I see no significant evidence that Cook can't execute. It's a given that he's imperfect and it's a given that he's not Steve Jobs. But I see no other candidate that's even close to Cook. I see the criticism of Cook as a side-show that doesn't contribute to our understanding of Apple and the industry.
In the military when someone criticizes but has no alternative, they call them "ankle-biters". These people whine that the world (or the campaign or the corporation) is not perfect, but they contribute nothing as far as making the world a better place. These people deserve very little attention.
The problem with your scenario is that I haven't criticized Cook... yet.
I'm not totally sold. I want to see what he is going to do with "new" product/ideas. We know what he can do with old product. That he does quite well.
New ideas is what Jobs used to grow the company. If Steve relied on old products (ie. - computers) he would have done better than anyone in the field today (still is, actually)... but the company would still be just a small computer company.
Where jobs excelled, and had done so since Apple's birth, is at taken an idea and perfecting it. Was the mp3 player new when Jobs took hold of it, how about smartphones, how about tablets... okay, now let's see what Cook comes up with on his watch. Can he take an old idea and make it new again. So far there is nothing new to compare his abilities.
If we're talking about what Apple already does, computers, mp3 players, smartphones and tablets... then, sure, Cook knows how to sell those... but I don't see the company growing much, if at all, if that is where Apple is going to stay.
The military probably also has a saying for people who have no ambition...
2012 was still Steve. This is Tim's year. We'll know by this time next year.
I doubt we will ever see another Steve or "any other name year.
I would suggest that for quite some years, most if not all new innovations will most likely have come from a list of products and/or ideas/concepts that either Steve personally created, imparted in or generated. And for that, it will be 'Apple's Year' for many more to come.
And for the Wall Street gamblers that criticize Apple for not coming forth with more new products, more often, it's Apple's Ecosystem, stupid. And if they don't understand that, it's like they are the same people that start gulping down Christmas dinner before everyone else arrives at the table.
I doubt we will ever see another Steve or "any other name year.
I would suggest that for quite some years, most if not all new innovations will most likely have come from a list of products and/or ideas/concepts that either Steve personally created, imparted in or generated. And for that, it will be 'Apple's Year' for many more to come.
And for the Wall Street gamblers that criticize Apple for not coming forth with more new products, more often, it's Apple's Ecosystem, stupid. And if they don't understand that, it's like they are the same people that start gulping down Christmas dinner before everyone else arrives at the table.
Steve was at the helm when the current product line came to fruition. It won't matter where the next idea comes from... it will be solely up to Tim to execute.
I think Apple will become quite a different company than it was under Steve.
That's a given but it is still one hell of a company with a hell of a good team. Plus I am sure they have tons in the pipeline Steve was involved with. After that we have to hope the head start they have over the rest of the tech industry and massive lead in most areas keeps them going with momentum into the post Steve phase. Let's face it, there is no competition so far, just copy cats like Google and Samsung and those dying such as RIM and Microsoft.
Can you show me a "new" product line that was done solely on Cook's watch? (... and, please, don't say iPad mini... it's a tablet after all).
If not, then, we'll have to wait and see.
We know what Cook is good at, you told us that... but let's see if he's also good at creating a market for a new take on an old idea.
Those types of new products happen, what, a couple times a decade?
Since Steve came back, it was iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, over 13 years. And the iPhone and iPad are pretty similar, just different sizes for different uses.
Steve was at the helm when the current product line came to fruition. It won't matter where the next idea comes from... it will be solely up to Tim to execute.
I don't totally agree.
Tim will never command the innards at Apple like Steve did. Tim's involvement excludes so many areas that is necessary to develop, market and launch a product. There will be others that will command those areas. And most unacknowledged.
Tim may head the keynote addresses, but no matter how great the next innovation is to come, it will be an Apple wonder. Much like those of Thomas, Henry and Grahams' Years would be prefaced by GE, Ford and AT&T respectively. If ever.
Non compete agreements aren't legal in California.
Absolutely false.
