Mr. Jobs, you chose well. Rest in peace. Your company is in good hands.
It’s an unparallelled financial success, yet at denial of Steve’s principles (stay lean, mean, young, foolish, don’t focus on money, stay hungry, not saturated, think different, always explore, disrupt rather than replicate) Steve strived for technological & innovation-, rather than financial leadership.
If switching the Mac to AppleSilicon is not disruptive I don’t know what is. The amount of planning and flawless execution in a large number of areas is staggering. The article is also minimizing the AirPods when they are in their way just as disruptive as the iPhone and the iPad have been. Innovation at Apple is alive and well.
The invention of Apple Watch and AirPods were under his clock. Both were statistically more successful than all of Steve's products except iPhone.
Apple Silicon Macs may be the next revolution in computing since the 1970s.
Utter 🐎 💩. Jobs sold over 400 million iPods.
Jobs moved from PPC to intel which was huge at the time, so big that Microsoft was advising quietly to its developers to buy a MB air and run Windows on it natively.
The watch idea was created before Steve died and he did know about it and didn’t nix it.
What has surprised me is that Tim came from a bean counter background yet during the shutdown from the pandemic, he hasn’t furloughed anyone.
Usually companies do that as their first order of survival, even with companies who have a lot of money in the bank.
There have been positive changes in the fact that Apple now realizes their eggs can’t be all in the iPhone basket. That’s why you saw almost every product was updated last year.
How unusual. Lots of things in the profile which jump out as a little odd. Not least of all the idea that Cook has a paper-based meeting agenda that he flips the pages on.
Also odd is the assertion that he’s detail oriented, at a time when software quality has come under question.
This is what I came here to comment about. Not only does it feel like Apple have very few eyes on details anymore, it also feels like Apple aren’t using their own products (especially iOS Safari on forums). Did iOS 13 fix the mess of multiple-item-selector user interfaces (most of which don’t even offer multiple item selection)? I’ve been avoiding iOS 13 for other reasons...
People gloss over 99% of Apple's history under Jobs to claim they were always reinventing the world. I've been an avid follower since 1989 and most years, Apple is just Apple. But always has been committed to excellence. That's the difference.
My real question is Why they put this profile now? (Other than blame Steve Jobs… preferred job of the WSJ.)
And I did not read anything about the WSJ recognising that ‘we totally missed the point about Tim when he took the helm in Apple.’
There is so many perspectives in which to see this. Yet there is one perspective that cannot be misunderstood: Steve wanted technological instead of financial leadership (and despised product milking & money tanking)
Tim is an all-around better CEO than Steve. Steve was unmatched in his abilities as a visionary and product marketer, but Tim has taken Apple to new heights, and infused the company with greater spirit, purpose, and humanity. I can’t imagine Apple would be pushing the environmental and humanitarian efforts it does today without Tim. He may always be consigned to Steve’s shadow but in countless ways Tim is the better man and CEO.
If switching the Mac to AppleSilicon is not disruptive I don’t know what is. The amount of planning and flawless execution in a large number of areas is staggering. The article is also minimizing the AirPods when they are in their way just as disruptive as the iPhone and the iPad have been. Innovation at Apple is alive and well.
The author of the article is a well-known Apple skeptic at the WSJ.
AppleInsider said: Also unlike Jobs, who thought Apple's cash was best directed toward research and development, Cook is much more willing to return cash to investors.
For me, this is something, I would like to be opposite around.
but there are a few who are upping their game very quickly, like Tesla
Tesla is a perfect example of a first mover advantage, driven by a charismatic leader, who was not the founder, finding itself with a business model that fails in the marketplace.
Tesla has relatively poor quality control, abysmal service, is not a leader in autonomous driving despite the marketing, has relied on billions in government incentives to survive, has routinely ignored the industry's manufacturing prowess, and is now facing an extinction event as the major automakers release a plethora of competitors.
But investors low him, hence the valuation.
As for Christensen, you might follow Horace Dediu at Asymco.com, reading some of his past posts on Apple, as he actually studied under Christensen. Horace is now mostly involved in micromobility.
Your knowledge of Tesla is abysmal.
