Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky calls Apple Silicon strategy 'fearless'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    Apple is also different to most other companies on the planet in that they are big enough not to have to pander to the short termism of Wall St. As Sinofski says, they think long term and have the guts to carry it out. Far too many CEO's are scared of a 5% drop in their stock price because they failed to meet some analyists precition which probably came from thin air.

    Apple isn't perfect but their track record of producing stuff that people want and works well is pretty good.
    jony0baconstangOferStrangeDaysdewmeGG1lamboaudi4watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 42
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,882member
    Apple is also different to most other companies on the planet in that they are big enough not to have to pander to the short termism of Wall St. As Sinofski says, they think long term and have the guts to carry it out. Far too many CEO's are scared of a 5% drop in their stock price because they failed to meet some analyists precition which probably came from thin air.
    This is because some stupid person somewhere declared that "share price" should be the ultimate benchmark for CEO compensation without realizing that CEOs can easily manipulate share prices.  Cough, corporate share buybacks, cough, revenue "smoothing", cough, cough.
    jony0Ofer
  • Reply 23 of 42
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,381member
    riss said:
    Tim Cook has hardly any right to take credit for it - he couldn’t even sell it himself during Keynote. This is a direct result of PA Semi acquisition by Apple back in 2008 that was decided by Steve. Plus he also mentioned during Intel transition keynote what OS X life expectancy was back in 2005 (22:55 into WWDC 2005). All of these pieces now came together, the only thing Cook can take credit for is balance sheet and supply chain Apple has today. Product wise this is probably last act from Steve and his ‘skating where the puck is going to be’ mindset

    What a fucked up post. Even in WWDC 2020, 10 years after SJ's resignation/death, you can't even give Tim Cook a shred of credit for Apple's roadmap. Some of you have such an irrational and vitriolic hatred of Tim Cook, that you can't stand to admit that he's been doing an absolutely remarkable job the last decade after taking the helm. Apple's trajectory could have taken a MUCh different course. There have been millions of product and strategy decisions taken since SJ left, and all of them have contributed to the success of today's Apple. Stop trying to minimize and belittle the contributions of all those at Apple, especially TC, who have done incredible work by pushing Apple forward and innovating their asses off in fundamental areas that actually matter. SJ has gotten more than enough credit for what he accomplished, 10 years after he's gone, you can bear to give credit to those people who have worked their asses off in bringing you today's products. Apple today is a substantially different, and BETTER company then when SJ was around. Obviously he laid all the groundwork, but if the company had poor leadership this could have gone down the drain very, very quickly. So yes- TC and his team have EVERY right to take credit for the upcoming transition. 100% of it was planned and executed under their watch. 
    edited June 2020 JinTechjony0baconstangroundaboutnowfastasleepStrangeDaysiqatedop-doglollivermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,490member
    I think Sinofsky got a bit carried away there. :grin: He seems to have left a lot out of his thought process or simply failed to understand market realities.

    Many people can see why Microsoft still supports 32bit apps, for example, and the world of processors goes far beyond CE and desktop/laptops.

    In a weird way it reminds me of people who focused on PPC as a traditional computing architecture while ignoring everything else the architecture ended up in (from embedded solutions in the car industry through to space applications) . That architecture lives on of course.

    Apple dropping Intel really isn't that big of a deal when you stand back and take a macro viewpoint. 
  • Reply 25 of 42
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,778member
    avon b7 said:
    I think Sinofsky got a bit carried away there. :grin: He seems to have left a lot out of his thought process or simply failed to understand market realities.

    Many people can see why Microsoft still supports 32bit apps, for example, and the world of processors goes far beyond CE and desktop/laptops.

    In a weird way it reminds me of people who focused on PPC as a traditional computing architecture while ignoring everything else the architecture ended up in (from embedded solutions in the car industry through to space applications) . That architecture lives on of course.