First, there's nothing illegal about a noncompete agreement - even in CA. They're often not enforceable, but that doesn't make them illegal.
Second, even in CA, SOME noncompete agreements are perfectly legal. For example, if three partners create a company and each sign a noncompete saying that they won't start a competing company, that is generally going to be enforceable.
Whether that exception applies to a senior VP at a public company is not entirely clear. It is likely that a very narrowly crafted noncompete might still work in that situation. But even if it didn't your statement that noncompetes are illegal in CA is just plain wrong.
Those types of new products happen, what, a couple times a decade?
Since Steve came back, it was iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, over 13 years. And the iPhone and iPad are pretty similar, just different sizes for different uses.
... Tim's involvement excludes so many areas that is necessary to develop, market and launch a product. There will be others that will command those areas. And most unacknowledged. ...
Well, actually, Steve's involvement went only so deep as well. Yes, he micromanaged at every level. But no, he wasn't an engineer or designer. And that's what made him such a great CEO. He never lost his end user perspective, he knew what he wanted, and he relentlessly pushed people to deliver what he wanted.
Every large corporation, if its founder stuck around long enough, will reflect its founder's personality. He or she will evolve the corporate culture into a personal statement of how a company should be run, what type of employee to hire at various levels of responsibility, and how to motivate employees to do their best work:
Oracle - aggressive and always looking for a fight, like its egomaniacal founder Larry Ellison (Mr. America's Cup.)
Microsoft - too geeky for its own good, zero understanding of end users outside the office environment, like Bill Gates (Mr. Embrace Extend Extinguish.)
Apple - obsessed with simplicity and clean design, secretive, relentless, end-user oriented, like Steve Jobs (Mr. "Excellence is Expected.")
And that corporate culture is baked in. It will be there long after the CEO is gone. Successive CEOs will either need to curate that culture or attempt to un-bake the cake, tear the whole structure apart, and start all over again. And that rarely works.
Also, don't you think that Steve wrote out a 20 year master plan for Apple?
Wouldn't you if you were in his place in 2010 or so?
I think he did, and Tim (and subsequent CEOs) will be executing that master plan.
I don't see a need to worry about Apple for a couple of decades. As long as they debut strong products like the recently released AIRs Apple will do well. As for possible flops Apple had many as the result of Steve's direction so it wouldn't surprise me to see a few flops from the current administration.
In any event the big problem all large companies have is attracting the brightest from the universities.
Competition is tough and the draw of making a big splash with a startup is still there. It isn't the talent pool at the top of an organization that makes or breaks a product, it isn't the guys that actually implement the product that make it viable. Of course the guys at the top need to know what they are doing and provide the right direction. Lack of direction is what gives us products like MS Surface.
Apple doesn't need a low cost machine per say, they can always market last years model or the year before. What they need is a line up that contains at least three screen sizes. This needs to be a lineup that gets improved each year across the board.
I think there may be a low cost replacement for the 4S, but it won't be because of necessity or because Apple is afraid of the high end market saturating.
Necessity is there. Many people don't want a huge phone in their pocket. The ability to offer choice based on size is huge.
They'll do it because they want to make the 16:9 4 inch screen, lightning connector, and likely LTE standard across the lineup.
Actually a lot of people don't need LTE in their smart phones.
The notion Apple is going low end to get more buyers or save themselves from extinction was proven wrong buy their numbers and results yesterday.
Wrong again! The iPhone 4's still make up a huge percentage of sales. There are really only two explanations there. One is size. The other is cost. If anything yesterday's report confirms the need for a variety of devices to fill these niches.
You do realize that the economy is in the crapper and the coming new taxes have many worried. ObamaCare will put hundreds of thousands out of work and if not completely out of work will greatly reduce their income. That Apple did as well as they did last quarter compared to the rest of the industry is most impressive actually.
I have been saying that Apple didn't really need a new product just yet, because the iPad is still quite new and still has a long way to grow, so I am really taken aback by the YoY iPad decline.
They still don't have a pressing need for a new product.
