Well one thing is for sure. This place is starting to look like MacRumors more very day, infested with Apple hating trolls. You know what? I NEVER...EVER visit Windows or Android centric websites let alone troll those users.
It seems every single Apple centric website or forum has the exact same problem. People who despise the company feel obligated to join and spill their bile and venom. Apple is truly an amazing company. Even its critics are dedicated and loyal to it.
Well one thing is for sure. This place is starting to look like MacRumors more very day, infested with Apple hating trolls. You know what? I NEVER...EVER visit Windows or Android centric websites let alone troll those users.
It seems every single Apple centric website or forum has the exact same problem. People who despise the company feel obligated to join and spill their bile and venom. Apple is truly an amazing company. Even its critics are dedicated and loyal to it.
Well one thing is for sure. This place is starting to look like MacRumors more very day, infested with Apple hating trolls. You know what? I NEVER...EVER visit Windows or Android centric websites let alone troll those users.
It seems every single Apple centric website or forum has the exact same problem. People who despise the company feel obligated to join and spill their bile and venom. Apple is truly an amazing company. Even its critics are dedicated and loyal to it.
Don't flatter yourself. Not one single person cares about what you never ever do. It's the same on all the sites. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
You don't seem to realize that Steve Jobs is dead, Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, he has never pretended to be, and does not need to act like him in order to indulge your absurd fantasies. Your biggest jab is that he didn't copy and paste an act that Steve did during the iPhone presentation 8 years ago? You don't seem to realize how constantly claiming that the CEO of the most successful company of the planet, who has brought this company to new, unheard of heights during his tenure- needs to go- and that's sad. Wonder how you would feel if someone constantly berated you for the fact that you don't act and sound like a dead person.
As an (alleged) shareholder, you also seem strangely ungrateful, since Cook has made you a shitload of money during his time. It's also strange for a "shareholder" like you to constantly fantasize about the company failing, and dragging the company through the mud at every ingle opportunity. How the **** do you still hold shares if you so strongly believe the company is going down the drain? Oh I know- you don't hold any shares.
Tim "wasted your time" with Jesse Jackson? You were at the shareholder's meeting, were you? Jackson had a right to speak during the meeting, just like every other shareholder there. He's not Tim's creation. He didn't bring him there. Your bigotry and shameless lies never, ever end.
You always seem to miss the points and just attack people for their perspectives and insights.
It's regrettable that Jesse Jackson was given a platform for his nonsense (and Phillip Elmer DeWitt noted the agitation of the shareholders during his lengthy, droning speech). Perhaps a vote will be held next time to restrict such appearances next time.
When I was a kid, we used to go out in the middle of the night to catch night crawlers, the big worms that you could spot with a flashlight, glistening red under the blades of grass. You had to grab fast, or they would slip back into their hole when they sensed the light.
When I was a kid, we used to go out in the middle of the night to catch night crawlers, the big worms that you could spot with a flashlight, glistening red under the blades of grass. You had to grab fast, or they would slip back into their hole when they sensed the light.
Same cheap, lame analogy Apple used in the commercial. Btw I'm out in the bright sunlight, and see things crystal clear. If you want to play in the reality distortion field then go right ahead, but forgive me if I choose not to.
Same cheap, lame analogy Apple used in the commercial. Btw I'm out in the bright sunlight, and see things crystal clear. If you want to play in the reality distortion field then go right ahead, but forgive me if I choose not to.
Oooooohhhhh, reality distortion meme. Shows you have nothing to actually contribute and lump everyone who disagrees with you into the same pot. Feel free to come back when you have an actual point to make instead of insulting everyone en masse.
Oooooohhhhh, reality distortion meme. Shows you have nothing to actually contribute and lump everyone who disagrees with you into the same pot. Feel free to come back when you have an actual point to make instead of insulting everyone en masse.
How is that an insult to everyone? If I make a statement that you disagree with then explain to me how I'm wrong. I'm open to opposing POVs, and I'm man enough to retract a statement, admit when I'm wrong, and apologize if need be.
Now I'm confused. I am always mild to moderately irritated by American publications putting "z's", in words that should have "s's", it's not just pedantry, it makes it more difficult to read. But now here is a word that clearly has a Z we all can agree on, but it's spelled with an 'S'.
