Yes. That and more. He had taste ( which is a form of design skills) and pushed people to work hard. He also hired the best, I mean really that was a huge skill. He probably let Tim do his thing, which was operations. Now we have an operations guy as CEO and he is as good now as he was then at operations. Clearly there has been no net gain, though because we already had his operations skill. What more has been added?
So no one at Apple besides Steve has taste? Or pushes people to work hard? Clearly you're suggesting Tim has neither of those skills.
So no one at Apple besides Steve has taste? Or pushes people to work hard? Clearly you're suggesting Tim has neither of those skills.
Yes he doesn't have steve jobs skills. It's a strange world where this has to be pointed out. The best we can hope for is that Apple as a whole has been inculcated by Steve Jobs' DNA rather than one person. Do you think everybody at Apple ( or maybe you mean the world?) is equivalent to Jobs? There is a large list of Apple CEOs, past and present, who are not as good as Jobs - pretty much all of them except Jobs.
Federighi is great, Cue not so much. Some people want Ive on stage but if he was good at it he'd be up there. I think there's a reason we see him in nearly every product video but not on stage. Clearly he's not comfortable speaking in front of a large audience. If Angela Ahrendts is as good as people say I hope she gets up on stage. It should be about who works the crowd the best. Right now the only one that does is Federighi.
All well and good, but Apple's success stems from something more than America's Got Talent. Otherwise Simon Cowell could be CEO.
Federighi is great, Cue not so much. Some people want Ive on stage but if he was good at it he'd be up there. I think there's a reason we see him in nearly every product video but not on stage. Clearly he's not comfortable speaking in front of a large audience. If Angela Ahrendts is as good as people say I hope she gets up on stage. It should be about who works the crowd the best. Right now the only one that does is Federighi.
I'd have him up there all the time. Hosting. ( Maybe a few words from Cook to begin). Still not as good as Jobs though.
Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....
remember that Apple makes tangible items, whereas (to steal /paraphrase a line from "the crazy ones" "simon roberts was here" eps. 14 i believe). google takes a lie and makes it into an ad ... and apple takes a truth and makes it into a product...
Google's current search algorithms will be superseded well before 2020 and their advertising tricks are currently being challenged.. Google is aware of that and is not standing still. They are trying to diversify into new fields but with limited success so far...
Thank you Daniel. People and media have been fooled into some kind of undeserved Google worship and it's a stark contrast of reality. Google has had absolutely no innovation since the introduction of search. Everything has been acquisition. It's a given that they cannot innovate internally.
Google Wallet didn't succeed because all the partners who were invested in Isis, including three of the four major US mobile carriers, did everything within their power to restrict Wallet's key feature, which is mobile payment via NFC. As a matter of fact, Verizon went as far as to restrict installation of the app entirely on their smartphones, even those that didn't even have NFC. It was a power play to prevent the death of Isis before it was even launched, because Google had their product ready first.
Then how come ISIS itself has not taken off? MasterCard PayPass? Visa Wallet?
Ease of use problems with pass codes and to many steps?
I think you are missing a couple of significant historical points. Apple got their ass kicked through most of their history by making better products. You can think of android as windows 3.1. Steve Jobs was in charge of (a) creation of something new, and (b) mastering business models. Without the later apple is destined to be HP... Or Sonos.
Google don't have a monopoly on searching. I have been using DuckDuckGo for years and would only try google for 1 in 50 where DDG didn't deliver. About the only thing I would consistently use google for is image searches.
Google does have a monopoly on search in Europe as it constitutes over 80% share of the search market in Europe, far higher than here in the states. Plus Android is being investigated for anti competitive behavior as other competing and sometimes superior products are locked out due to the bundling of Google services in Android. Much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows in the EU I look for Google to be forced to give Android users the option of hangin built in search and other services in Android!!!!
Apple has publicly outlined plans to expand into automotive with iOS in the Car, a business it has incrementally expanded into successfully over the past decade with iPod and iPhone integration.
Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years.
Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model, and floating an interest in chasing Apple into the automotive and wearable arenas after doing such a poor job of capitalizing its cloning of the iPhone and iPad.
Google's driverless cars: 2010 and earlier.
iOS in the Car: unveiled at WWDC 2013.
Open Automotive Alliance (Android in cars): announced January 2014.
Google were involved in the automotive arena before Apple, and expanding from driverless cars running Google software to cars augmented with Google software is a fairly logical progression.
Google Glass: 2011
iWatch rumours: 2012 / 2013
Google smartwatch rumours: 2013
Google's glucose-sensing contact lens: 2014
'Wearable' does not mean just 'smart watches'. To some extent, Google's not even moving in the same direction as Apple - they're investigating the watch side of things, but Glass and other optical devices are completely different to anything we're hearing about from Apple.
I am not sure that you can schedule innovation. While Apple has hired and kept on staff some of the smartest and most innovative people in the tech industry, I don't see Cook as a guy with a whip lashing his workers to come up with the "next big thing" every six months just to please the tech press circus. Creativity doesn't work that way and neither does Apple.
I disagree with most of this article, especially the insults against anyone who would repeat a market share claim, because this seems to be a no true scotsman. If you don't think the reported numbers are accurate, where is the more accurate source that gives accurate numbers? I haven't seen any backing for this.
Android fans always take it out of context. Every financial quarter, there are marketshare reports and they report the ratio of device sales over a 3 month period. Android fans then say things like 'why does iOS get exclusive apps when 80% of people use Android devices'. Smartphones have been around for 7 years, you don't assess ownership ratio from a 3 month sales period.
Apple has sold 700 million iOS units, Android has 1 billion activations as of the end of last year. The ratio between them isn't 20:80 and it's not close to that. The 1 billion includes everything Android too, which isn't just the premium smartphones and tablets Apple sells.