    Apple dropping Intel really isn't that big of a deal when you stand back and take a macro viewpoint. 
    No, it’s a big deal. You just seem to have a personality disorder that compels you to minimize Apple’s accomplishments while inversely pumping up your chinese knockoff brands. 🤷‍♂️
    p-dogRayz2016jony0lollivertmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 42
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,126member
    red oak said:
    True 

    Apple Silicon is going to be crazy good.  Not just speed, but all the other integrations.  Apple has a real opportunity to drive Mac unit share above 20%.  That would more than double Apple’s annual Mac units.  Plus, gross margins will be better

    Huge financial opportunity
    Huge risk too. But then the biggest rewards go to the biggest risk takers. And often the biggest losses too.

    I would not expect Apple to gain a huge increase in market share unless it decides to sell significantly higher performance at a significantly lower price. That doesn’t sound like an Apple strategy to me, which is good performance reliably delivered in a beautiful package, achieving high margins by foregoing market share at a premium price.

    Apple is one company, there are a whole stack of computer manufacturers producing “safe” products using the dominant wintel paradigm. People are familiar and happy with it, heck even AMD has not so far chipped away significantly. Apple is more likely to continue premium price and use the savings from its internal SOCs to increase its margins even further.
    jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 42
    riss said:
    Tim Cook has hardly any right to take credit for it - he couldn’t even sell it himself during Keynote. This is a direct result of PA Semi acquisition by Apple back in 2008 that was decided by Steve. Plus he also mentioned during Intel transition keynote what OS X life expectancy was back in 2005 (22:55 into WWDC 2005). All of these pieces now came together, the only thing Cook can take credit for is balance sheet and supply chain Apple has today. Product wise this is probably last act from Steve and his ‘skating where the puck is going to be’ mindset
    Almost anyone that does something great almost always has to acknowledge they stand on the shoulders of giants who came before them.  What Tim has done is learn the lessons that Steve wanted to impart to Apple so that it would last beyond him and his so-called "cult of personality."  He's stood on those shoulders and continued the legacy.  Sure, there have been hiccups and missteps.  But I think this WWDC showed that the team Steve left behind has figured out how to build on the legacy they were handed down.  You all too easily dismiss Cook's leadership through one of the most devastating losses of a company leader perhaps in history.
    edited June 2020 jony0lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 42
    red oak said:
    True 

    Apple Silicon is going to be crazy good.  Not just speed, but all the other integrations.  Apple has a real opportunity to drive Mac unit share above 20%.  That would more than double Apple’s annual Mac units.  Plus, gross margins will be better

    Huge financial opportunity

    But what about RGB lighting.  All Windows laptops and desktops come with RGB lighting.  That's one of the most important selling points of today's Windows/Intel computers.  RGB components everywhere.  Consumers must have RGB lighting.  RGB lighting is what real computing is all about.  No RGB lighting, no sale.
    /s
    p-dogwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,490member
    avon b7 said:
    I think Sinofsky got a bit carried away there. :grin: He seems to have left a lot out of his thought process or simply failed to understand market realities.

    Many people can see why Microsoft still supports 32bit apps, for example, and the world of processors goes far beyond CE and desktop/laptops.

    In a weird way it reminds me of people who focused on PPC as a traditional computing architecture while ignoring everything else the architecture ended up in (from embedded solutions in the car industry through to space applications) . That architecture lives on of course.

    Apple dropping Intel really isn't that big of a deal when you stand back and take a macro viewpoint. 
    No, it’s a big deal. You just seem to have a personality disorder that compels you to minimize Apple’s accomplishments while inversely pumping up your chinese knockoff brands. ߤ禺wj;♂️
    No. That is not the case at all. Far from it. 

    The move to PPC was a big deal. 

    The move to intel was a big deal. 

    The Mac has slowly become a much smaller part of Apple. To the point of them literally dropping the word 'computer' from the name. To the point of literally letting Macs go for years without an update and keeping users literally in the dark about whether certain machines would be upgraded or not. That's how much of a deal the Mac is. 

    As I said, a macro viewpoint. The Mac just isn't Apple's bread and butter nowadays (like it was with the switch to PPC).

    They are not switching to some new unproven architecture either. They are switching to one they know inside out and actually is part of their bread and butter business and by a huge margin. An absolutely huge margin. All within the general computing and CE realm. 

    Big deal - for users. Not for Apple and not by a long shot. 

    Oh yes, and your 'knock off' potshot. 

