What i think of Cook and AAPL

[Damian83]

Hi, this thread is dedicated to all those that say Tim Cook is a good CEO only because their own some AAPL stocks.

So, let's back in time. Steve Jobs left a great legacy who anyone can only dream about, a car launched at max speed that's hard to stop nor overtake.

I'll compare cars to companies and CEO's to drivers.

Apple is a Bugatti Chiron on straight highway where you can go always at max speed, while other companies even if still ipercars, have to drive in traffic jam. It's obvious that is easier drive fast on a straight than in the city.
Cook is a driver that prefers driving safely and goes at max 130km/h in order to not crash, while Jobs was a driver that keeped throttle down, risking to crash many times (and in fact he crashed some times). He also choosed alternative routes with many curves, being overtaked and overtaking.
As a result, even if he always reach it's destination, Cook's driving is boring and unemotional. No one watch videos of people going at normal speed while there are many videos of people driving supercars on autobahn (including crashes).
So, before dying Jobs thought "I love my car, i'll never let someone crash it, i'll give it only to someone that will drive "flat" and slow, so it will never crash and will be preserved forever. Grandpa Cook is perfect for this!"

I hope you understood the metaphore

Resuming AAPL goes up not because of Cook, but because of Apple itself, and Cook acts only as a limiter.

 

[TiggrToo]

So, it's better to crash multiple times and eventually take everyone else with you than it is to take a more sensible approach that guarantees longevity?

For Pete's sake. Jobs has been dead 8.5 years now. Let it rest.

 

[Nütztjanix]

While I do think that Apple would be different today if Steve was still alive and CEO, I don't think Tim Cook is a bad CEO. Sure he's no visionary as Steve was, but then again - who is (was)? People like Steve are not to be found around the next corner, there's only one of them every once in a while.

 

[ian87w]

Hi, this thread is dedicated to all those that say Tim Cook is a good CEO only because their own some AAPL stocks.

So, let's back in time. Steve Jobs left a great legacy who anyone can only dream about, a car launched at max speed that's hard to stop nor overtake.

I'll compare cars to companies and CEO's to drivers.

Apple is a Bugatti Chiron on straight highway where you can go always at max speed, while other companies even if still ipercars, have to drive in traffic jam. It's obvious that is easier drive fast on a straight than in the city.
Cook is a driver that prefers driving safely and goes at max 130km/h in order to not crash, while Jobs was a driver that keeped throttle down, risking to crash many times (and in fact he crashed some times). He also choosed alternative routes with many curves, being overtaked and overtaking.
As a result, even if he always reach it's destination, Cook's driving is boring and unemotional. No one watch videos of people going at normal speed while there are many videos of people driving supercars on autobahn (including crashes).
So, before dying Jobs thought "I love my car, i'll never let someone crash it, i'll give it only to someone that will drive "flat" and slow, so it will never crash and will be preserved forever. Grandpa Cook is perfect for this!"

I hope you understood the metaphore

Resuming AAPL goes up not because of Cook, but because of Apple itself, and Cook acts only as a limiter.

From my perspective, Cook is not driving a single-seat sports car. He's driving a bus with many people on it, so a crash can be devastating to a lot of people, including Apple employees and Apple contractors. Heck, a failed Apple contract can even bankrupt a whole company.

Running a business is not that simple.
[automerge]1590235733[/automerge]

While I do think that Apple would be different today if Steve was still alive and CEO, I don't think Tim Cook is a bad CEO. Sure he's no visionary as Steve was, but then again - who is (was)? People like Steve are not to be found around the next corner, there's only one of them every once in a while.

I read Jobs' autobiography and Cook's recently. From those, it seems that Cook actually has been the "CEO" for the company even long before the switchover. Jobs is really a product person, as seen obviously. That looks really great from the media perspective, but from a company perspective, a product guy doesn't equate a CEO. Thus Jobs picked Cook to do that part. It make sense.

I really recommend both books as they offer a better perspective/understanding about those two individuals and Apple's management.

 

[levander]

Damian, great post. I love it when people try to understand life at a metaphorical level. It’s so much more informative than the sensationalization of details that is so common these days, especially in the media.

To me what seems to be the underlying cause isn’t the speed of the driver. it’s the lack of a compelling products guy at Apple. He doesn’t have to be the CEO like Jobs was. He just has to have enough power to get things done.

Jonny Ives was supposed to be “product guy” heir to Jobs it seemed like. But he was pretty much a failure. The whole butterfly keyboard thing was his idea and lord only knows why it took Apple so long to ditch that monstrosity.

Apple just released four news services. If any one of them starts gets any kind steam behind them even a third that the iPhone got , Tim is going to look like the fast driver like you want him to look. He’s trying. Four new services is a lot of new stuff to introduce.

At one time the iPhone was just a new product being introduced too. And it had a bunch of weird restrictions on it for a long time. No App Store... AT&T only...

 

[Abazigal]

Jonny Ives was supposed to be “product guy” heir to Jobs it seemed like. But he was pretty much a failure. The whole butterfly keyboard thing was his idea and lord only knows why it took Apple so long to ditch that monstrosity.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of his legacy at Apple.

Yes, there were failures like the butterfly keyboard, but there were also successes like the Apple Watch and AirPods.

It doesn't take a genius to see the trend. Apple is all about making technology more personal for the end user. Jony Ive's relentless drive to make products thinner and smaller lends itself well to wearables (which are incidentally doing well), not so much for laptops.

It's also clear that Apple made a conscious decision to prioritise wearables over Macs. My theory for them doing so is that wearables are easier to push from a mobile standpoint (ie: the most popular Apple product is the iPhone, so it is easier to sell wearables which serve as complementary accessories for iPhones) than laptops (Macs don't really have much link with iPhones, beyond sharing a couple of integrated services like airdrop).

Apple made a judgement call, some people are better off for it, and some are worse off for it. I belong to the former, as I love my AirPods and Apple Watch, and I haven't really cared for the MacBook line, since I am still happily using an iMac, which I find goes very well with my iPad Pro.

 

[AidenShaw]

I don't think that's a fair assessment of his legacy at Apple.

I find it hard believe your position - since your avatar is the clueless intern from Dilbert.

Anyway, your position is valid - but not endorsed by those who remember with longing when Cook's phone company was called "Apple Computer".

 

[Abazigal]

I find it hard believe your position - since your avatar is the clueless intern from Dilbert.

Anyway, your position is valid - but not endorsed by those who remember with longing when Cook's phone company was called "Apple Computer".

I would recommend that they first watch the video - grand theory of Apple. It offers a very compelling take on Apple's product design decisions, and sheds light on why Apple does the things they do, even if you may not like it.

 

[planteater]

Don't assume that all or even a significant number of Apple product users are looking for thrills. Many of use just want to use devices from a company we trust, gives us a great user experience, as well as promote our privacy versus selling our data. The days of new device segments are not going to keep accelerating as they did in the past, and there is nothing wrong with that. Apple just needs to keep improving incrementally. The big changes will happen when they do.

 

[Nütztjanix]

I find it hard believe your position - since your avatar is the clueless intern from Dilbert.

Anyway, your position is valid - but not endorsed by those who remember with longing when Cook's phone company was called "Apple Computer".

"Apple Computer, Inc." was renamed to "Apple, Inc." in 2007 - way before it became "Cook's phone company".

 

[AidenShaw]

"Apple Computer, Inc." was renamed to "Apple, Inc." in 2007 - way before it became "Cook's phone company".

Your historical note in no way affects the truth of my comment.