Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs

[Lobwedgephil]

Original iPhone was 499 and 599 for 4GB and 8GB, on contract. Think we have improved since then.

 

[Gathomblipoob]

Exactly. They've made one price change 3 months after releasing the first phone 10 years ago when they were learning the market. After that it's always gone with how the carriers price/matching the general range of the competition

I remember the price being reduced and folks who paid the original price getting a $100 Apple Store gift card. The owner of the small company I worked for was so impressed with my new phone he cut me a check for $300 to cover half the original cost. Good times.

 

[Armen]

Agreed. But prices shouldn't be so high. That's the thing, I'm not arguing Tim cooks business sense. He's making Apple a lot of money. I'm noting the changing direction of the company.

if iPhone prices halved overnight, there'd be a much greater than 2x adoption of iPhone. That's essentially what jobs did years ago. Making iPhones now would be cheaper than ever, yet prices are higher than ever. Which is fine if you are Tim Cook and stock price is all that matters. If you're Steve jobs product (and innovation) is what matters, and more people having those products

There's a reason why HP and Dell are where they are (by trying to undercut each other) and why Apple is where it is by sticking to its guns and not playing that game.

 

[born2runak]

From someone who has owned every single iPhone. The price has held come down and then held every single year. You are just comparing a carrier subsidy price to a now retail price. The retail price has always existed. Blame the carriers for that not Tim Cook

This was going to be my point. The phone prices have stayed the same ( I don't have actual MSRP prices in front of me, so the dollar amount may not be spot on) and , I'm no economist, but I would think considering inflation, realistically since prices have stayed the same they've actually come down (staying the same). The difference is the lack of contract based subsidies, and this is not unique to Apple. The note 7 is >1000$ phone. The iPhone 7 starts at 649 I believe. Subjectively , not a bad price for the tech. Now , if you want to talk about apple price gouging for memory...thats another argument, but one that apple has done even since Jobs

 

[Shanghaichica]

I think it's difficult to compare Tim and Steve as they are both operating in different eras with different market pressures. When Steve was in charge there was plenty of room for growth, now the market is saturated and there are alternative smartphones available at every price point.

Also some of the things Apple later did like larger displays and the iPad mini Steve was against. These have been products which have been very successful for Apple. Perhaps Steve may or may not have developed another game changing device after the iPad but we don't know.

There isn't much more you can do with the iphone, it's a smartphone and smartphones are highly evolved. Ok so Steve came up with the Mac and the iPod. The iPhone but although the iPad is another great device it's just an extension of the iPhone.

I don't think Tim is doing too badly at all. He isn't iconic like Steve but he's making Apple a hell of a lot of money. iPhone sales have started to decline but as I stated the market is saturated and they are competing in a highly crowded market where you can buy products from rival manufacturers at every price point.

 

[trifid]

Disappointing in that the iPhone 7 basically is an iPhone 6ss. For the first time in the line up the new features aren't new features they merely bring it close to par with Samsung etc

Enjoy away. This thread was started to discuss the direction of Apple under Tim Cook. Prices are rising, innovation is dropping, mediocre apps like maps are now acceptable to the company. Tim cooks biggest concerns are share buybacks and what his stock options are worth along with 'social issues'.
Steve jobs always put the product first, made the products affordable and often fought with the board to keep the prices low. And he innovated.

I am fairly devoted to Apple. I don't think the company is upholding the values that made it great

Preach brother.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I don't know which leader was better as I don't know enough about either person if I'm honest. I do agree with the OP about the iPhone 7 though. It was disappointing enough for me to choose a 6S instead and the first time I haven't been excited at the release of a new iPhone.

I was annoyed my upgrade cycle has new flipped from first release to the S cycle now too. Not to mention the contract pricing is now pretty extortionate.

 

[Savor]

Tim Cook - better humanitarian
Steve Jobs - better visionary

Rather be friends with Tim. Rather have someone like Steve leading if I want to see a company innovate industries.

 

[JD2015]

Jobs:
1. More innovation in new products but there evolution was slow afterwards, particularly when Samsung Galaxy S3 hit the market.
2. Great salesman but poor man management and consideration for anything else other than the product.
3. Did not handle Antenna gate very well at all and showed a lack of empathy for customers.
4. iPhone launch events were great but supply constraints were even worse back then.

