I think Federighi would be great. He'd put the products and engineering first as Jobs did, not profit like Cook (and likely any operations guy) does. He has charisma, he's funny, he is genuinely passionate about the products, he is obviously a very smart guy. It'd be great to have someone at the top who actually uses all the products the company produces, someone who is hands on in the engineering as Jobs was - someone who understands the limitations, the usability, the bugs and the functionality too. Someone who is a "power user" who understands the needs of those who need more than Pages and two USB C ports. He is much more Jobsian than Cook ever could be.
She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65.
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
I read it when I posted. It's an opinion piece right? I have a different opinion.
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
I read it when I posted. It's an opinion piece right? I have a different opinion.
Sure! You're welcome to think it was an oversight -- but the facts are, it wasn't. She was, in fact, considered.
I think Federighi would be great. He'd put the products and engineering first as Jobs did, not profit like Cook (and likely any operations guy) does. He has charisma, he's funny, he is genuinely passionate about the products, he is obviously a very smart guy. It'd be great to have someone at the top who actually uses all the products the company produces, someone who is hands on in the engineering as Jobs was - someone who understands the limitations, the usability, the bugs and the functionality too. Someone who is a "power user" who understands the needs of those who need more than Pages and two USB C ports. He is much more Jobsian than Cook ever could be.
This sums up Federighi perfectly and why he should be the next CEO. If the board picks a non-engineer I’ll sell my stock before it tanks and will invest in other companies such as MSFT, GOOG, AMZN founded and still run by engineers.
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
I read it when I posted. It's an opinion piece right? I have a different opinion.
Sure! You're welcome to think it was an oversight -- but the facts are, it wasn't. She was, in fact, considered.
This is a semantic thing.
Oversight: an inadvertent omission or error.
I'm not saying the error was not considering her, I'm saying leaving her off the list is the error.
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
I read it when I posted. It's an opinion piece right? I have a different opinion.
Sure! You're welcome to think it was an oversight -- but the facts are, it wasn't. She was, in fact, considered.
This is a semantic thing.
Oversight: an inadvertent omission or error.
I'm not saying the error was not considering her, I'm saying leaving her off the list is the error.
What would she possibly bring to the CEO role that the others couldn’t? No technical chops sums it up perfectly.
Where can I place an enormous wager that it'll be anyone other than Jackson or Srouji? I'll put up $100,000 if someone want to lay $1000 on one of those 2. In other words, that ain't happening.
I did get a chuckle out of "Ternus's exact age is unknown." Very mysterious. Perhaps he's not of this Earth.
I wouldn't be so sure that Cook wouldn't push Jackson for his replacement, if for little more than to ensure his "progressive" agenda continues.
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
I read it when I posted. It's an opinion piece right? I have a different opinion.
Sure! You're welcome to think it was an oversight -- but the facts are, it wasn't. She was, in fact, considered.
This is a semantic thing.
Oversight: an inadvertent omission or error.
I'm not saying the error was not considering her, I'm saying leaving her off the list is the error.
What would she possibly bring to the CEO role that the others couldn’t? No technical chops sums it up perfectly.
Let’s first start with the fact that everyone is speculating at this point. When people say “no technical chops” what are they basing that on? She certainly doesn’t have a formal education in technology but neither did Steve and he certain had the technical acumen to do the job. So when people are saying she doesn’t technical acumen they are just kinda guessing. I’d suspect that she isn’t in the weeds on technology but I’m also just kinda guessing. As far as what she brings? The CEO position is and will always be a leadership job first and foremost. Apple is a massive organization, more like several massive organizations, and the CEO can’t be in the details for all of those things. It’s about having the right people leading each organization. Steve had the analogy that his job was managing the Beatles, he had to get all the great parts working together. I’m guessing she could do it and that gets her a spot on the list.
If I were betting on it, my money would be on Craig or Jeff.... I’d also say that Sabih Khan should be on the list as Jeff is more or less as old as Tim and likely wouldn’t be around as CEO for long. Sabih is heir apparent to Jeff which should kind of put him in the running by default.
With all due respect to the great work of Greg "Joz" Joswiak, —almost— everytime a ‘marketing guy’ took the role of CEO the company went thru the toilet! See Apple and Sculley… Microsoft and Ballmer… Sun and…
The ‘Second Coming’ of Johny Ive would start Apple 3!
Sales or Marketing dude would be a bad, puts on the third tier with Dell and HP....
Yeah, serious oversight on the part of AI to leave her off the list of potential candies.
Read up.
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
I read it when I posted. It's an opinion piece right? I have a different opinion.
Sure! You're welcome to think it was an oversight -- but the facts are, it wasn't. She was, in fact, considered.
This is a semantic thing.
Oversight: an inadvertent omission or error.
I'm not saying the error was not considering her, I'm saying leaving her off the list is the error.
What would she possibly bring to the CEO role that the others couldn’t? No technical chops sums it up perfectly.
Let’s first start with the fact that everyone is speculating at this point. When people say “no technical chops” what are they basing that on? She certainly doesn’t have a formal education in technology but neither did Steve and he certain had the technical acumen to do the job. So when people are saying she doesn’t technical acumen they are just kinda guessing. I’d suspect that she isn’t in the weeds on technology but I’m also just kinda guessing. As far as what she brings? The CEO position is and will always be a leadership job first and foremost. Apple is a massive organization, more like several massive organizations, and the CEO can’t be in the details for all of those things. It’s about having the right people leading each organization. Steve had the analogy that his job was managing the Beatles, he had to get all the great parts working together. I’m guessing she could do it and that gets her a spot on the list.
If I were betting on it, my money would be on Craig or Jeff.... I’d also say that Sabih Khan should be on the list as Jeff is more or less as old as Tim and likely wouldn’t be around as CEO for long. Sabih is heir apparent to Jeff which should kind of put him in the running by default.
She should have gotten the retail job or someone else within Apple, instead of those two British duds, but that’s it....
Comments
(yeah, I know, no longer an option).
"She was considered, but not included. She has no real technical chops, and seems like she'd be below our "third tier." She's 55 at present, in a decade, she'll be 65."
There is also a picture of Steve Jobs......
This is a semantic thing.
Oversight: an inadvertent omission or error.
I'm not saying the error was not considering her, I'm saying leaving her off the list is the error.
If I were betting on it, my money would be on Craig or Jeff.... I’d also say that Sabih Khan should be on the list as Jeff is more or less as old as Tim and likely wouldn’t be around as CEO for long. Sabih is heir apparent to Jeff which should kind of put him in the running by default.
Sales or Marketing dude would be a bad, puts on the third tier with Dell and HP....
She should have gotten the retail job or someone else within Apple, instead of those two British duds, but that’s it....