Tim Cook discussion thread [merged]

[Hanson Eigilson]

Nobody pays!
Who is going to pay for Google Photos, really? It's a subpar copy of Apple Photos, designed only to take money from Apple revenue stream. And get more data for data mining.
You're the product.
What? It backups photos, they are accessible in every device.
What's low tech here? Google Photos doesn't do anything better!

Both apple photos and google photos are from 2014, and google photos is close to the core business of google, namely mapping your images (your life) not that conceptually or financially different from mapping the internet. And they do it with an expertise that puts apple to shame, transparent filesystem (comepared to some kind of closed graph) open API you can use 3rd party tool directly and easy to manage pooling of photos between multiple people, search is magnitudes better, great speed no matter library size. and NO mysteriously eatean photos!

If you trust Google with your photos, they will be data mined, and the data about you will be used against you.

Yes google is creepy, i agree. My point is that although hardware engineering at Apple is suffering under Tim Cook they are Not unilaterally falling further behind alternatives, and in some cases they are still ahead, but the software engineering is just in a state of disarray, usability in many cases worst in industry, and their cloud solutions are on a steady progress but it's magnitudes slower than AWS, Azure and google, and it's getting hard to see them ever catching up especially since their current primitive and closed solutions are all riddled with silent bugs.

Yeah... it's your opinion that Google is superior.

yes in my opinion the software engineering going on at google is vastly superior.

Apple is superior as a quantifiable fact. It makes more money, people are disposed to pay for it. With Google on the other hand, if it was a paid feature, nobody would get into it.

The whole "Apple is good because it a lot of money" argument is an odd one to me, there are many cases of big companies getting lost in their own spin and pushing big batches of flawed products for quite a while, and making good money off it too.

EDIT: what I'm saying is that engineering under Tim Cook is falling behind everyone, not just google. It's not a case of google creating especially well engineered solutions, but a case of apple creating bad ones. On top of that there are many other problems, most of them seemingly originated under Tim Cook.

 

[aristobrat]

EDIT: what I'm saying is that engineering under Tim Cook is falling behind everyone, not just google.

When isn't Apple behind? They were behind when they launched their first computer, their first MP3 player, their first smartphone, and they weren't the first (or second or third) to launch a tablet or watch.

For me, as long as their products offer a difference as compared to the status quo out there, I don't care if they're not the first, second, or third to bring it out.

I've always wanted decent facial recognition for my photo library. Besides the entry-level stuff Apple offered in previous iPhoto/Aperture versions, I've always had the option to upload my entire photo library up to Google for them to do it. But I don't want Google searching through my pictures. So now Apple, having fallen very much behind everyone (in terms of time-to-market), has come out with a way where I can get much better facial and scene recognition in my photos without having to share my library online somewhere. Are they behind what Google offers? Yes... but their solution is architected differently from Google's, and I'm fine with the fact that it wasn't first (or second, or third) to market.

 

[Hanson Eigilson]

When isn't Apple behind? They were behind when they launched their first computer, their first MP3 player, their first smartphone, and they weren't the first (or second or third) to launch a tablet or watch.

For me, as long as their products offer a difference as compared to the status quo out there, I don't care if they're not the first, second, or third to bring it out.

I've always wanted decent facial recognition for my photo library. Besides the entry-level stuff Apple offered in previous iPhoto/Aperture versions, I've always had the option to upload my entire photo library up to Google for them to do it. But I don't want Google searching through my pictures. So now Apple, having fallen very much behind everyone (in terms of time-to-market), has come out with a way where I can get much better facial and scene recognition in my photos without having to share my library online somewhere. Are they behind what Google offers? Yes... but their solution is architected differently from Google's, and I'm fine with the fact that it wasn't first (or second, or third) to market.