Cook:-
1 Revenue has massively gone up under Cook. This would not happen if people unhappy with quality of products. Product line is a mess though and Jobs did a better job of simplifying it.
2. Greater emphasis on products being environmental friendly
3. Modern Slavery and equal opps. much much improved under Cook. Couldn't see Jobs doing as much work in this area.
4. Product launch - Apple watch, Apple pencil, iPad Pro 12.9, iPhone plus range, health kit, apple music, etc. Innovation is there just people have short term memories.

Personally i like Tim cook better and think he is a real nice guy.

 

[thewap]

hippy..
Nerdy..

Visionary..
Fashionista..

Passionate..
Politically correct..

Mac-centric..
Phone-centric..

immortal..
mortal..

 

[Gathomblipoob]

[QUOTE="thewap, post: 23387890, member: 709149

immortal..
[/QUOTE]

But...he's dead.

 

[thewap]

[QUOTE="thewap, post: 23387890, member: 709149

immortal..

But...he's dead.[/QUOTE]

His memory in history..

 

[Gathomblipoob]

But...he's dead.

His memory in history..[/QUOTE]

Only to those who can't let go.

 

[Dave245]

Disappointing iPhone 7? Did you see the keynote? Yes the design is largely the same, but there is nothing wrong with that. As for new features I can count at least 2, the new home button and the very impressive, dual lens camera on the Plus.
People seem to be happy with it as pre-orders seem to be doing well. I don't see a problem with what Apple announced. We're things a little different under Steve Jobs? Yes, but Jobs has gone and Tim Cook is CEO of Apple.

 

[cableguy84]

Steve Jobs.

Cook is a lightweight

 

[Shanghaichica]

Disappointing iPhone 7? Did you see the keynote? Yes the design is largely the same, but there is nothing wrong with that. As for new features I can count at least 2, the new home button and the very impressive, dual lens camera on the Plus.
People seem to be happy with it as pre-orders seem to be doing well. I don't see a problem with what Apple announced. We're things a little different under Steve Jobs? Yes, but Jobs has gone and Tim Cook is CEO of Apple.

Yes as critical as I was of it I've bought the 7 plus, there were just too many new features to miss out on. I loved that it has stereo speakers when the late leaks said it wouldn't. It was a surprise. Also the new home button having functions other than just to save space and the optical zoom feature on the dual camera were nice surprises. The new Airpods look good too and I'll get a pair when they are available.

 

[Nozuka]

Tim Cook is more of a traditional CEO.
He obviously doesn't have the Techy and Visionary skills of Steve Jobs, but he doesn't have to. He just needs to have those people working for him.

I don't think the IPhone would be much different, if Steve still lived. Smartphones are just at a more mature state now and it's harder to find something big to change.

But i find it funny how people desperately need a new smartphone every 1 or 2 years. But i guess they were trained by phone contracts to do so.
They should be happy they can wait another year and save some money.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Tim Cook - better humanitarian
Steve Jobs - better visionary

Rather be friends with Tim. Rather have someone like Steve leading if I want to see a company innovate industries.

Well I like Tim because he has principles and morals. It's very rare to find a CEO of a multinational corporation with such values. He gets a lot of points in my book for that. We also know that he's not just doing it to look good now that he's CEO. He went on civil rights marches in the USA in the 60's.

 

[hellopupy]

So you want the iPhone to start at $325 while Samsung sells at $849?

Well I suppose thats why you're posting here and not running fortune 500s.

 

[Abazigal]

There's a chance this is true but it's slim. Unless Steve thought the best thing for the company was to do the opposite of what he always did as its leader

The Apple under Steve Jobs was very different, and facing different challenges than the Apple currently helmed by Tim Cook.

Times change, and Apple had to change its business strategies as well. For example, with a wider, more diverse demographic, I don't think Apple can get by with selling just one model of iPad. And so you have 4 models segmented between the consumer and pro lines. Ranging from the iPad mini for the budget conscious buyer to the iPad Pro for people who wish to do more with their tablet and don't mind spending more.

Even Apple's opponents are different today. Google and Microsoft are no longer Apple's competitors. Instead, we see Apple crossing swords with the like of the FBI and the EU. And this in turn requires a different strategy and a different tact.

I believe Tim Cook is the best man to helm Apple's expansion and guide it through the next decade. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, and he shouldn't try too hard to be someone he is not.

 

[Galacticos]

So you want the iPhone to start at $325 while Samsung sells at $849?

Well I suppose thats why you're posting here and not running fortune 500s.

I suppose you think you've summed up the thread
[doublepost=1473603413][/doublepost]

There's a reason why HP and Dell are where they are (by trying to undercut each other) and why Apple is where it is by sticking to its guns and not playing that game.