    Do you even realise that Huawei is pumping big money into ARM everywhere? Science and research. Servers and Big Data. AI. Mobile. And wouldn't you know it, desktops too! And yes, it's plunking lots of its own tech into these things. 

    Now, you probably aren't aware of all of this because it isn't a big deal for them either. Their bread and butter (like Apple's) isn't in the PC realm! 




    edited June 2020
  • Reply 30 of 42
    stevesistevesi Posts: 1member
    techconc said:
    "As an example, he cites the transition to 64-bit computing on the consumer-level. Microsoft began the shift around 2003 and continues to support 32-bit to this day. Apple, on the other hand, started requiring developers to make 64-bit apps in 2017 and dropped support for 32-bit apps in 2019 alongside the release of macOS Catalina."

    This comment is a bit disingenuous.  Apple started their transition to 64bit in Mac OS back in 2005 and only in 2019 did it drop support for 32bit.  Yes, that's better than Microsoft's record but not what Sinofsky appears to imply. 

    This is totally fair. I corrected the post. At that comment I was more focused on the announcement of the transition than the arc of the whole feature which did start in 2009. 
    jony0watto_cobrajdb8167
  • Reply 31 of 42
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,215member
    riss said:
    Tim Cook has hardly any right to take credit for it - he couldn’t even sell it himself during Keynote. This is a direct result of PA Semi acquisition by Apple back in 2008 that was decided by Steve. Plus he also mentioned during Intel transition keynote what OS X life expectancy was back in 2005 (22:55 into WWDC 2005). All of these pieces now came together, the only thing Cook can take credit for is balance sheet and supply chain Apple has today. Product wise this is probably last act from Steve and his ‘skating where the puck is going to be’ mindset

    Apple's involvement with ARM goes back way before 2008. A lot of what makes ARM successful today (for all commercial users) is a result of Apple's involvement with the architecture design many years earlier...

    From Wikipedia...

    In the late 1980s, Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the Arm core. In 1990, Acorn spun off the design team into a new company named Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.,[30][31][32] which became Arm Ltd when its parent company, Arm Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[33] The new Apple-Arm work would eventually evolve into the Arm6, first released in early 1992. Apple used the Arm6-based Arm610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA.

    Rayz2016jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 42
    Sinofsky holds the distinction having one of the biggest demo fails in Microsoft history. I still wince when I think of it.
    Well, it wasn't his fault, so I wouldn't hold it against him. Much like the Face ID getting locked during Craig's big demo for the iPhone wasn't his fault. 

    jony0lollivermuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 42
    riss said:
    Tim Cook has hardly any right to take credit for it - he couldn’t even sell it himself during Keynote. This is a direct result of PA Semi acquisition by Apple back in 2008 that was decided by Steve. Plus he also mentioned during Intel transition keynote what OS X life expectancy was back in 2005 (22:55 into WWDC 2005). All of these pieces now came together, the only thing Cook can take credit for is balance sheet and supply chain Apple has today. Product wise this is probably last act from Steve and his ‘skating where the puck is going to be’ mindset

    I don't live-stream Tim's life, so apologies if I missed something, but where did Tim Cook take the credit for this? At no point of time during the Keynote did he say it was his doing and guidance. Every ounce of him seemed to convey that this was Apple's achievement, not his.

    EDIT: Looks like @Slurpy did a better job of conveying what I was feeling. Welcome back Slurpy!
    edited June 2020 Rayz2016jony0lollivermuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 42
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    avon b7 said:
    I think Sinofsky got a bit carried away there. :grin: He seems to have left a lot out of his thought process or simply failed to understand market realities.

    Many people can see why Microsoft still supports 32bit apps, for example, and the world of processors goes far beyond CE and desktop/laptops.

    In a weird way it reminds me of people who focused on PPC as a traditional computing architecture while ignoring everything else the architecture ended up in (from embedded solutions in the car industry through to space applications) . That architecture lives on of course.

    Apple dropping Intel really isn't that big of a deal when you stand back and take a macro viewpoint. 
    No, it’s a big deal. You just seem to have a personality disorder that compels you to minimize Apple’s accomplishments while inversely pumping up your chinese knockoff brands. 🤷‍♂️

    Apple now has complete control over the development and future direction of an ecosystem based on a common software platform and a common hardware architecture that scales from watches to servers has over a billion customers.