I agree with you that first to market is not everything, but when everyone starts to realize that apple is years behind the competition AND that many of their solutions are both fundamentally weak AND unsuitable for anything beyond the most standard environments it will be tough for them to continue charging a premium. The spiel about Apple controlling the entire tech stack and delivering unique stability, reliability and features is quickly starting to sound hollow, and people sit back with a feeling of them trying to lock you into an antiquated dysfunctional environment.

It didn't use to be like this, and my take on it is that Tim Cook is to blame for a lot of it.

 

[Zirel]

I agree with you that first to market is not everything, but when everyone starts to realize that apple is years behind the competition AND that many of their solutions are both fundamentally weak AND unsuitable for anything beyond the most standard environments it will be tough for them to continue charging a premium. The spiel about Apple controlling the entire tech stack and delivering unique stability, reliability and features is quickly starting to sound hollow, and people sit back with a feeling of them trying to lock you into an antiquated dysfunctional environment.

It didn't use to be like this, and my take on it is that Tim Cook is to blame for a lot of it.

LOL.

Anyone can take a dump on the Internet and get away with it...

 

[briloronmacrumo]

Steve Blank thinks so and writes a compelling article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-blank/why-tim-cook-is-steve-bal_b_12622376.html

 

[Three141]

I've not read the full article but was Tim Cook not picked/recommended by Steve Jobs who had faith in him?

The only reason I mention it is there seems to be this Steve was brilliant and hired well too but now we seem to be Tim is the wrong person and should never have been recommended in the first place.

Maybe I am biased but I think Tim is just a punching bag; I liked what was announced today at the Microsoft event and other Microsoft fans are giving high fives but I could imagine the reaction on here to the Surface Dial if it was an I dial, it would just get loads of flack.

I'm not the best person to comment on this but when I go through the threads I notice that people don't seem to know what they want, updated Macs specs (which should be done) is not innovation it's the same old same old and new devices just seem to get mocked.

Out of curiosity what do you believe Tim is doing right and wrong?

 

[briloronmacrumo]

I've not read the full article but was Tim Cook not picked/recommended by Steve Jobs who had faith in him?

Steve Blank's article addresses the assessment quite well, so I'm hesitant to simply regurgitate it here. His analysis is quite interesting and worth a complete read.

 

[asleep]

Lessons Learned

• Innovation CEOs are almost always replaced by one of their execution VPs
• If they have inherited a powerful business model this often results in gains in revenue and profits that can continue for years
• However, as soon the market, business model, technology shifts, these execution CEOs are ill-equipped to deal with the change - the result is a company obsoleted by more agile innovators and left to live off momentum in its twilight years

Sums it up.

 

[Mousse]

Hail no. I still think someone else should be CEO with Timmy reprising his role as COO. The man knows how to keep the trains running on time and how to make the Man (CEO) look good.

Balmer had no redeeming qualities.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Sums it up.

I think that Jobs chose Tim Cook to stir the ship while searching for the next CEO. Jobs knew that his death could've been resulted in a variety of issues, so he chose someone that could work for a few years while maintaining a certain status quo and productivity. I still think that Tim Cook misunderstood his role.

 

[D.T.]

Related article:

https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-visionary-ceos-never-have-visionary-successors

 

[robotica]

I don't think he's as bad as ballmer but he's certainly not doing a great job.
I really hope the guy goes sooner than ballmer did from Microsoft.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

The article is a shocking truth/reality.

 

[maflynn]

My wife emailed me this link, which is eye opening, and germane to the discussion
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-biggest-problem-apple-151524582.html

Milunovich asked Cook about whether the company had a “grand strategy” that goes beyond just selling more iPhones. The answer from Cook was, more or less, “No.”

“We have the strongest pipeline that we’ve ever had and we’re really confident about the things in it,” Cook said. “But as usual, we’re not going to talk about what’s ahead.”
...
A pipeline of products is not a strategy

We keep hearing how Cook praises Apple's pipeline and what great products are in the works, he's been saying that now for 4 or 5 years. The investors didn't like that, at least the ones in the linked story, because they want to know what is apple's strategy, not just disparate products thrown against the wall to see what sticks, but a cohesive strategy to run the business.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

After the fiasco of yesterday's keynote, I feel confident that this is the right moment for Tim Cook to retire from Apple.

