Tim took a swipe at Trump in his address. He really needs to shut up on political matters and keep Apple the liberal arts, technology and services company it is and stop interjecting his personal political spin to prove some kind of misguided progressive cred.
Cook had already been acting CEO for quite awhile (first health hiatus); it wasn't a spur of the moment decision.
Never said it was a (spur of the moment) just that it wasn't totally choice free, there were many influencing factors that landed undue influence to the hole thing, my question was if SJ instead retired would Tim be running Apple ?
You mean there was no way to find a CEO other than Cook in 4-5 years and that's why he's there? Makes no sense buddy.
Makes perfect sense, if you consider the John Sully effect on Steve there was zero chance he would let someone from the outside have that much control of Apple, especially if he wasn't going to be around, so he had to choose from the people who were already there and among those there was non suited, it was all bad choices Tim was just the least bad
Cook was a crucial hire of Jobs to fix the utter mess of a supply chain that meant Apple was bleeding cash even when it was selling decently.
I agree Tim was a great hire to sought out Apple's supply chain and turn it into the 500 lbs gorilla that is today but that doesn't automatically mean he's suited to be CEO, ironically the supply chain is the worst faring department at Apple they can hardly keep up with demand yet the top guy is supposedly some kind of supply chaine genius
Jobs was initially reticent in fully embracing the ecosystem that now defined Apple. Cook was already in the mix when decisions relating to that were made.
What decisions were those ? And how do you know Steve was reticent ? And since when is a little reticence a bad thing ? Apple could use a bit of that today, it's probably that characteristic ( distortion field ) that made Apple what it is today, not Cook, Apple is only building on a long legacy, culture and a unique way of doing things ( putting the product first) that Cook had nothing to do with, so make no mistake, Apple recent success have very little to do with Tim's brilliance, but ruther reinforce the genius that was Jobs, that even after he was gone the culture He instilled at Apple has allowed it to be the most valuable company in history, Cooke mealy kept it going and didn't foul it up too much, but if he continues on this vain he will
If anything, Apple's current explosive success is as much Cook's responsibility than Jobs.
Not really, Apple recent success is all due to decisions made a long time ago regarding the iOS being based on the macOS it seams axiomatic now but it wasn't back then and using power efficient ARM chips knowing that they would be come as powerful as they are now and offcause wall gardening the app store which has allowed it to be as big as it is and playing the most crucial part in Apple's recent glories, again it is obvious now but back when the iPhone was in development it was Steve's " retisent" decision making that laid the foundations, these are all Steve's labours not Cook's, he mealy leveraged growing sucsses to squeez his suppliers so much that Apple sells an iPhone for three times what it costs to make it allowing for brobdingnagian profits and thus greater reinvestment and more fancy componetry, a very tactic cycle, but not a genius one. any competent executive would do that
"I tried meditation. I sought guidance and religion. I read great philosophers and authors....
I suppose this was just the opener to a joke? Tim, Tim... there's a whole world out there beyond Oprah and Deepak Chopra (a much better and more substantial one, too).
In regard to some of the other comments, I guess at least this last WWDC Keynote has given me back a speck of hope in Apple (way better than dancing emojis at least). But, IMO, there are still a lot of problems left to fix.
But, I'm sorry, I still see a core difference between the old Apple and the new, and it comes down to: old: products and UX job #1 --> huge profits new: huge profits job #1 --> fun while it lasts
Apple needs to get back to caring about UX/UI and making the best products, and ditch the 'serving humanity' fluff talk.
Totally agree, people think that Apple making money is some how Cook's miraculous doing like when Stive was building all the things that only recently have started paying off Apple was in a trajectory headed to failor, this is allways where Apple was going, it would have taken a complete moron of a CEO to mess that up, interestingly Apple's most technologically significant moments have all happened through Steve's meticulous control freakaring, and-then some one els takes over followed by great finacial sucsess and-then eventual fall, Steve and Steve start Apple, the one Steve is forced out, Apple experience a great surge in profits on the mac which doesn't last long, then the one Steve returns make iPod, iPhone and iPad and againe is forced out, (R.I.P), Apple experience even greater finacial sucsess than before, what follows next ? See the pattern ?
"There are valid reasons to be realistically optimistic about the future of Apple as a company ‘post Jobs’ and most of them have to do with the best product that Steve Jobs ever produced. That product isn’t the massive cash pile that Apple is sitting on, or Jobs’ impressive trove of patents, its not even the intensely dominant iPhone. Instead, it’s the way that he created Apple in his image, imbuing it with his way of thought and the drive to continuously reinvent itself"
This is a great way to think about this company and it is thruogh this that you bigin to understand how much of Steve Apple really is, its easy to get lostin the trillion dollar eveluation but compnies that last a long time dont do so because of money they do so because they continiuselly reinvent themselfs but sadly that requires inventive leadership, people take Apple recent showings of making very sound products loke air-pod or home-pod is sigh of a company in good condition but its not, nothing Apple has made thus fare from iPad Pro to the new Hom Pod are not terribly inventive, they are all very obvious evolutionary and me too products, very excellently made products, but not very inventive.