What really stood out for me at the keynote was the fact that Cook didn't demo the Apple Watch. That sums up the feeling one gets from Cook; he's always one stage divorced from the products. It’s such a contrast to Jobs, where you felt that the products Apple made were his baby; he took personal responsibility for their success. He announced the price of the iPad with such aplomb and humour. Then, the other day, we got Cook embarrassingly mumbling the price of the $10,000 Apple Watch Edition.
Cook wore the watch, yet never used it, once. Not even some quirky little phone call with Ive? No. Instead, a dry, confusing demo from Kevin Lynch.
We all know that Cook is not Jobs and definitely not trying to be jobs. However, when I watched the keynote something did not feel right. I was not sure what it was, and I know Cook has the quirky way of talking but it was not that. I think you nailed it, he seem really detached from the product this time.
We know Steve has been characterize as distorting reality most times and people really questioned whether he really thought the product were as good as he played them up to be. However, you always felt Jobs definitely believe in every word he said. In the end most time Steve was right it was as good as he played it up. I am personally still on the fence with the watch, my son sees the possible future and how it will be the device people will want. I am seriously thinking about getting one, to see if Apple pull off another one. However, Cook did not leave me felling that I must have it like I I have in the past. He did not seem to really interact with it as one would expect, he kind of treated as a watch, you look at once or twice during a period of time and the rest of the time it just looks good on your wrist.
I think Cook is struggling to be himself, he is no P.T. Barnum, but he is having a hard time being the top front man for Apple. I have no doubt he knows how to run the business and they still appear to be living the values that Steve has put forward. We just have to realize that like P.T. Barnum, Steve was unique and we can not expect Cook to be the same level of a showman.
What really stood out for me at the keynote was the fact that Cook didn't demo the Apple Watch. That sums up the feeling one gets from Cook; he's always one stage divorced from the products. It’s such a contrast to Jobs, where you felt that the products Apple made were his baby; he took personal responsibility for their success. He announced the price of the iPad with such aplomb and humour. Then, the other day, we got Cook embarrassingly mumbling the price of the $10,000 Apple Watch Edition.
Cook wore the watch, yet never used it, once. Not even some quirky little phone call with Ive? No. Instead, a dry, confusing demo from Kevin Lynch.
We all know that Cook is not Jobs and definitely not trying to be jobs. However, when I watched the keynote something did not feel right. I was not sure what it was, and I know Cook has the quirky way of talking but it was not that. I think you nailed it, he seem really detached from the product this time.
We know Steve has been characterize as distorting reality most times and people really questioned whether he really thought the product were as good as he played them up to be. However, you always felt Jobs definitely believe in every word he said. In the end most time Steve was right it was as good as he played it up. I am personally still on the fence with the watch, my son sees the possible future and how it will be the device people will want. I am seriously thinking about getting one, to see if Apple pull off another one. However, Cook did not leave me felling that I must have it like I I have in the past. He did not seem to really interact with it as one would expect, he kind of treated as a watch, you look at once or twice during a period of time and the rest of the time it just looks good on your wrist.
I think Cook is struggling to be himself, he is no P.T. Barnum, but he is having a hard time being the top front man for Apple. I have no doubt he knows how to run the business and they still appear to be living the values that Steve has put forward. We just have to realize that like P.T. Barnum, Steve was unique and we can not expect Cook to be the same level of a showman.
Thank you for being the first person to seriously engage with me on this topic!
Of course, Cook runs Apple superbly. That has never been in question.
But when it comes to crossing the barrier from CEO of Apple to the public, Jobs had a knack for drawing us in. There's something else that came to me yesterday on their differences: whenever Cook talks about Apple, he always refers to it as "we." "We are thrilled to be bringing this product to our customers." Okay, maybe not always, but often. Whereas Jobs normally talked in the first person. My memory always replays him in the keynotes saying things like, "I love this." "I'm really excited about this." Again, with Cook you get the detachment of "we", as though he's slightly absolving responsibility. Now, in his defence, he would probably argue that he's trying to include everyone who works at Apple, so as not to take the credit for everything. And there is something to that. But I think it's better to use "I", because it shows more responsibility, and we knew that Jobs was really talking for all of Apple even using the first person. By using the first person, Jobs was breaking down all the walls, opening himself up, becoming vulnerable; and that's really appealing.
Jobs made Apple personal. As you suggest, perhaps Cook is still struggling to make Apple seems personal for him. Perhaps he never will. We knew he was never a product person before becoming CEO.
