating on existing product lines. Intel hasn't released a new product in ages. Their x86 chips are iterations of a previous model, for example.

Well, Intel are hardly the poster child for innovation: they haven't needed to innovate since they were "made" by IBM in the 80s and they still have a huge foothold in corporate/business computing - customers who will not/cannot drop x86 and are often too conservative to go AMD. They've suffered the consequences: they're almost completely locked out of the mobile market and, consequently, ARMs now outnumber x86s. They can't innovate too much because their existence relies on maintaining legacy compatibility.

Microsoft, on the other hand, have been branching out in the last decade or so: getting into cloud computing with Azure, actively supporting Linux rather than trying to destroy it (...SQL server on Linux, Linux subsystem on Windows, they've just announced their own Linux distribution). Remember, 10 years ago Microsoft didn't even make their own PCs - now we have the Surface range which is pretty innovative in the PC world. Heck, the Surface Studio would be gorgeous if MS hadn't given it such a lousy specification for the price. They've made an ARM-based Surface. Windows 11 is looking like a bid to finally force people to move on from Win16/Win32 compatibility.

 

[I7guy]

Well, Intel are hardly the poster child for innovation: they haven't needed to innovate since they were "made" by IBM in the 80s and they still have a huge foothold in corporate/business computing - customers who will not/cannot drop x86 and are often too conservative to go AMD. They've suffered the consequences: they're almost completely locked out of the mobile market and, consequently, ARMs now outnumber x86s. They can't innovate too much because their existence relies on maintaining legacy compatibility.

Microsoft, on the other hand, have been branching out in the last decade or so: getting into cloud computing with Azure, actively supporting Linux rather than trying to destroy it (...SQL server on Linux, Linux subsystem on Windows, they've just announced their own Linux distribution). Remember, 10 years ago Microsoft didn't even make their own PCs - now we have the Surface range which is pretty innovative in the PC world. Heck, the Surface Studio would be gorgeous if MS hadn't given it such a lousy specification for the price. They've made an ARM-based Surface. Windows 11 is looking like a bid to finally force people to move on from Win16/Win32 compatibility.

What you are pointing to with Microsoft is more improvement. I understand people have subjective feelings but there is a large definitional gap on these boards as everybody's viewpoint is different.

 

[I7guy]

Apple may need to innovate, but it does not mean it has to deliver new products.

What a company needs is innovation in terms of value propositions. Apple is offering this. Apple may not be bringing new and exciting products like it did in Steve Jobs' era. But Tim Cook is a good manager and the improvements this management brings result in added value to customers.

I think apple is bringing in new and exciting products. Totally understand not everybody will agree with that.

Look at the M1 chip, for instance.

Perfect example of a new and innovative product.

A MacBook with an M1 chip is a value proposition like no other in the industry: there is no other laptop with this performance and battery life and size/weight selling for this price. The 24-inch iMac as well: a thin-and-light high-performance colorful all-in-one like no other.

So Apple keeps opening up new market spaces and creating new demand. One thing is to be innovative in terms of sheer creativity and deliver brand-new products to revolutionize the industry. Another thing is to innovate through the delivery of new value which dramatically improves customers' experience in already existing products. From a management perspective, there may be little difference between both.

While Tim Cook is not the creative genius that takes new products out of the hat,

Tim is pretty creative as he built up a category of wearables.

he is constantly delivering new value propositions which are keeping Apple ahead of competitors. And, as boring as it may seem, this more down-to-earth approach seems to be more consistent and more likely to keep Apple a trillion-dollar company for years to come.

My 2c.

 

[KaliYoni]

visually it appears to be taking a toll.

Elevated levels of cortisol sustained over long periods of time often lead to "rapid aging". Regardless of one's view of Tim's strategy for Apple, his strengths, and his weaknesses, he has had a lot of extremely challenging, unforeseeable events to deal with for the last five and a half years. US politics created an existential threat to Apple's business model and operations during 2016-2020. A global pandemic began in 2020 and continues to this day. When these are coupled with the more predictable issues Tim needed to navigate, such as the end of the product road map bequeathed by Jobs, the departure of an extremely powerful design lead who had tight bonds with Jobs, and the constant scrutiny and second guessing that accompanied being Jobs' designated successor, it's no wonder Tim looks "too old" to some eyes.

If you compare Tim's performance to the string of CEOs who followed Jobs after Jobs Departure 1.0, Tim has done a lot of things, though clearly not all, pretty well. Just look at Apple's market capitalization; a lot of people with a lot of skin in the game are OK with Tim.

 

[skaertus]

I think apple is bringing in new and exciting products. Totally understand not everybody will agree with that.

Perfect example of a new and innovative product.



Tim is pretty creative as he built up a category of wearables.

Apple is bringing new and exciting products, it is just not innovating on that front, from a creative perspective.