There's an agument of " what the hell, show me who els is reinventing the wheel where are all these technological revolutions that Apple should be maching ? Which competitor is making products that are significantly more inventive ? Why is Apple always expected to be the one always inventing new things ? They make lots of money isnt that enough ? ".
These aguments are all misguided because all these aforementioned things are expected of Apple not because Apple is so great or number one but because more than anything els, that is actually the business Apple is in, and by far the one thing that Apple does, they did it in personal computers they did too in smart phone and if they don't do it in something els then they won't be Apple any more not the Apple Steve Jobs invented
Apple needs to get back to caring about UX/UI and making the best products, and ditch the 'serving humanity' fluff talk.
You mean like creating 5k iMac, Apple Watch, AirPod & HomePod?
The problem is mostly on the software side and how they prioritize.
I agree that the 5k iMac is good for what it is, though I'm not sure the rest of that list (or even the 5k iMac) are terribly revolutionary or game-changing.
Comments
Never said it was a (spur of the moment) just that it wasn't totally choice free, there were many influencing factors that landed undue influence to the hole thing, my question was if SJ instead retired would Tim be running Apple ?
You mean there was no way to find a CEO other than Cook in 4-5 years and that's why he's there? Makes no sense buddy.
Makes perfect sense, if you consider the John Sully effect on Steve there was zero chance he would let someone from the outside have that much control of Apple, especially if he wasn't going to be around, so he had to choose from the people who were already there and among those there was non suited, it was all bad choices Tim was just the least bad
Cook was a crucial hire of Jobs to fix the utter mess of a supply chain that meant Apple was bleeding cash even when it was selling decently.
I agree Tim was a great hire to sought out Apple's supply chain and turn it into the 500 lbs gorilla that is today but that doesn't automatically mean he's suited to be CEO, ironically the supply chain is the worst faring department at Apple they can hardly keep up with demand yet the top guy is supposedly some kind of supply chaine genius
Jobs was initially reticent in fully embracing the ecosystem that now defined Apple. Cook was already in the mix when decisions relating to that were made.
What decisions were those ? And how do you know Steve was reticent ? And since when is a little reticence a bad thing ? Apple could use a bit of that today, it's probably that characteristic ( distortion field ) that made Apple what it is today, not Cook, Apple is only building on a long legacy, culture and a unique way of doing things ( putting the product first) that Cook had nothing to do with, so make no mistake, Apple recent success have very little to do with Tim's brilliance, but ruther reinforce the genius that was Jobs, that even after he was gone the culture He instilled at Apple has allowed it to be the most valuable company in history, Cooke mealy kept it going and didn't foul it up too much, but if he continues on this vain he will
If anything, Apple's current explosive success is as much Cook's responsibility than Jobs.
Not really, Apple recent success is all due to decisions made a long time ago regarding the iOS being based on the macOS it seams axiomatic now but it wasn't back then and using power efficient ARM chips knowing that they would be come as powerful as they are now and offcause wall gardening the app store which has allowed it to be as big as it is and playing the most crucial part in Apple's recent glories, again it is obvious now but back when the iPhone was in development it was Steve's " retisent" decision making that laid the foundations, these are all Steve's labours not Cook's, he mealy leveraged growing sucsses to squeez his suppliers so much that Apple sells an iPhone for three times what it costs to make it allowing for brobdingnagian profits and thus greater reinvestment and more fancy componetry, a very tactic cycle, but not a genius one. any competent executive would do that
"There are valid reasons to be realistically optimistic about the future of Apple as a company ‘post Jobs’ and most of them have to do with the best product that Steve Jobs ever produced. That product isn’t the massive cash pile that Apple is sitting on, or Jobs’ impressive trove of patents, its not even the intensely dominant iPhone. Instead, it’s the way that he created Apple in his image, imbuing it with his way of thought and the drive to continuously reinvent itself"
This is a great way to think about this company and it is thruogh this that you bigin to understand how much of Steve Apple really is, its easy to get lostin the trillion dollar eveluation but compnies that last a long time dont do so because of money they do so because they continiuselly reinvent themselfs but sadly that requires inventive leadership, people take Apple recent showings of making very sound products loke air-pod or home-pod is sigh of a company in good condition but its not, nothing Apple has made thus fare from iPad Pro to the new Hom Pod are not terribly inventive, they are all very obvious evolutionary and me too products, very excellently made products, but not very inventive.
There's an agument of " what the hell, show me who els is reinventing the wheel where are all these technological revolutions that Apple should be maching ? Which competitor is making products that are significantly more inventive ? Why is Apple always expected to be the one always inventing new things ? They make lots of money isnt that enough ? ".
These aguments are all misguided because all these aforementioned things are expected of Apple not because Apple is so great or number one but because more than anything els, that is actually the business Apple is in, and by far the one thing that Apple does, they did it in personal computers they did too in smart phone and if they don't do it in something els then they won't be Apple any more not the Apple Steve Jobs invented
I agree that the 5k iMac is good for what it is, though I'm not sure the rest of that list (or even the 5k iMac) are terribly revolutionary or game-changing.