Perhaps MS was right all along and the tablet is just another form factor of PC (albeit an ultra modern kind of PC for the 2010s). In which case the market is already saturated, and the big growth spurt we were seeing was not a new, empty market being populated, but instead people dumping crappy old PCs (Pentiums, etc), and from now on we must compete with more modern PCs.
The market isn't so much saturated as tapped out. People are being more critical of purchases for personal consumption and corporations have gone into almost a lock down mode on spending.
And notebooks are starting to "fight back" with the iPad anyway (well, Apple ones are at least). The best things about the iPad are:
- all day battery life (but Haswell notebooks have that now, e.g. 2013 Macbook Air)
- safe app store where you can install stuff willy-nilly and not worry about your system crapping out (Mac has that now, provided you install exclusively from the Mac App Store, and only apps that were uploaded after June 2012, when the Sandbox became compulsory)
- touchscreen. Mac laptops still don't have this, but the touchpads are larger than they used to be and support many of the same gestures, such as pinch-to-zoom.
Notebooks and iPads are two different products. It makes about as much sense as comparing an Oracle server to an AIR.
Steve Jobs said that tablets would take over 90% of computing needs and computers would just be the "trucks" for getting serious work done (paraphrasing). But maybe instead laptops will steal many of the best aspects of tablets and as a result it will become more of a 50/50 split.
You do realize that Steve was a marketing person and as such most of what he had to say publicly was BS? I've never understood this need to quote Steve as the deliver of gospel when most often all he was doing is marketing a product. Marketing isn't a reflection of reality, it is a distortion created in your mind by the marketer too get you too see things his way and buy products. Look up snake oil salesman.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones
No, I don't know what comes next.
I see no significant evidence that Cook can't execute. It's a given that he's imperfect and it's a given that he's not Steve Jobs. But I see no other candidate that's even close to Cook. I see the criticism of Cook as a side-show that doesn't contribute to our understanding of Apple and the industry.
In the military when someone criticizes but has no alternative, they call them "ankle-biters". These people whine that the world (or the campaign or the corporation) is not perfect, but they contribute nothing as far as making the world a better place. These people deserve very little attention.
The problem with your scenario is that I haven't criticized Cook... yet.
I'm not totally sold. I want to see what he is going to do with "new" product/ideas. We know what he can do with old product. That he does quite well.
New ideas is what Jobs used to grow the company. If Steve relied on old products (ie. - computers) he would have done better than anyone in the field today (still is, actually)... but the company would still be just a small computer company.
Where jobs excelled, and had done so since Apple's birth, is at taken an idea and perfecting it. Was the mp3 player new when Jobs took hold of it, how about smartphones, how about tablets... okay, now let's see what Cook comes up with on his watch. Can he take an old idea and make it new again. So far there is nothing new to compare his abilities.
If we're talking about what Apple already does, computers, mp3 players, smartphones and tablets... then, sure, Cook knows how to sell those... but I don't see the company growing much, if at all, if that is where Apple is going to stay.
The military probably also has a saying for people who have no ambition...
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
2012 was still Steve. This is Tim's year. We'll know by this time next year.
I doubt we will ever see another Steve or "any other name year.
I would suggest that for quite some years, most if not all new innovations will most likely have come from a list of products and/or ideas/concepts that either Steve personally created, imparted in or generated. And for that, it will be 'Apple's Year' for many more to come.
And for the Wall Street gamblers that criticize Apple for not coming forth with more new products, more often, it's Apple's Ecosystem, stupid. And if they don't understand that, it's like they are the same people that start gulping down Christmas dinner before everyone else arrives at the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate
Well it's not any more "blather" than:
"I'm not sold on Tim Cook.. we'll have to wait and see.. he'd better be able to handle the job.. you know what comes next if he can't execute..."
Can you show me a "new" product line that was done solely on Cook's watch? (... and, please, don't say iPad mini... it's a tablet after all).
If not, then, we'll have to wait and see.