For me, it's all about focus. Everything. That is the weakness at Apple for the moment, and it filters through all areas. The keynote felt unfocused, the Apple Watch feels unfocused, iOS does, the iPad and now the laptop lines feel unfocused. The very direction of Apple still seems unfocused. Sorry to sound so relentlessly negative, but I only harp on because I care about Apple. I hope that at least some of my concerns will be resolved soon. It sounds as though iOS will get a bug-fix this year, for instance.
DED just wasted his time on the first 90% of the article. With the word "Diversity" in the headline and a picture of President Obama, this thread went south in a hurry. Apparently no one is interested in the ?Watch or IBM partnership or no relationship with Tesla or the money donated through Product Red or Swift, Continuity or their profits, acquisitions, brand or anything else discussed in the meeting. Nope, it is all about Jesse Jackson, and anti-diversity BS.
He wants to be a politician; go and be one! We won't miss you at the keynotes. And I don't want to see you wasting my time and other shareholders' time with Jesse Jackson ever again.
What really stood out for me at the keynote was the fact that Cook didn't demo the Apple Watch. That sums up the feeling one gets from Cook; he's always one stage divorced from the products. It’s such a contrast to Jobs, where you felt that the products Apple made were his baby; he took personal responsibility for their success. He announced the price of the iPad with such aplomb and humour. Then, the other day, we got Cook embarrassingly mumbling the price of the $10,000 Apple Watch Edition.
Cook wore the watch, yet never used it, once. Not even some quirky little phone call with Ive? No. Instead, a dry, confusing demo from Kevin Lynch.
In short: it’s the lack of focus that is spelling worrying times, from the bug-ridden iOS to the Gadget without a Cause, the Apple Watch.
I completely disagree. What stood out for me is that Cook is willing to give the credit where credit is due - that's one of the things I really like about him. He's willing to share the stage with other Apple executives in a way that Jobs rarely did. I think Jobs liked leaving an impression that he was responsible for the design of everything at Apple, even if we all realized that it wasn't literally true. At the presentation and at the shareholder's meeting, Cook gave a lot of credit to other Apple employees. He's simply a much more gracious person than Jobs was. Cook cannot be Jobs. No one can be.
I don't see a lack of focus at all. And while I see some design flaws (IMO) in iOS and OS X that reflect a lack of attention to detail and I don't like some of the changes to the OS that Ive is apparently responsible for, I haven't really found any bugs in either OS, aside from a very occasional app crash on my phone.
As for the watch, while I don't personally want one and while it's certainly not going to sell like the phone did (or even the iPad), it's going to be a big hit for Apple, IMO. But there's no point arguing - we can come back in a year and see.
I don't think Cook is about politics, although I do think it's unfortunate he gave a platform to Jessie Jackson. I think it is important to make Apple more diverse. You can't go on having a bunch of white American upper-class males making every decision about these products when you want to sell them to a wide diversity of users around the world.
I also think what you perceive as politics is Cook's willingness to listen to other ideas. With Jobs, it was usually "his way or the highway", with a few notable exceptions. With Cook, without focus-grouping anything, which would be a disaster, he's more willing to decentralize power, which you have to do in a large company.
Does Cook have Jobs' presentation skills? No...Jobs was pretty great at that, although in more recent presentations there were many moments where you could see Jobs expecting big applause where he didn't get it. And there were phrases that he used so many times that they no longer had any real meaning. But having said that, I thought this last presentation was pretty good...it made Apple look pretty solid.
But let's say you're right and I'm wrong: who would you replace Cook with?
Okay, you have fun with that. Meanwhile, "your guy" has done more to destroy freedoms and civil liberties than any before him (not that Bush didn't start it). But keep enjoying FantasyLand.
Fair enough (if you're referring to spying on the American public).
But if Romney had been elected President, do you really think it would have been any different? The only thing that gives me any peace is that the NSA is too incompetent to do very much with the masses of data that they've collected. I'd be more worried if it was more targeted.
I think that any President, right or left, would have the problem that if they stopped the NSA in any way and there was another terrorist attack, they would have been blamed because placing that kind of blame is so easy to do without any real thinking, especially by politicians of the opposite party and the media. And if you were to poll the American public, in spite of a majority of that public hating Obama, they would choose to continue to let the NSA continue the invasion of privacy rather than taking the risk of another attack at the same time they feel that their freedoms have been violated. Because basically, we're all cowards.
IMO, it's not the President who is the biggest problem. It's Congress. They could have stopped the NSA years ago from this absurd notion that it's necessary to spy on every American citizen by simply passing the appropriate laws. But they haven't. And even if a tea-party Republican was to win the next election and Republicans increase their majority in both the House and Senate, I still wouldn't expect them to do anything about it.
