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:
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.
So, you have no evidence is account by a person that never worked at Apple providing an account that isn't. verified. Which amounts to none.
Apple didn't abandon it's work with ARM when Steve came back. You are simply trying to pick and choose which facts support the narrative you want to believe. The rest of your post is conjecture. Good luck with that.
Spoken like a bitter loser who just lost an argument and ran out of evidence. Belittling others when you don’t know what to say shows how deep and knowledgeable your other post were...not
Comments