For what it’s worth, I own neither the stock nor the car (but I am in line for the Cybertruck, with the option to wait until Dec 2021 to decide).
For what it’s worth, I own neither the stock nor the car (but I am in line for the Cybertruck, with the option to wait until Dec 2021 to decide).
I briefly owned a Tesla Model 3. I say briefly as I rejected the car and got my money back. The build quality was absymal. The AWD didn't work from day 1. When they said that they'd have to replace the whole rear drivetrain, I said sorry No. For a new car, the panel gaps were what you might have seen on a Lada or a Trabant. Add to that the fact that it clearly wasn't tested properly before it was shipped, I rejected the car. I bought an E-Tron. The quality of the package is in a different league to the Tesla. Yes, it does not have as much range but it is so quiet compared to the M3.
I want Tesla to do well but... I have to hope that the Berlin Factory will make cars of the quality that we have come to expect. Freemont is IMHO clearly not up to the job.
Good luck with your Cybertruck should you decide to go ahead with it.
AppleInsider said: Also unlike Jobs, who thought Apple's cash was best directed toward research and development, Cook is much more willing to return cash to investors.
For me, this is something, I would like to be opposite around.
“Don’t court the bankers, let them court you” was the maxim that Steve largely operated under. If you are the leader Wall St. will chase you. After he took over, Cook has subtly shifted his priorities away from appeasing Wall St. and towards a single minded drive for excellence.
Unlike Jobs, who led from the front, Cook is managing from the back. Two different styles for different times. Personally, I would like to see a bit more Jobs, and I’m likely not the only one.
I never thought (and still don’t) that you can manage your way to great heights in innovation. So while I’m glad to see Apple continue to do well under Cook I hope he and Apple’s board are working hard to produce a winning third act.
Tim is an all-around better CEO than Steve. Steve was unmatched in his abilities as a visionary and product marketer, but Tim has taken Apple to new heights, and infused the company with greater spirit, purpose, and humanity. I can’t imagine Apple would be pushing the environmental and humanitarian efforts it does today without Tim. He may always be consigned to Steve’s shadow but in countless ways Tim is the better man and CEO.
Businesses exist to make a profit. In Apple’s case, they make great products in order to generate those sales. “Greater spirit, purpose and humanity” would be signs a CEO is confused about the purpose of their company.
but there are a few who are upping their game very quickly, like Tesla
Tesla is a perfect example of a first mover advantage, driven by a charismatic leader, who was not the founder, finding itself with a business model that fails in the marketplace.
Tesla has relatively poor quality control, abysmal service, is not a leader in autonomous driving despite the marketing, has relied on billions in government incentives to survive, has routinely ignored the industry's manufacturing prowess, and is now facing an extinction event as the major automakers release a plethora of competitors.
But investors low him, hence the valuation.
As for Christensen, you might follow Horace Dediu at Asymco.com, reading some of his past posts on Apple, as he actually studied under Christensen. Horace is now mostly involved in micromobility.
Your knowledge of Tesla is abysmal.
For what it’s worth, I own neither the stock nor the car (but I am in line for the Cybertruck, with the option to wait until Dec 2021 to decide).
but there are a few who are upping their game very quickly, like Tesla
Tesla is a perfect example of a first mover advantage, driven by a charismatic leader, who was not the founder, finding itself with a business model that fails in the marketplace.
Tesla has relatively poor quality control, abysmal service, is not a leader in autonomous driving despite the marketing, has relied on billions in government incentives to survive, has routinely ignored the industry's manufacturing prowess, and is now facing an extinction event as the major automakers release a plethora of competitors.
But investors low him, hence the valuation.
As for Christensen, you might follow Horace Dediu at Asymco.com, reading some of his past posts on Apple, as he actually studied under Christensen. Horace is now mostly involved in micromobility.
I understand your perspective regarding Tesla, but I’d also argue that the marketplace is tolerant of Tesla’s and Elon Musk’s deficiencies only because of the disruptive potential of what Tesla and Musk represents. But yeah, on the execution side and attention to detail, they need to up their game.
There’s no denying the impact that seeing one of SpaceX’s rockets land on a barge or a Tesla automobile crush a gas powered super car in a drag race has on believing that the markets that those products exist in will be forever defined by what Tesla is doing today, warts and all.