But when it comes to crossing the barrier from CEO of Apple to the public, Jobs had a knack for drawing us in. There's something else that came to me yesterday on their differences: whenever Cook talks about Apple, he always refers to it as "we." "We are thrilled to be bringing this product to our customers." Okay, maybe not always, but often. Whereas Jobs normally talked in the first person. My memory always replays him in the keynotes saying things like, "I love this." "I'm really excited about this." Again, with Cook you get the detachment of "we", as though he's slightly absolving responsibility. Now, in his defence, he would probably argue that he's trying to include everyone who works at Apple, so as not to take the credit for everything. And there is something to that. But I think it's better to use "I", because it shows more responsibility, and we knew that Jobs was really talking for all of Apple even using the first person. By using the first person, Jobs was breaking down all the walls, opening himself up, becoming vulnerable; and that's really appealing.
While it's okay to say, "I love this", Jobs always using "I" reflected his ego. Imagine a team of Apple employees who just spent 18 hours a day for the last nine months developing a new product and then watching Jobs get up there and using nothing but the word "I".
The fact that Cook says "we" does not reflect detachment, IMO. It reflects his understanding of the reality that Apple has a wealth of talented executives and creators who drive the company. To do the opposite endangers the company. Because if Apple was only about Cook (as many perceived it to be only about Jobs), if something happens to Cook, then the perception is that the company can fail. And the stock price did take a hit when Jobs had to leave the company, but the press was far more negative - some felt that Apple couldn't survive. That doesn't happen when Apple is a "we" and with 100,000 employees, it should be a "we".
When I was an exec, I made a conscious point to always say "we" when I was doing presentations. There were some VPs in the company who would never hire great people, because they were paranoid that the hires would be better than they were (and they would have been) and eventually take their jobs. I always hired great people with the intent that they should eventually be qualified to take over my job. I always felt that the stronger the people who I hired, the stronger it made me.
Comments
Well one thing is for sure. This place is starting to look like MacRumors more very day, infested with Apple hating trolls. You know what? I NEVER...EVER visit Windows or Android centric websites let alone troll those users.
It seems every single Apple centric website or forum has the exact same problem. People who despise the company feel obligated to join and spill their bile and venom. Apple is truly an amazing company. Even its critics are dedicated and loyal to it.
Happily, our worst one has been banned.
Apple Insider is, at least, moderated well.
Don't flatter yourself. Not one single person cares about what you never ever do. It's the same on all the sites. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
You're confused. Huntsman SENIOR is not Huntsman JUNIOR. Junior is a leftist.
Sorry missed that (Sr), but you pretty much proved my point.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/-the-tea-party-has-completely---ruined-the-republican-party---jon-huntsman-sr--210121174.html
Because the points are perversely wrong, and the posters, being perverters of truth, know it.
So do you, so just stop.
It's regrettable that Jesse Jackson was given a platform for his nonsense (and Phillip Elmer DeWitt noted the agitation of the shareholders during his lengthy, droning speech). Perhaps a vote will be held next time to restrict such appearances next time.
In your cheap, lame analogy, 1984.
When I was a kid, we used to go out in the middle of the night to catch night crawlers, the big worms that you could spot with a flashlight, glistening red under the blades of grass. You had to grab fast, or they would slip back into their hole when they sensed the light.
Same cheap, lame analogy Apple used in the commercial. Btw I'm out in the bright sunlight, and see things crystal clear. If you want to play in the reality distortion field then go right ahead, but forgive me if I choose not to.
Same cheap, lame analogy Apple used in the commercial. Btw I'm out in the bright sunlight, and see things crystal clear. If you want to play in the reality distortion field then go right ahead, but forgive me if I choose not to.
Oooooohhhhh, reality distortion meme. Shows you have nothing to actually contribute and lump everyone who disagrees with you into the same pot. Feel free to come back when you have an actual point to make instead of insulting everyone en masse.
How is that an insult to everyone? If I make a statement that you disagree with then explain to me how I'm wrong. I'm open to opposing POVs, and I'm man enough to retract a statement, admit when I'm wrong, and apologize if need be.
Zamzung?
It’s hard for you to purposely misread what I’ve written when I don’t write much, isn’t it? Poor Crowley.