The M1 chip is great, but it is hardly a product of a very creative artistic mind. The M1 is incredibly good and something that, almost one year later, no other company came close to reproducing. Still, it is the result of extreme efficiency and great management. It is not the product of ingeniosity.

Tim is not creative, or at least it is not what Apple's lineup shows. He is a lot of things, and an amazingly good CEO, but not a hugely creative mind.

He built up a category of wearables. That is not creative at all. First, because wearables were already a category of products before Apple brought its Watch to the market. Apple did not reinvent the wheel here. What was the great breakthrough? Did Apple make a square watch instead of a round one? Wow, how creative is that?!?

Tim Cook's Apple is entering already crowded markets. It has been very competent in introducing Apple Watch in a market already filled with alternatives. Now, it is focusing on services. Apple TV+ is just one more contender among several competitors fighting for audiences. Netflix was the creative one here. Disney had its share of creativity when it decided to transform its largest franchises into big-hit series in a streaming service. Apple is just a follower, not a leader.

Steve Jobs' Apple was different. It created new markets. The iPhone was a smartphone, but it reinvented the whole market, as it was substantially different from anthing that came before. No strings attached. Ditto for the iPod, the iMac, the iPad. Tim Cook's Apple does not come close to that.

But it also does not have to. As a CEO, Tim Cook is proving to be exactly what Apple needs. In the corporate world, good management usually beats creativity. Tim Cook's Apple is worth several times more than Steve Jobs' Apple. It just does not matter whether Apple still has the creative genius artistic minds as before; what really matters is whether it does good business and whether customers are happy. And Tim Cook seems to check all the boxes.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is bringing new and exciting products, it is just not innovating on that front, from a creative perspective.

I'll preface my comments by saying Apple has many customers each with a unique point of view. But I believe Apple is innovating while bringing new and exciting products to market.

The M1 chip is great, but it is hardly a product of a very creative artistic mind.

It's exactly the result of a creative mind.

The M1 is incredibly good and something that, almost one year later, no other company came close to reproducing. Still, it is the result of extreme efficiency and great management. It is not the product of ingeniosity.

Aside from a creative mind, the above is also true.

Tim is not creative, or at least it is not what Apple's lineup shows. He is a lot of things, and an amazingly good CEO, but not a hugely creative mind.

He built up a category of wearables. That is not creative at all.

Sure it's creative. No different than Steve coming to market with an iphone. Or alternatively Apple just bought another cell phone to market...albeit a popular phone, but just another cell phone.

First, because wearables were already a category of products before Apple brought its Watch to the market. Apple did not reinvent the wheel here. What was the great breakthrough? Did Apple make a square watch instead of a round one? Wow, how creative is that?!?

Similar comment to the above. The iphone is just another cell phone?

Tim Cook's Apple is entering already crowded markets. It has been very competent in introducing Apple Watch in a market already filled with alternatives. Now, it is focusing on services. Apple TV+ is just one more contender among several competitors fighting for audiences. Netflix was the creative one here. Disney had its share of creativity when it decided to transform its largest franchises into big-hit series in a streaming service. Apple is just a follower, not a leader.

Similar to the cell phone comment above.

Steve Jobs' Apple was different. It created new markets. The iPhone was a smartphone, but it reinvented the whole market,

As Tim Cook's Apple reinvented the wearables market.

as it was substantially different from anthing that came before. No strings attached. Ditto for the iPod, the iMac, the iPad. Tim Cook's Apple does not come close to that.

Iphone was just a cell phone and was different than other models the same way Ford is different than Toyota.

But it also does not have to. As a CEO, Tim Cook is proving to be exactly what Apple needs. In the corporate world, good management usually beats creativity. Tim Cook's Apple is worth several times more than Steve Jobs' Apple. It just does not matter whether Apple still has the creative genius artistic minds as before; what really matters is whether it does good business and whether customers are happy. And Tim Cook seems to check all the boxes.

It seems to matter to some opinions as to whether Apple has the genius artistic minds as before. I say yes, others say no. Some say Apple doesn't innovate anymore, some say they do. Some say Apple lost it's spark and now is the best or the worst. Others say Apple is the best. You pick your opinion, there is room for all.

 

[skaertus]

I'll preface my comments by saying Apple has many customers each with a unique point of view. But I believe Apple is innovating while bringing new and exciting products to market.

It's exactly the result of a creative mind.

Aside from a creative mind, the above is also true.

Sure it's creative. No different than Steve coming to market with an iphone. Or alternatively Apple just bought another cell phone to market...albeit a popular phone, but just another cell phone.

Similar comment to the above. The iphone is just another cell phone?

Similar to the cell phone comment above.

As Tim Cook's Apple reinvented the wearables market.

Iphone was just a cell phone and was different than other models the same way Ford is different than Toyota.

It seems to matter to some opinions as to whether Apple has the genius artistic minds as before. I say yes, others say no. Some say Apple doesn't innovate anymore, some say they do. Some say Apple lost it's spark and now is the best or the worst. Others say Apple is the best. You pick your opinion, there is room for all.