Thank you for sharing your interesting perspectives.
AppleInsider said: Also unlike Jobs, who thought Apple's cash was best directed toward research and development, Cook is much more willing to return cash to investors.
For me, this is something, I would like to be opposite around.
Quite rightly so. Cook lost me in the beginning with his statement about pouring as much money out of customer pockets as possible (or something of that nature). How would any product oriented employee at Apple get inspiration from this man (maybe some bookkeeper..) ? This article proves his only distant interest in design, engineering, development. Transpiring into the rest of the oprganisation and translating into late or failed product launches for anything other than iPhone and the transition from trendsetting leadership towards just following others. A man that probably gets more energy from sellling $45 plastic WatchBands than a brand new Mac design.
What he stands for is supercapitalism by exploiting the less-educated masses and captivating them in the walled garden (symbolized by the SpaceShip). Apparently in a distant, ivory tower leadership style with interest in financial and PR aspects mostly.
Goodness I've never heard such stupid conspiracy theory about Apple.
"failed product launches"
Apple Watch, Airpods.
"and the transition from trendsetting leadership towards just following others."
Who is Apple following?
"exploiting the less-educated masses and captivating them in the walled garden"
Statistically Apple users score higher in tests and are much more educated than people who blow $500 on a knockoff iPhone.
"(symbolized by the SpaceShip)."
What a stupid Apple conspiracy. And surprise: The Spaceship was designed by Jobs not Cook.
but there are a few who are upping their game very quickly, like Tesla
Tesla is a perfect example of a first mover advantage, driven by a charismatic leader, who was not the founder, finding itself with a business model that fails in the marketplace.
Tesla has relatively poor quality control, abysmal service, is not a leader in autonomous driving despite the marketing, has relied on billions in government incentives to survive, has routinely ignored the industry's manufacturing prowess, and is now facing an extinction event as the major automakers release a plethora of competitors.
But investors low him, hence the valuation.
As for Christensen, you might follow Horace Dediu at Asymco.com, reading some of his past posts on Apple, as he actually studied under Christensen. Horace is now mostly involved in micromobility.
I understand your perspective regarding Tesla, but I’d also argue that the marketplace is tolerant of Tesla’s and Elon Musk’s deficiencies only because of the disruptive potential of what Tesla and Musk represents. But yeah, on the execution side and attention to detail, they need to up their game.
There’s no denying the impact that seeing one of SpaceX’s rockets land on a barge or a Tesla automobile crush a gas powered super car in a drag race has on believing that the markets that those products exist in will be forever defined by what Tesla is doing today, warts and all.
Thank you for sharing your interesting perspectives.
People keep talking about the "disruptive potential" but I'm not seeing any disruption, and as for space, Blue Origin with Bezos behind it looks to be as successful as SpaceX, mainly because Bezos isn't drugged out all the time.
The marketplace is becoming very negative on Tesla, as the luster is off the brand. Pretty much sales of Tesla throughout the world are down, and rumors of the layoff of 500 in Fremont came out yesterday.
but there are a few who are upping their game very quickly, like Tesla
Tesla is a perfect example of a first mover advantage, driven by a charismatic leader, who was not the founder, finding itself with a business model that fails in the marketplace.
Tesla has relatively poor quality control, abysmal service, is not a leader in autonomous driving despite the marketing, has relied on billions in government incentives to survive, has routinely ignored the industry's manufacturing prowess, and is now facing an extinction event as the major automakers release a plethora of competitors.
But investors low him, hence the valuation.
As for Christensen, you might follow Horace Dediu at Asymco.com, reading some of his past posts on Apple, as he actually studied under Christensen. Horace is now mostly involved in micromobility.
Your knowledge of Tesla is abysmal.
For what it’s worth, I own neither the stock nor the car (but I am in line for the Cybertruck, with the option to wait until Dec 2021 to decide).
If you get a Cybertruck, I want a full review.
If they update the interior of the Model S before then and it has a stated range of 500 miles that CT promises (I'll even settle for 450), I'll be getting that instead, as my next vehicle.
If by relaxed, you mean like Trump's Apprentice TV show where the middle managers are constantly trying to back stab each other over failures.