    When Sinofsky says:

    Quite simply, what we're seeing is some of the most remarkable product engineering over time in history.

    he knows what he's talking about, more than a few random talking heads on a forum, anyway.

    I'm sure AvonB7 is more impressed by Huawei's ability to build machines around someone else's architecture and someone else's software platform, but Sinofsky is talking about something altogether bigger: he's talking about engineering and strategy fused so tightly you can't see the gap, and he's saying he's never seen anything like it at this scale. 

    I've been in a lot of project initiation meetings and AvonB7 has pretty much proved something I've always believed to be true: beware of people who boast about being able to stand back and see the bigger picture. Chances are they're not seeing the big picture at all.



    jony0lolliverlamboaudi4watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 42
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    riss said:
    Tim Cook has hardly any right to take credit for it - he couldn’t even sell it himself during Keynote. This is a direct result of PA Semi acquisition by Apple back in 2008 that was decided by Steve. Plus he also mentioned during Intel transition keynote what OS X life expectancy was back in 2005 (22:55 into WWDC 2005). All of these pieces now came together, the only thing Cook can take credit for is balance sheet and supply chain Apple has today. Product wise this is probably last act from Steve and his ‘skating where the puck is going to be’ mindset

    I don't live-stream Tim's life, so apologies if I missed something, but where did Tim Cook take the credit for this? At no point of time during the Keynote did he say it was his doing and guidance. Every ounce of him seemed to convey that this was Apple's achievement, not his.



    An excellent point.
    jony0lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 42
    rissriss Posts: 47member
    Thanks to all apologists and Tim's fans for replying. Yes, Intrinsity was also important acquisition but all four of you completely misread my post - my argument is that it was Steve who put the building blocks and long term strategy of being independent in place, from making sure OS X can be ported to different architecture, to owning development tools to having in house chip development. I'm not belittling Tim Cook by any chance, he's been at the helm for long time to mold Apple to his liking instead of preserving some status quo.

    As someone who still has a PPC Mac and 5 Intel Macs I have utmost confidence that Apple will deliver something spectacular and I can't wait to buy 2nd gen Apple Silicon (AS) Mac. But unlike the claim and patting from Sinofsky, this in transition Cook is only driving in the direction that was set by Steve long time ago as strategic direction to become self sufficient in core technologies from chips to development tools to directly serving customers...

    If you so vehemently disagree, what exactly can you highlight as direct decision that Cook made for this transition to happen? Can you seriously claim that there is something that Apple will do during this transition because Tim saw it as more fit than what was done during PPC->Intel transition? Rosetta 2, Universal 2 are certainly not it....


    edited June 2020
  • Reply 37 of 42
    techconctechconc Posts: 275member
    Natko said:
    Firing Sinofsky was one of Microsoft’s stupidest moves ever. He was great leader and a visionary. This is where their downhill ride started.
    He was fired because he was responsible for the Windows 8 fiasco.  Completely justified.  I'd trust Sinofsky from a technology perspective perhaps, but I not from a design / UI experience perspective. 
    risswatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,490member
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I think Sinofsky got a bit carried away there. :grin: He seems to have left a lot out of his thought process or simply failed to understand market realities.

    Many people can see why Microsoft still supports 32bit apps, for example, and the world of processors goes far beyond CE and desktop/laptops.

    In a weird way it reminds me of people who focused on PPC as a traditional computing architecture while ignoring everything else the architecture ended up in (from embedded solutions in the car industry through to space applications) . That architecture lives on of course.

    Apple dropping Intel really isn't that big of a deal when you stand back and take a macro viewpoint. 
    No, it’s a big deal. You just seem to have a personality disorder that compels you to minimize Apple’s accomplishments while inversely pumping up your chinese knockoff brands. ߤ禺wj;♂️

    Apple now has complete control over the development and future direction of an ecosystem based on a common software platform and a common hardware architecture that scales from watches to servers has over a billion customers.

    When Sinofsky says:

    Quite simply, what we're seeing is some of the most remarkable product engineering over time in history.

    he knows what he's talking about, more than a few random talking heads on a forum, anyway.