We all know that Cook is not Jobs and definitely not trying to be jobs. However, when I watched the keynote something did not feel right. I was not sure what it was, and I know Cook has the quirky way of talking but it was not that. I think you nailed it, he seem really detached from the product this time.
We know Steve has been characterize as distorting reality most times and people really questioned whether he really thought the product were as good as he played them up to be. However, you always felt Jobs definitely believe in every word he said. In the end most time Steve was right it was as good as he played it up. I am personally still on the fence with the watch, my son sees the possible future and how it will be the device people will want. I am seriously thinking about getting one, to see if Apple pull off another one. However, Cook did not leave me felling that I must have it like I I have in the past. He did not seem to really interact with it as one would expect, he kind of treated as a watch, you look at once or twice during a period of time and the rest of the time it just looks good on your wrist.
I think Cook is struggling to be himself, he is no P.T. Barnum, but he is having a hard time being the top front man for Apple. I have no doubt he knows how to run the business and they still appear to be living the values that Steve has put forward. We just have to realize that like P.T. Barnum, Steve was unique and we can not expect Cook to be the same level of a showman.
Diversity means chasing down the last white person.
What part of...
...do you not understand?
Thank you for being the first person to seriously engage with me on this topic!
Of course, Cook runs Apple superbly. That has never been in question.
But when it comes to crossing the barrier from CEO of Apple to the public, Jobs had a knack for drawing us in. There's something else that came to me yesterday on their differences: whenever Cook talks about Apple, he always refers to it as "we." "We are thrilled to be bringing this product to our customers." Okay, maybe not always, but often. Whereas Jobs normally talked in the first person. My memory always replays him in the keynotes saying things like, "I love this." "I'm really excited about this." Again, with Cook you get the detachment of "we", as though he's slightly absolving responsibility. Now, in his defence, he would probably argue that he's trying to include everyone who works at Apple, so as not to take the credit for everything. And there is something to that. But I think it's better to use "I", because it shows more responsibility, and we knew that Jobs was really talking for all of Apple even using the first person. By using the first person, Jobs was breaking down all the walls, opening himself up, becoming vulnerable; and that's really appealing.
Jobs made Apple personal. As you suggest, perhaps Cook is still struggling to make Apple seems personal for him. Perhaps he never will. We knew he was never a product person before becoming CEO.
For me, it's all about focus. Everything. That is the weakness at Apple for the moment, and it filters through all areas. The keynote felt unfocused, the Apple Watch feels unfocused, iOS does, the iPad and now the laptop lines feel unfocused. The very direction of Apple still seems unfocused. Sorry to sound so relentlessly negative, but I only harp on because I care about Apple. I hope that at least some of my concerns will be resolved soon. It sounds as though iOS will get a bug-fix this year, for instance.
DED just wasted his time on the first 90% of the article. With the word "Diversity" in the headline and a picture of President Obama, this thread went south in a hurry. Apparently no one is interested in the ?Watch or IBM partnership or no relationship with Tesla or the money donated through Product Red or Swift, Continuity or their profits, acquisitions, brand or anything else discussed in the meeting. Nope, it is all about Jesse Jackson, and anti-diversity BS.
It’s clear that Cook is in the wrong job.
He wants to be a politician; go and be one! We won't miss you at the keynotes. And I don't want to see you wasting my time and other shareholders' time with Jesse Jackson ever again.
What really stood out for me at the keynote was the fact that Cook didn't demo the Apple Watch. That sums up the feeling one gets from Cook; he's always one stage divorced from the products. It’s such a contrast to Jobs, where you felt that the products Apple made were his baby; he took personal responsibility for their success. He announced the price of the iPad with such aplomb and humour. Then, the other day, we got Cook embarrassingly mumbling the price of the $10,000 Apple Watch Edition.
Cook wore the watch, yet never used it, once. Not even some quirky little phone call with Ive? No. Instead, a dry, confusing demo from Kevin Lynch.
In short: it’s the lack of focus that is spelling worrying times, from the bug-ridden iOS to the Gadget without a Cause, the Apple Watch.
I completely disagree. What stood out for me is that Cook is willing to give the credit where credit is due - that's one of the things I really like about him. He's willing to share the stage with other Apple executives in a way that Jobs rarely did. I think Jobs liked leaving an impression that he was responsible for the design of everything at Apple, even if we all realized that it wasn't literally true. At the presentation and at the shareholder's meeting, Cook gave a lot of credit to other Apple employees. He's simply a much more gracious person than Jobs was. Cook cannot be Jobs. No one can be.