Staff are constantly being laid off or re-orged. The ones who survive quickly change groups in order to sidestep the politics or just leave Apple altogether.
The Mac hardware team was so green, they though they had invented the first rackable Mac with the 2019 model and never knew there was an Xserve.
If switching the Mac to AppleSilicon is not disruptive I don’t know what is. The amount of planning and flawless execution in a large number of areas is staggering. The article is also minimizing the AirPods when they are in their way just as disruptive as the iPhone and the iPad have been. Innovation at Apple is alive and well.
Contrary to what you assume, AS is continuity innovation - improving existing products in an existing line of business. Disruptive innovation would require existing business to be disrupted/substituted by new and more comprehensive/immersive product(s) Like superseding iPod by iPhone, or Mac/iPad product lines with something revolutionary new like the TouchMac, that would cannibalize existing business to launch something bigger and better. The current Apple (via Catalyst, TouchBar and other compromises) is avoiding the TouchMac as much as it can, now that it has become more dependable to the immense, existing volumes the giant, defensive incumbent as per Tim’s strategy leaving disruptive innovation to leaner, more flexible (startup-) companies. For example, it will avoid foldable phones (that would challenge/risk iPad sales) as much as it can, until competitors will prove it to be a new indispensible category too which it then will respond. Note: Samsung is amongst them - it can attack Apple in this arena as it has less to lose in the tablet category Project Titan had the aim of disrupting the car industry, but it never materialised
Or maybe Apple will let the “leaner” companies (nevermind calling Samsung “lean”) throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks (spoiler: it never does, not really), with shitty materials and/or execution, while they toil away in secret perfecting their own killer, market-dominating approach.
You people seem to forget that the iPhone wasn’t the first big-screen phone (most of them had resistive and/or plastic screens, instead of the Gorilla Glass capacitance screen Apple ultimately went with), the iPad wasn’t the first “tablet” computer (though its predecessors were all really crappy Windows-based affairs), the Apple Watch wasn’t the first smartwatch, the AirPods most definitely weren’t the first Bluetooth earphones, yadda yadda.
Apple will only make a foldable phone if it can produce a screen that doesn’t have to be treated with… even more care than current Apple products; Apple will also go for a touchscreen Mac that actually makes sense from an ergonomic and functional standpoint, probably something like an iMac/Surface Studio hybrid thing. The thing is, Microsoft’s attempt always cost an arm and a leg for an outdated, IO-lmited, thermally constrained machine; with Apple Silicon and all their new technologies such as SwiftUI, Catalyst, etc. – which I’d finally consider as a factor of convergence, not divergence/preservation of the status quo as you posit –, perhaps it will finally make sense to run touchscreen and even pen-based apps on a Mac.
Heck, you already can do so with Side Car, and while Apple will gladly sell you both a laptop and a tablet, big touch/stylus screens are impractical as mobile products and there’s definitely a market for them on, incidentally, a niche where Apple is already extremely strong and well covered when it comes to software support.
I’m not sure whether Wacom is a publicly traded company or not, but if it is and I had some stock, I would get rid of it entirely, STAT. Sure, über-rich pros might still buy a Cintiq and a Mac Pro, but just imagine how affordable a 5K touchscreen iMac would be by comparison… It would actually become much more accessible to the education market, small businesses and freelancers on a tighter budget. And, yes, it would be much more luggable than a Surface Studio or a Cintiq and a Mac Mini if it was built like a giant iPad with a foldable kickstand (I’m keenly aware that I’m just describing a giant Surface Pro at this point, funnily enough; what changes the whole paradigm is the software, the silicon and the ambition, really). It’s not like art students aren’t already used to carry unwieldy A2- and A1–sized briefcases full of paper, and sometimes even larger media. With Intel chips, Apple could only ever cobble up, by design, something very conventional or otherwise crippled in some way; that’s why they didn’t even bother with redesigning the iMac, and that’s why they apparently effed up with the thinner MacBook Pros (it wasn’t Apple engineers who screwed up; Intel screwed up – and accidentally screwed them over – further up the supply line)… With Apple Silicon… who knows what they’ll come up, really?
Comments
Steve strived for technological & innovation-, rather than financial leadership.
