blastdoor

9secondkox2 said:

But the sleeper dark horse would be the return of Jony. He’s had his rise, he’s taken his lumps, and he’s gained deep insightful perspective. Very similar to the rise, fall, and meteoric rise of Jobs. 

I don't think that analogy works because Jobs was an entrepreneurial leader who, from an early age, eagerly learned multiple aspects of how to run a business. CEOs needs to not just understand, but have a passion for, multiple aspects of a business. They need to balance competing priorities in order to achieve larger goals. Ive is more similar to Wozniak in the sense that he is a narrowly focused specialist. The world needs narrowly focused specialists (I'd put myself in that category, actually). But a CEO needs to be more of a generalist. 

Cook is somewhere in between. His speciality is operations, but specializing in operations is kind of like specializing in being a generalist (because operations touches so many aspects of a business), so it sort of works. 

Putting Ive in charge of Apple would be like asking Picasso to run Spain -- it wouldn't work. 

danox said:

blastdoor said:

Intel might be a year ahead of TSMC with their “20A” process. Sometime this year we might see the most competitive chips from Intel in a very long time. We will just have to see if Intel hits their targets.

Has Intel or Microsoft ever hit a target in an actual competitive market where they couldn't cheat or strong-arm someone?  

Yes. Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing for decades. It’s why Apple switched to Intel back when PPC was falling further and further behind. 

Maybe they can use the technology and experience from this project to develop an AI that quickly identifies which projects to cancel. That could definitely help save money.

Intel might be a year ahead of TSMC with their “20A” process. Sometime this year we might see the most competitive chips from Intel in a very long time. We will just have to see if Intel hits their targets.

lmac said:

Apple should run each division like its own company. Then they might be more interested in some of their projects that aren't as high profile.

Apple was run that way before Steve Jobs returned and put them on a single P&L statement. I’m not saying that every single thing Apple did without SJ was bad or that SJ was right about everything. But this was and is something that goes to the core of apples structure and culture. To change this means changing Apple into a fundamentally different company. Maybe that will make sense someday as part of a fundamental restructuring of Apple. But it doesn’t make sense as a way to do better in computer games.