    I'm sure AvonB7 is more impressed by Huawei's ability to build machines around someone else's architecture and someone else's software platform, but Sinofsky is talking about something altogether bigger: he's talking about engineering and strategy fused so tightly you can't see the gap, and he's saying he's never seen anything like it at this scale. 

    I've been in a lot of project initiation meetings and AvonB7 has pretty much proved something I've always believed to be true: beware of people who boast about being able to stand back and see the bigger picture. Chances are they're not seeing the big picture at all.



    So you jump in with nothing to add to my comments or the reasoning behind them? 

    How about you take issue with the points I put forward? Is that such a tough task? 

    Have you forgotten already that pretty much everything I have put forward on Apple's business and business approach over the last few years has actually played out, and the response from Apple in reactionary terms has also pretty much lined up perfectly with my opinions on what it should have done?

    Yes, the bigger picture indeed! I get it. Very much so and my comments here over the last few years support that. 

    Re-read what I wrote.

    As for building machines around 'someone else's architecture', that is absurd. Huawei and Apple and heaps more companies are using the same ISA although both branch out into their own lines at various points. Such as Wi-Fi, modem, BT, NPU, IoT chips etc. 

    No doubt that was a very poorly thought out dig at Huawei which was also mind bogglingly short sighted, as Huawei operates in areas far, far beyond where Apple has its business, and Apple's hardware is chock full of 'someone else's' products or ideas anyway. And Huawei is not alone. There are lots of companies rolling out cutting edge products. Nvidia, Fujitsu.... Apple too! 

    But if you want to play like that, where are Apple's in-house Wi-Fi chip and modem solutions? And that 5G modem you are still waiting for, will be making use of over ten years worth of research and development from Huawei and others (but not Apple) which made 5G possible in the first place! Someone else's technology indeed.

    And Apple will pay Huawei for using it. As it is, it is rumoured that Apple already pays Huawei millions in licencing for its patents anyway. 

    Someone else's software platform? Huawei has no issue using Android. Huawei and Google are actually major partners. They both want to work together. Politics mean they can't, so Huawei has released its own system and more and more products will use it. But why spit that idea out in the first place? Ah, I know, it was just another cheap dig. Perhaps you forget that Apple also uses and depends on other people's platforms. 

    As I said, trying to walk that line is absurd. Utterly absurd. 

    You clearly have little, dare I say no, understanding of where Huawei operates in terms of technology and the solutions it offers. 

    If you want a 64 Core ARM based chip from Huawei, you can actually look at the idea from an OEM perspective and build your own product or pick up on a 100% Huawei solution. 

    This is actually old news... 

    https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/25/huawei_is_planning_to_sink_436m_into_armbased_server_silicon/

    Of course there is a whole lot more going on that flies past the ARM side of things. DaVinci, Mindspore, interconnects, controllers, optical data transport, file systems, battery technology, power management, imaging technology, disk arrays... The list is very, very long but here you are making strange claims in some ill thought out attempt to 'defend' Apple by latching onto someone else's ill thought out comment, attacking a third party - and me. 

    Apple doesn't need 'defending' . Have you seen me jump into the hundreds of comments about the switch to Apple Silicon since its official announcement? Or even when it was just a rumour for that matter? 

    Nope. Nary a peep.

    That's because I can see the logic behind it from Apple's perspective and I understand it. 

    But what does that have to do with the 'it's no big deal'? Absolutely nothing! 

    Intel did fine without Apple and will continue to do so. Apple will do fine without intel, too. Independently of what happens with Apple Silicon. The bottom line here, and hence my original comment, is that Apple could even do fine without Apple Silicon! Because Apple's business does not, and has not, revolved around the Mac for years. Not by a long shot. 

    Now, if you look at this from another perspective, it is a huge deal for developers and consumers alike. But I already said that in a previous post. 




    edited June 2020
  • Reply 39 of 42
    riss said:
    Thanks to all apologists and Tim's fans for replying. Yes, Intrinsity was also important acquisition but all four of you completely misread my post - my argument is that it was Steve who put the building blocks and long term strategy of being independent in place, from making sure OS X can be ported to different architecture, to owning development tools to having in house chip development. I'm not belittling Tim Cook by any chance, he's been at the helm for long time to mold Apple to his liking instead of preserving some status quo.