Shallow, insightless piece of writing.
Except it’s not factual. Apple spends a tremendous amount of $$ on R&D: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/03/apple-rd-spend-increases-fulfilling-tim-cook-doctrine.html
Your knowledge of Tesla is abysmal.
For what it’s worth, I own neither the stock nor the car (but I am in line for the Cybertruck, with the option to wait until Dec 2021 to decide).
If you get a Cybertruck, I want a full review.
Goodness I've never heard such stupid conspiracy theory about Apple.
"failed product launches"
Apple Watch, Airpods.
"and the transition from trendsetting leadership towards just following others."
Who is Apple following?
"exploiting the less-educated masses and captivating them in the walled garden"
Statistically Apple users score higher in tests and are much more educated than people who blow $500 on a knockoff iPhone.
"(symbolized by the SpaceShip)."
What a stupid Apple conspiracy.
And surprise: The Spaceship was designed by Jobs not Cook.
The marketplace is becoming very negative on Tesla, as the luster is off the brand. Pretty much sales of Tesla throughout the world are down, and rumors of the layoff of 500 in Fremont came out yesterday.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33368022/ford-mustang-mach-e-1400-revealed/
Yeah its a one off, but still, pretty much destroys any Tesla, and belies Tesla "disruption".
As for landings on ships,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
It wasn't a ship, but that was 24 years ago, and with a hell of a lot less computing power available.
If by relaxed, you mean like Trump's Apprentice TV show where the middle managers are constantly trying to back stab each other over failures.
Staff are constantly being laid off or re-orged. The ones who survive quickly change groups in order to sidestep the politics or just leave Apple altogether.
The Mac hardware team was so green, they though they had invented the first rackable Mac with the 2019 model and never knew there was an Xserve.
You people seem to forget that the iPhone wasn’t the first big-screen phone (most of them had resistive and/or plastic screens, instead of the Gorilla Glass capacitance screen Apple ultimately went with), the iPad wasn’t the first “tablet” computer (though its predecessors were all really crappy Windows-based affairs), the Apple Watch wasn’t the first smartwatch, the AirPods most definitely weren’t the first Bluetooth earphones, yadda yadda.
Apple will only make a foldable phone if it can produce a screen that doesn’t have to be treated with… even more care than current Apple products; Apple will also go for a touchscreen Mac that actually makes sense from an ergonomic and functional standpoint, probably something like an iMac/Surface Studio hybrid thing. The thing is, Microsoft’s attempt always cost an arm and a leg for an outdated, IO-lmited, thermally constrained machine; with Apple Silicon and all their new technologies such as SwiftUI, Catalyst, etc. – which I’d finally consider as a factor of convergence, not divergence/preservation of the status quo as you posit –, perhaps it will finally make sense to run touchscreen and even pen-based apps on a Mac.
Heck, you already can do so with Side Car, and while Apple will gladly sell you both a laptop and a tablet, big touch/stylus screens are impractical as mobile products and there’s definitely a market for them on, incidentally, a niche where Apple is already extremely strong and well covered when it comes to software support.
I’m not sure whether Wacom is a publicly traded company or not, but if it is and I had some stock, I would get rid of it entirely, STAT. Sure, über-rich pros might still buy a Cintiq and a Mac Pro, but just imagine how affordable a 5K touchscreen iMac would be by comparison… It would actually become much more accessible to the education market, small businesses and freelancers on a tighter budget. And, yes, it would be much more luggable than a Surface Studio or a Cintiq and a Mac Mini if it was built like a giant iPad with a foldable kickstand (I’m keenly aware that I’m just describing a giant Surface Pro at this point, funnily enough; what changes the whole paradigm is the software, the silicon and the ambition, really). It’s not like art students aren’t already used to carry unwieldy A2- and A1–sized briefcases full of paper, and sometimes even larger media. With Intel chips, Apple could only ever cobble up, by design, something very conventional or otherwise crippled in some way; that’s why they didn’t even bother with redesigning the iMac, and that’s why they apparently effed up with the thinner MacBook Pros (it wasn’t Apple engineers who screwed up; Intel screwed up – and accidentally screwed them over – further up the supply line)… With Apple Silicon… who knows what they’ll come up, really?