The profile also revealed the effects of corporate change at Apple under Cook.
Another article on the same subject mentioned that change too, suggesting that the culture at Apple is now more "corporate" with an increase in spreadsheets etc.
As one who has recently gone through a similar change I can tell you that it's shocking how quickly a shift to a "corporate culture" can suck the life out of creative people. Passionate debates over how to do things are replaced with policy memos, support people are replaced with online tools, and nothing happens without it being approved by The Mothership. The people who would DEFINE the cutting edge are laid off as the company "discovers efficiencies of consolidation synergies," fired outright because "they're not team players" or worse, devolve into obedient button pushers.
If the article is right in its assessment of Cook, we can probably expect future Apple products to be more generic and less revolutionary.
You do realize that, according to a few people on this board, one in particular, you made Sculley sound just like their representation of who they think Tim Cook is/should be. Leave technical vision and products up to the rest of the team. Just run the damn company really well.
Of course, Sculley/Spindler/Amelio showed us where that can lead... eventually.
[Your mention of the Newton is a very apt point which could well be used as an analogy for the current situation at Apple... but we need about another 4 years at the very least to see how things go]
Is Apple in the same spot as it was in 1985? Is Apple merely churning out products Steve set in motion? People can say what they want about a better team etc. etc., but all we can do is postulate. Steve is really gone this time. We'll see how it goes.
... and, by the way, if AAPL makes a run to $700 again... will that be a horrible representation of its real value? Is $500 a horrible representation of its real value?
When AAPL was around $400 did you think that represented its real value? Stocks merely represent investor confidence.
I think Cook knows he doesn't have the product vision Steve had, but he has a very talented team of SVPs. He knows Apple's culture under Steve, I don't see him changing that anytime soon. Personally, it feels like he's just holding on to his position until the next visionary (Ive?) comes along
When AAPL was around $400 did you think that represented its real value? Stocks merely represent investor confidence.
I think Cook knows he doesn't have the product vision Steve had, but he has a very talented team of SVPs. He knows Apple's culture under Steve, I don't see him changing that anytime soon. Personally, it feels like he's just holding on to his position until the next visionary (Ive?) comes along
So, in other words, Sculley bad... Cook good. Is that what you are saying. If Cook drives the price up to $700-$800 then that is what it should be... but if Sculley drove it up to $700-$800, then it shouldn't be that. That's f'd up, man.
Apple's culture? I guess you haven't been reading this thread.
I have to buy lottery tickets tomorrow... you seem to have a good grasp on the future... could you list the numbers for me.
One of the lessons from Apple over the past decade was not to worry too much about specs or "the way it needs to be done" and to focus on the task at hand. If integrated graphics are fast enough to get the job done, they why add the extra bulk, cost, and battery drain of dedicated graphics? Your attitude of "a REAL computer must have xyz" is one of the things that Jobs rebelled against - and he rewrote the book on computing.
Not to mention, of course, that most of the Mac pro laptops have dedicated graphics, anyway.
I am not against integrated graphics but I don't feel Apple should say okay we're pulling the rug out this year without first having integrated and discrete. Just my view, rubbish or not.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Difference is Jobs worked with Cook for 10+ years and Jony Ives.
You're still just speculating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The profile also revealed the effects of corporate change at Apple under Cook.
Another article on the same subject mentioned that change too, suggesting that the culture at Apple is now more "corporate" with an increase in spreadsheets etc.
As one who has recently gone through a similar change I can tell you that it's shocking how quickly a shift to a "corporate culture" can suck the life out of creative people. Passionate debates over how to do things are replaced with policy memos, support people are replaced with online tools, and nothing happens without it being approved by The Mothership. The people who would DEFINE the cutting edge are laid off as the company "discovers efficiencies of consolidation synergies," fired outright because "they're not team players" or worse, devolve into obedient button pushers.
If the article is right in its assessment of Cook, we can probably expect future Apple products to be more generic and less revolutionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
You do realize that, according to a few people on this board, one in particular, you made Sculley sound just like their representation of who they think Tim Cook is/should be. Leave technical vision and products up to the rest of the team. Just run the damn company really well.
Of course, Sculley/Spindler/Amelio showed us where that can lead... eventually.
[Your mention of the Newton is a very apt point which could well be used as an analogy for the current situation at Apple... but we need about another 4 years at the very least to see how things go]
Is Apple in the same spot as it was in 1985? Is Apple merely churning out products Steve set in motion? People can say what they want about a better team etc. etc., but all we can do is postulate. Steve is really gone this time. We'll see how it goes.
... and, by the way, if AAPL makes a run to $700 again... will that be a horrible representation of its real value? Is $500 a horrible representation of its real value?
When AAPL was around $400 did you think that represented its real value? Stocks merely represent investor confidence.
I think Cook knows he doesn't have the product vision Steve had, but he has a very talented team of SVPs. He knows Apple's culture under Steve, I don't see him changing that anytime soon. Personally, it feels like he's just holding on to his position until the next visionary (Ive?) comes along
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnd0ps
When AAPL was around $400 did you think that represented its real value? Stocks merely represent investor confidence.
I think Cook knows he doesn't have the product vision Steve had, but he has a very talented team of SVPs. He knows Apple's culture under Steve, I don't see him changing that anytime soon. Personally, it feels like he's just holding on to his position until the next visionary (Ive?) comes along
So, in other words, Sculley bad... Cook good. Is that what you are saying. If Cook drives the price up to $700-$800 then that is what it should be... but if Sculley drove it up to $700-$800, then it shouldn't be that. That's f'd up, man.
Apple's culture? I guess you haven't been reading this thread.
I have to buy lottery tickets tomorrow... you seem to have a good grasp on the future... could you list the numbers for me.
I am not against integrated graphics but I don't feel Apple should say okay we're pulling the rug out this year without first having integrated and discrete. Just my view, rubbish or not.