    As someone who still has a PPC Mac and 5 Intel Macs I have utmost confidence that Apple will deliver something spectacular and I can't wait to buy 2nd gen Apple Silicon (AS) Mac. But unlike the claim and patting from Sinofsky, this in transition Cook is only driving in the direction that was set by Steve long time ago as strategic direction to become self sufficient in core technologies from chips to development tools to directly serving customers...

    If you so vehemently disagree, what exactly can you highlight as direct decision that Cook made for this transition to happen? Can you seriously claim that there is something that Apple will do during this transition because Tim saw it as more fit than what was done during PPC->Intel transition? Rosetta 2, Universal 2 are certainly not it....


    I can highlight the same number of direct decisions made by Cook that you can by Jobs. It's zero. You have no idea who within Apple advocated for Mac OS X to be platform independent (it's probably Avi Tevanian since he did thing same thing with NEXT and was the created of the Mach kernel). You don't know who advocated for owning development tools or in house chip development. You are also ignoring that Apple was involved in ARM development well before Jobs came back. What is now ARM Holdings was started as a joint venture with Apple and two other companies in 1990 and Apple helped develop the chips that were used in the Newton and eMate. You are simply attributing all of those ideas to a single CEO rather than acknowledging the blindingly obvious, it has been an ongoing effort and strategy that has involved multiple CEOs and various executive team members over multiple decades. Sure Jobs would have to okay it during his tenure but it doesn't mean any of those ideas or strategy were his. What it does mean is that he agreed it was the correct path to continue down, that is no different than what Cook has done. If you want to give Jobs credit then Cook deserves the same amount as the have basically done the same thing.
    edited June 2020
  • Reply 40 of 42
    rissriss Posts: 47member
    I can highlight the same number of direct decisions made by Cook that you can by Jobs. It's zero. You have no idea who within Apple advocated for Mac OS X to be platform independent (it's probably Avi Tevanian since he did thing same thing with NEXT and was the created of the Mach kernel). You don't know who advocated for owning development tools or in house chip development. 

    Oh my dear, but we do and Tim Cook is never mentioned there, go educate yourself:

    https://www.quora.com/Apple-company/How-does-Apple-keep-secrets-so-well/answer/Kim-Scheinberg


     Happy_Noodle_Boy said:
    You are also ignoring that Apple was involved in ARM development well before Jobs came back. What is now ARM Holdings was started as a joint venture with Apple and two other companies in 1990 and Apple helped develop the chips that were used in the Newton and eMate.

    Both of which he killed because they sucked (hand recognition in particular which was the key selling point). 


    You are simply attributing all of those ideas to a single CEO rather than acknowledging the blindingly obvious, it has been an ongoing effort and strategy that has involved multiple CEOs and various executive team members over multiple decades. Sure Jobs would have to okay it during his tenure but it doesn't mean any of those ideas or strategy were his. What it does mean is that he agreed it was the correct path to continue down, that is no different than what Cook has done. If you want to give Jobs credit then Cook deserves the same amount as the have basically done the same thing.
    Strategy is CEO's job and Steve 1) always wanted to control the whole stack (even at NeXT but they ran out of money and time), 2) he had extremely good sense (and advice) how the market will shift over time. Tim's credit is for re-engineering Apple's supply chain and operations, but I do not see his contribution to neither transition on product or strategic level. I already mentioned that OS X was launched with 20y life expectancy and that 20y mark is now. Having OS X platform independent gives Apple to chose the fastest horse in town. Owing development tools and controlling API's gives them leverage to drag forward developers who want to make money on Apple's platform instead of holding them ransom (like Adobe and MS did in the past and not once). 

    There, some facts for you. 

    Tim's legacy will be his operation wizardry, obsession with activism of all sorts, environmentalism, streak of piss poor hirings and confusing product lines. Some, including you, might like him for those things, but I don't. And even though Sinofsky praises him for this transition, I respectfully disagree as all I see is final act of Steve to make Apple dependent on itself and be in charge of its future.


    edited July 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.