I think Apple is still benefiting from its iconic status it acquired under Steve Jobs, and the way it's being run at the moment, it won't be long before its back with the pack.

I'm not saying Apple is not run profitably, or even the way I'd want a company run if it were my money. What I am saying is Apple more and more resembles the other companies it competes with as opposed to the company that truly broke ground with the Mac, the iPod and the iPhone, a company that in a sense competed against itself to always deliver exceptional experiences rather than adequate ones.

 

[997440]

.....Jobs is dead. I don't get the mythical fascination he still gets.

Great humans are few and far between. In any particular generation, the number of individual creators is a tiny percentage of the population.

 

[vvswarup]

Not trolling. I love Steve jobs. He's irreplaceable. I think it's sad that Apple is becoming more like a multinational with an attitude of nearly on lots of their new things (software and hardware). Abuse is a strong word, but I think Apple is bordering on abusing a customer base it built with true innovation and affordability of world changing products, with the staggering of technology, lack of innovation, increasing prices, and general toleration of mediocre product releases.

I think Tim Cook is far more concerned with share price, debt financed buybacks and stock option values. Steve NEVER would have done a debt leveraged share buyback. It was always product and user experience first. I think Tim is a corporate fat cat and is happy to let the company drift into mediocrity

Show me some evidence that Tim Cook is managing to share price because I'm not seeing any. I don't him changing the way he manages shareholder meetings. He has shown to be handling share price drops with his characteristic unflappable demeanor. The stock buyback does not support your claim in any way. there was nothing else Cook could do and still remain CEO. No one in his place would have gotten away with letting the cash position grow like the water level in an overflowing toilet, not even Steve. As for financing it with debt, it's nothing more than a smart business decision to do so. Debt is cheaper than it's ever been and it's got tax benefits too.

Who is to say that Steve wouldn't have gone for a debt-leveraged stock buyback? You and many other people who say "Steve never would have done that" to criticize Cook are just extrapolating the past. A good CEO makes decisions based on how things are now and how things could be/will be. Apple's cash balance was too big to ignore.

Tim Cook was and is a mistake. It should have been Jony Ives or someone like him that replaced Jobs. What Apples needs is a creative type that drives the team and company to strive for the unobtainable much like Jobs did. The products that are coming out of Apple now are good just not exceptional and that will only carry them so far. I am sure the board is aware of this.

Steve Jobs picked Tim Cook as CEO. He didn't pick Jony Ive. Explain that to me.

 

[Galacticos]

Show me some evidence that Tim Cook is managing to share price because I'm not seeing any. I don't him changing the way he manages shareholder meetings. He has shown to be handling share price drops with his characteristic unflappable demeanor. The stock buyback does not support your claim in any way. there was nothing else Cook could do and still remain CEO. No one in his place would have gotten away with letting the cash position grow like the water level in an overflowing toilet, not even Steve. As for financing it with debt, it's nothing more than a smart business decision to do so. Debt is cheaper than it's ever been and it's got tax benefits too.

Who is to say that Steve wouldn't have gone for a debt-leveraged stock buyback? You and many other people who say "Steve never would have done that" to criticize Cook are just extrapolating the past. A good CEO makes decisions based on how things are now and how things could be/will be. Apple's cash balance was too big to ignore.



Steve Jobs picked Tim Cook as CEO. He didn't pick Jony Ive. Explain that to me.

as per my original post, Steve jobs took Apple in the direction of changing the world through innovative products. Having innovation and great user experience was the business model. Tim Cook is taking it in the direction of a company with management that manipulates share prices as a legitimate money making strategy and to trigger bonuses. Another legitimate business model of Tim cooks is to really stagger tech advancements, a sound business choice but, not a strategy (at least as blatantly obvious) in Jobs time.

My argument isn't that one makes money or runs the business successfully and the other doesn't. It's that the philosophies of either are different. I see Steve Jobs as a pure product person. He has said earning the first money he did with the release of the first Apple computer meant he didn't need to worry about it so could focus on creating fantastic products. I think Tim spends a lot more of his time worrying about financial health of Apple rather than the product health and imho we are seeing that with what's being released at the moment

 

[Hanson Eigilson]

Tim Cook might as well be a coke salesman, and the morals he has is the kind that is used to polish up a coke salesman as some kind of humanitarian, but it does not seem to extend to fixing fraying cables or avoiding to lock in devoted fans, just to make sure they won't escape.