I don't see a lack of focus at all. And while I see some design flaws (IMO) in iOS and OS X that reflect a lack of attention to detail and I don't like some of the changes to the OS that Ive is apparently responsible for, I haven't really found any bugs in either OS, aside from a very occasional app crash on my phone.
As for the watch, while I don't personally want one and while it's certainly not going to sell like the phone did (or even the iPad), it's going to be a big hit for Apple, IMO. But there's no point arguing - we can come back in a year and see.
I don't think Cook is about politics, although I do think it's unfortunate he gave a platform to Jessie Jackson. I think it is important to make Apple more diverse. You can't go on having a bunch of white American upper-class males making every decision about these products when you want to sell them to a wide diversity of users around the world.
I also think what you perceive as politics is Cook's willingness to listen to other ideas. With Jobs, it was usually "his way or the highway", with a few notable exceptions. With Cook, without focus-grouping anything, which would be a disaster, he's more willing to decentralize power, which you have to do in a large company.
Does Cook have Jobs' presentation skills? No...Jobs was pretty great at that, although in more recent presentations there were many moments where you could see Jobs expecting big applause where he didn't get it. And there were phrases that he used so many times that they no longer had any real meaning. But having said that, I thought this last presentation was pretty good...it made Apple look pretty solid.
But let's say you're right and I'm wrong: who would you replace Cook with?
Okay, you have fun with that. Meanwhile, "your guy" has done more to destroy freedoms and civil liberties than any before him (not that Bush didn't start it). But keep enjoying FantasyLand.
Fair enough (if you're referring to spying on the American public).
But if Romney had been elected President, do you really think it would have been any different? The only thing that gives me any peace is that the NSA is too incompetent to do very much with the masses of data that they've collected. I'd be more worried if it was more targeted.
I think that any President, right or left, would have the problem that if they stopped the NSA in any way and there was another terrorist attack, they would have been blamed because placing that kind of blame is so easy to do without any real thinking, especially by politicians of the opposite party and the media. And if you were to poll the American public, in spite of a majority of that public hating Obama, they would choose to continue to let the NSA continue the invasion of privacy rather than taking the risk of another attack at the same time they feel that their freedoms have been violated. Because basically, we're all cowards.
IMO, it's not the President who is the biggest problem. It's Congress. They could have stopped the NSA years ago from this absurd notion that it's necessary to spy on every American citizen by simply passing the appropriate laws. But they haven't. And even if a tea-party Republican was to win the next election and Republicans increase their majority in both the House and Senate, I still wouldn't expect them to do anything about it.
But when it comes to crossing the barrier from CEO of Apple to the public, Jobs had a knack for drawing us in. There's something else that came to me yesterday on their differences: whenever Cook talks about Apple, he always refers to it as "we." "We are thrilled to be bringing this product to our customers." Okay, maybe not always, but often. Whereas Jobs normally talked in the first person. My memory always replays him in the keynotes saying things like, "I love this." "I'm really excited about this." Again, with Cook you get the detachment of "we", as though he's slightly absolving responsibility. Now, in his defence, he would probably argue that he's trying to include everyone who works at Apple, so as not to take the credit for everything. And there is something to that. But I think it's better to use "I", because it shows more responsibility, and we knew that Jobs was really talking for all of Apple even using the first person. By using the first person, Jobs was breaking down all the walls, opening himself up, becoming vulnerable; and that's really appealing.
While it's okay to say, "I love this", Jobs always using "I" reflected his ego. Imagine a team of Apple employees who just spent 18 hours a day for the last nine months developing a new product and then watching Jobs get up there and using nothing but the word "I".
The fact that Cook says "we" does not reflect detachment, IMO. It reflects his understanding of the reality that Apple has a wealth of talented executives and creators who drive the company. To do the opposite endangers the company. Because if Apple was only about Cook (as many perceived it to be only about Jobs), if something happens to Cook, then the perception is that the company can fail. And the stock price did take a hit when Jobs had to leave the company, but the press was far more negative - some felt that Apple couldn't survive. That doesn't happen when Apple is a "we" and with 100,000 employees, it should be a "we".
When I was an exec, I made a conscious point to always say "we" when I was doing presentations. There were some VPs in the company who would never hire great people, because they were paranoid that the hires would be better than they were (and they would have been) and eventually take their jobs. I always hired great people with the intent that they should eventually be qualified to take over my job. I always felt that the stronger the people who I hired, the stronger it made me.