We know what Cook is good at, you told us that... but let's see if he's also good at creating a market for a new take on an old idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoast8
I doubt we will ever see another Steve or "any other name year.
I would suggest that for quite some years, most if not all new innovations will most likely have come from a list of products and/or ideas/concepts that either Steve personally created, imparted in or generated. And for that, it will be 'Apple's Year' for many more to come.
And for the Wall Street gamblers that criticize Apple for not coming forth with more new products, more often, it's Apple's Ecosystem, stupid. And if they don't understand that, it's like they are the same people that start gulping down Christmas dinner before everyone else arrives at the table.
Steve was at the helm when the current product line came to fruition. It won't matter where the next idea comes from... it will be solely up to Tim to execute.
I always hear crickets when I ask the same question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I always hear crickets when I ask the same question...
I hope you're not implying that's a good thing.
That's a given but it is still one hell of a company with a hell of a good team. Plus I am sure they have tons in the pipeline Steve was involved with. After that we have to hope the head start they have over the rest of the tech industry and massive lead in most areas keeps them going with momentum into the post Steve phase. Let's face it, there is no competition so far, just copy cats like Google and Samsung and those dying such as RIM and Microsoft.
SNAFU
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Can you show me a "new" product line that was done solely on Cook's watch? (... and, please, don't say iPad mini... it's a tablet after all).
If not, then, we'll have to wait and see.
We know what Cook is good at, you told us that... but let's see if he's also good at creating a market for a new take on an old idea.
Those types of new products happen, what, a couple times a decade?
Since Steve came back, it was iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, over 13 years. And the iPhone and iPad are pretty similar, just different sizes for different uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Steve was at the helm when the current product line came to fruition. It won't matter where the next idea comes from... it will be solely up to Tim to execute.
I don't totally agree.
Tim will never command the innards at Apple like Steve did. Tim's involvement excludes so many areas that is necessary to develop, market and launch a product. There will be others that will command those areas. And most unacknowledged.
Tim may head the keynote addresses, but no matter how great the next innovation is to come, it will be an Apple wonder. Much like those of Thomas, Henry and Grahams' Years would be prefaced by GE, Ford and AT&T respectively. If ever.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The weak spot for Apple's June quarter was the iPad, which saw its first-ever sales decline.
True, but during last year's June quarter, the iPad (3rd gen) had just been released.
And it was the first Retina iPad, so there was huge demand for it. Compare that with
the end of this year's June quarter, when the iPad (4th gen) and iPad mini were 8 months old.
(I think Wall Street has already factored that into Apple's price, +$25.04 as I type.)
And, if Apple sticks to announcing updated iPads in the holiday quarter, the June
quarter will probably be the weakest in terms of iPad and iPad mini sales. The September
quarter, with the annual release of iOS, might boost sales slightly if there are fresh new
features in iOS. But the iOS release would probably come in September, at the end of
the quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
True, but during last year's June quarter, the iPad (3rd gen) had just been released.
And it was the first Retina iPad, so there was huge demand for it. Compare that with
the end of this year's June quarter, when the iPad (4th gen) and iPad mini were 8 months old.
(I think Wall Street has already factored that into Apple's price, +$25.04 as I type.)
And, if Apple sticks to announcing updated iPads in the holiday quarter, the June
quarter will probably be the weakest in terms of iPad and iPad mini sales. The September
quarter, with the annual release of iOS, might boost sales slightly if there are fresh new
features in iOS. But the iOS release would probably come in September, at the end of
the quarter.
Also, when taking into account channel inventory, actual sales to customers were relatively flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
True, but during last year's June quarter, the iPad (3rd gen) had just been released.
And it was the first Retina iPad, so there was huge demand for it. Compare that with
the end of this year's June quarter, when the iPad (4th gen) and iPad mini were 8 months old.
(I think Wall Street has already factored that into Apple's price, +$25.04 as I type.)