Well, I suppose we will disagree.

The way I see it, Steve Jobs' Apple was much more creative than Tim Cook's Apple. It does not speak to Steve Jobs and Tim Cook personally, but to their leadership style. I am not saying that Apple now is not a creative company, just that it is far less creative than in Steve Jobs' era.

Creativity comes from producing original ideas out of thin air. It is combining things that nobody ever thought of before. Like Columbus' egg. It relates to the imagination. Innovation is different, it comes from implementing ideas and improving them. It is more related to production.

I see Steve Jobs' Apple as being much more creative in the sense of coming up with new ideas never thought of. Implementation was fine, but the ideas were just incredible. Look at the iPhone, it is a masterpiece. You may say that it is another cell phone, but it is also a completely different one, as nobody before Apple had thought of a smartphone without the clumsy keyboard. A simple and ingenious idea, just like Columbus' egg.

Just look at Apple's Think Different campaign. Steve Jobs totally reinvented the philosophy of the company and introduced an unprecedented market campaign that gave Apple an image that no other tech company had before.

Tim Cook's Apple is nowhere as creative in the sense of imaginative thinking. You may say that Tim Cook reinvented the wearables market. It is disputed whether Apple reinvented the wearables market, but it certainly now dominates it. And this domination comes from innovation and not creativity. Apple Watch was mostly a flop when it was released, just another wearable in a market full of them. Then Apple improved it by adding features and not by coming up with some jaw-dropping thing.

Also, the M1 is innovative, but not creative. It is the result of years of investment by improving a processor originally made for the iPhone. Lots of innovation comes into it. Perhaps some creativity in the development process. It delivers value and is innovative in so many senses. But there is little originality about it.

So, we may argue until the end of times here. The bottom line is that it does not matter whether Apple is more creative now or before. Apple is a company and booming business is what really matters.

 

[Squillace]

I just came here to say that I strongly hope the future CEO of Apple will be Craig Federighi.
Whenever that day comes.

 

[Eric Idle]

Tim Cook can't leave fast enough as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Apple is bringing new and exciting products, it is just not innovating on that front, from a creative perspective.

The M1 chip is great, but it is hardly a product of a very creative artistic mind. The M1 is incredibly good and something that, almost one year later, no other company came close to reproducing. Still, it is the result of extreme efficiency and great management. It is not the product of ingeniosity.

Tim is not creative, or at least it is not what Apple's lineup shows. He is a lot of things, and an amazingly good CEO, but not a hugely creative mind.

He built up a category of wearables. That is not creative at all. First, because wearables were already a category of products before Apple brought its Watch to the market. Apple did not reinvent the wheel here. What was the great breakthrough? Did Apple make a square watch instead of a round one? Wow, how creative is that?!?

Tim Cook's Apple is entering already crowded markets. It has been very competent in introducing Apple Watch in a market already filled with alternatives. Now, it is focusing on services. Apple TV+ is just one more contender among several competitors fighting for audiences. Netflix was the creative one here. Disney had its share of creativity when it decided to transform its largest franchises into big-hit series in a streaming service. Apple is just a follower, not a leader.

Steve Jobs' Apple was different. It created new markets. The iPhone was a smartphone, but it reinvented the whole market, as it was substantially different from anthing that came before. No strings attached. Ditto for the iPod, the iMac, the iPad. Tim Cook's Apple does not come close to that.

But it also does not have to. As a CEO, Tim Cook is proving to be exactly what Apple needs. In the corporate world, good management usually beats creativity. Tim Cook's Apple is worth several times more than Steve Jobs' Apple. It just does not matter whether Apple still has the creative genius artistic minds as before; what really matters is whether it does good business and whether customers are happy. And Tim Cook seems to check all the boxes.

Apple are the only players in the wearable market. They must be doing something right. Even though the market existed before the Apple Watch, it was an emerging market. It’s not as if the other players have exploded. They’ve remained as niche as they were before Apple entered the market.

 

[romanof]

Apple is between a rock and a hard place. Any company that wants to become or stay a leader has to have a Jobs or Musk or Dell at the helm. However, even though they can push the company into fantastic products that otherwise wouldn't even get considered, techies usually don't have the expertise (or more likely, the desire) to lead when success comes in a big way. That needs a man or woman who is business oriented, but who may not have any enthusiasm for expensive research to get the next Big Thing.

Do you want innovation that is limited by lack of profits, or profits that are limited by lack of innovation?

So, Apple needs a CEO with both attributes and those are scarce.

 

[KaliYoni]

Apple needs a CEO with both attributes and those are scarce.

Or a CEO who is strong in one area and is able to delegate well in the other (this type of CEO is scarce as well).

 

[Cycom]

He'll either stick around for as long as possible or leave early to pursue something in a passion field (politics? education?)

No need. He’s already received an honorary PhD in Wokeology from Harvard.