He should not stay on in any capacity, but leave for good. He is not the right person for Apple. In addition, Sir Jonathan Ive, Eddy Cue, Phil Schiller, Angela Ahrendts and Williams should also retire. Together, they have brought Apple to its knees. Microsoft have taken over Apple as the leading tech company for innovation.

I predict that Phone 7 sales will be surprisingly poor for the coming year. I predict that Mac sales will be terrible, and slump even more than they have already. iPad sales have been in freefall for a long time now, and they will continue their decline.

All this need not have happened with the right leadership. Yes, sales would not have continued rising as they did under Jobs, because the market would get saturated, but a visionary leader would have inspired much better sales than Cook in all categories. People commonly point to the iPhone and comment on the large sales, but I think that Steve Jobs would have reduced the price of it and widened the marketshare to the extent of the iPod, with sales being many times greater than they are. The Mac would have been thoughtfully improved, and would complement iOS. Mac apps and iOS apps would have been merged, so that you bought one app which could run on all devices. In time, a laptop would have been brought out with a detachable screen that could be used like an iPad. The Touch Bar would have never been released.

Tim Cook has betrayed the legacy of Steve Jobs and destroyed the Apple ethos which drove us all to Apple in the first place. For that, I am sad.

 

[I7guy]

What fiasco?

 

[Benjamin Frost]

What fiasco?

The one where we saw the death of the Mac in front of our eyes.

Apple used 'Hello again', yet there was no new Mac; only one new MacBook.

 

[C DM]

The one where we saw the death of the Mac in front of our eyes.

Apple used 'Hello again', yet there was no new Mac; only one new MacBook.

Is that not a Mac?

 

[jav6454]

Is that not a Mac?

I think he might be meaning the Mac Pro....

 

[kdarling]

I've not read the full article but was Tim Cook not picked/recommended by Steve Jobs who had faith in him?

Sometimes I wonder just an itty-bitty bit, if Jobs chose Cook because he knew that Cook was not the innovative type, and this would make Jobs look even better in the aftermath of his disappearance from Apple.

Even Jobs saying, "Don't do what you think I'd do", seems like setting Cook up for failure.

 

[I7guy]

The one where we saw the death of the Mac in front of our eyes.

Apple used 'Hello again', yet there was no new Mac; only one new MacBook.

I didn't follow that closely as I'm not interested in any mac, but if s line was discontinued I'm sure there was a reason.

 

[mildocjr]

Interesting article. I'm undecided on whether or not I agree with the article, but there are a lot of similarities in the domain he discussed. I never considered that angle. Guess we need a Satya. I like what he's done for Microsoft as a business since he took over, can't say I like the experience he's given us but he did save the company. I can't think of anyone who'd fit the bill as a Visionary CEO and not an Executive/Operations CEO.

In the arc of success I feel like Apple is past the prime pivot and is moving to the crest.

 

[C DM]

I didn't follow that closely as I'm not interested in any mac, but if s line was discontinued I'm sure there was a reason.

Nothing was really discontinued as I recall. Just various lines didn't get updated as part of this event.

 

[Three141]

Sometimes I wonder just an itty-bitty bit, if Jobs chose Cook because he knew that Cook was not the innovative type, and this would make Jobs look even better in the aftermath of his disappearance from Apple.

Even Jobs saying, "Don't do what you think I'd do", seems like setting Cook up for failure.

You know what's bad? Is that I can't dismiss this right away as the cynic in me could believe something like this.

I honestly think no matter who came after Steve they was going to lose, it's always hard replacing a good CEO but a good CEO who passed away?

 

[monstruo]

It's never too late to start looking for the next visionary CEO to lead apple, maybe a window of 5 years more before apple becomes irrelevant if Timmy continues to rely on the pipelines of product as his strategy.