And, if Apple sticks to announcing updated iPads in the holiday quarter, the June
quarter will probably be the weakest in terms of iPad and iPad mini sales. The September
quarter, with the annual release of iOS, might boost sales slightly if there are fresh new
features in iOS. But the iOS release would probably come in September, at the end of
the quarter.
Tim Cook must really be Kris Kringle: everything is for the Holidays! more or less......
I make no value judgments about it. It is just an observation.
Absolutely false.
First, there's nothing illegal about a noncompete agreement - even in CA. They're often not enforceable, but that doesn't make them illegal.
Second, even in CA, SOME noncompete agreements are perfectly legal. For example, if three partners create a company and each sign a noncompete saying that they won't start a competing company, that is generally going to be enforceable.
Whether that exception applies to a senior VP at a public company is not entirely clear. It is likely that a very narrowly crafted noncompete might still work in that situation. But even if it didn't your statement that noncompetes are illegal in CA is just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Those types of new products happen, what, a couple times a decade?
Since Steve came back, it was iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, over 13 years. And the iPhone and iPad are pretty similar, just different sizes for different uses.
I didn't say otherwise.
Originally Posted by Westcoast8
... Tim's involvement excludes so many areas that is necessary to develop, market and launch a product. There will be others that will command those areas. And most unacknowledged. ...
Well, actually, Steve's involvement went only so deep as well. Yes, he micromanaged at every level. But no, he wasn't an engineer or designer. And that's what made him such a great CEO. He never lost his end user perspective, he knew what he wanted, and he relentlessly pushed people to deliver what he wanted.
Every large corporation, if its founder stuck around long enough, will reflect its founder's personality. He or she will evolve the corporate culture into a personal statement of how a company should be run, what type of employee to hire at various levels of responsibility, and how to motivate employees to do their best work:
Oracle - aggressive and always looking for a fight, like its egomaniacal founder Larry Ellison (Mr. America's Cup.)
Microsoft - too geeky for its own good, zero understanding of end users outside the office environment, like Bill Gates (Mr. Embrace Extend Extinguish.)
Apple - obsessed with simplicity and clean design, secretive, relentless, end-user oriented, like Steve Jobs (Mr. "Excellence is Expected.")
And that corporate culture is baked in. It will be there long after the CEO is gone. Successive CEOs will either need to curate that culture or attempt to un-bake the cake, tear the whole structure apart, and start all over again. And that rarely works.
Also, don't you think that Steve wrote out a 20 year master plan for Apple?
Wouldn't you if you were in his place in 2010 or so?
I think he did, and Tim (and subsequent CEOs) will be executing that master plan.
I don't see a need to worry about Apple for a couple of decades. As long as they debut strong products like the recently released AIRs Apple will do well. As for possible flops Apple had many as the result of Steve's direction so it wouldn't surprise me to see a few flops from the current administration.
In any event the big problem all large companies have is attracting the brightest from the universities.
Competition is tough and the draw of making a big splash with a startup is still there. It isn't the talent pool at the top of an organization that makes or breaks a product, it isn't the guys that actually implement the product that make it viable. Of course the guys at the top need to know what they are doing and provide the right direction. Lack of direction is what gives us products like MS Surface.
Necessity is there. Many people don't want a huge phone in their pocket. The ability to offer choice based on size is huge. Actually a lot of people don't need LTE in their smart phones.
Wrong again! The iPhone 4's still make up a huge percentage of sales. There are really only two explanations there. One is size. The other is cost. If anything yesterday's report confirms the need for a variety of devices to fill these niches.
They still don't have a pressing need for a new product. The market isn't so much saturated as tapped out. People are being more critical of purchases for personal consumption and corporations have gone into almost a lock down mode on spending. Notebooks and iPads are two different products. It makes about as much sense as comparing an Oracle server to an AIR. You do realize that Steve was a marketing person and as such most of what he had to say publicly was BS? I've never understood this need to quote Steve as the deliver of gospel when most often all he was doing is marketing a product. Marketing isn't a reflection of reality, it is a distortion created in your mind by the marketer too get you too see things his way and buy products. Look up snake oil salesman.