The description used in the article that it's a pacifier is very apt because it's always the stat claimed in defense of something people are unhappy about. When a new game comes out on iOS first, they say 'this developer clearly doesn't like making money then because Android has 80% marketshare'. It's a delusion in the face of the fact that games typically make developers more money on iOS, which wouldn't be the case with such a large share. Same goes for the device usage stats, the ad revenue stats and so on.
For Android to reach 80% marketshare (as in total marketshare, not marketshare in a 3 month period), they need to convince Apple's 600 million+ customers to part with their devices or consume the rest of the market. There's only at most 3.5 billion people who can afford a smartphone, probably a good bit less. 1 billion have Android products already, 700 million have iOS, give or take some broken hardware and returns. This leaves less than 2 billion. Say that Apple's total marketshare doesn't grow at all and Google reaches 3 billion activations while iOS is at 700m, that's pretty much 80% marketshare but Apple isn't going to stop selling devices and like I say, I don't think the remaining market is that big.
I would estimate that Android ownership will reach 2:1 vs iOS and plateau e.g 30% iOS (1 billion), 60% Android (2 billion), 10% other (300m between Windows Phone, RIM etc, this is likely optimistic). Manufacturers of all products are experiencing slowed growth. I don't know when this plateau might happen as it's heavily dependent on the developing countries but probably 5 years. Apple might decide to bring out lower cost phones to accelerate unit growth but it's at the expense of profits and it won't be necessary.
Android fans do the same thing Windows fans did. It was all about units, software support, raw hardware spec for the price. Steve Jobs acknowledged that Windows won that war but notice he didn't say the hardware manufacturers won. Right now, the hardware companies are struggling to stay above water and Apple recently mentioned that they are the only hardware company that survived since the start. This time with mobile, they nailed it because they have significant unit volume, they have the software support, they are forefront with specs (nothing like PPC vs Intel) and they have the mindshare.
The same thing is going to happen with hardware. Companies can't survive forever with losses. There's only two companies making profit: Apple and Samsung. Samsung doesn't have any allegiance to Android. They account for over 60% of all Android devices. They already customize Android to separate themselves from their competition. Apple still tops them in profit despite Samsung selling 2-3x the units.
It will hurt to hear but whether people like it or not, Apple will stand the test of time and they will as long as they lead the direction of the technology industry. The hopes of Android are pinned to a follower: Samsung, nothing more than a plagiarist. When they veer away from their leader and go their own way with the likes of the S4 and smartwatch, the results speak for themselves - disappointing.
Yes he doesn't have steve jobs skills. It's a strange world where this has to be pointed out. The best we can hope for is that Apple as a whole has been inculcated by Steve Jobs' DNA rather than one person. Do you think everybody at Apple ( or maybe you mean the world?) is equivalent to Jobs? There is a large list of Apple CEOs, past and present, who are not as good as Jobs - pretty much all of them except Jobs.
He doesn't have what skills of Jobs? Taste? Attention to detail? I never said eveyone at Apple is equivalent to Jobs. But I'm not a Jobs sycophant who thinks only he had vision, taste, a focus on quality, etc. And for me the only Jobs skill that Cook is lacking is in showmanship. Very few could match Steve on stage selling a product.
Thank you very much for writing. I have been saying some of the same things online for a very long time. Google's many many flaws have been ignored for years. Apple fails to meet unrealistic estimates and it is the end of the world. Unfortunately none of the negativism directed at Apple is new. Having been a Mac user/shareholder etc. since 1989 it's the same story different authors. Apple can't do this. Apple can't do that. The Newton is a flop. Who needs colored computers? Apple doesn't know anything about phones. The iPad? what is that a female product, etc. etc.
Unfortunately you are preaching to the choir as the saying goes. Those of us who have followed Apple for sometime understand this article and appreciate the work required to produce it. Those in the other camp will not alter their thesis no matter how many facts you provide.
He doesn't have what skills of Jobs? Taste? Attention to detail? I never said eveyone at Apple is equivalent to Jobs. But I'm not a Jobs sycophant who thinks only he had vision, taste, a focus on quality, etc. And for me the only Jobs skill that Cook is lacking is in showmanship. Very few could match Steve on stage selling a product.
What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail. Jobs took a company which was bleeding to death, righted the ship, released OS X - the basis of all their success - on time; then when Apple was stable produced new and ground breaking products. Cook has taken over that company and as yet has done nothing in terms of innovation, is far too beholden to Wall Street ( buy backs and dividends would never have happened under Jobs - he never tried to prop up the stock). Cook may come good yet, we'll see this year.
Comments
Yes he doesn't have steve jobs skills. It's a strange world where this has to be pointed out. The best we can hope for is that Apple as a whole has been inculcated by Steve Jobs' DNA rather than one person. Do you think everybody at Apple ( or maybe you mean the world?) is equivalent to Jobs? There is a large list of Apple CEOs, past and present, who are not as good as Jobs - pretty much all of them except Jobs.
I'd have him up there all the time. Hosting. ( Maybe a few words from Cook to begin). Still not as good as Jobs though.
<... />
Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....
remember that Apple makes tangible items, whereas (to steal /paraphrase a line from "the crazy ones" "simon roberts was here" eps. 14 i believe). google takes a lie and makes it into an ad ... and apple takes a truth and makes it into a product...
Google's current search algorithms will be superseded well before 2020 and their advertising tricks are currently being challenged.. Google is aware of that and is not standing still. They are trying to diversify into new fields but with limited success so far...
Yes, Apple's the guy and Google is failing miserably...
Anything else?
Google Wallet didn't succeed because all the partners who were invested in Isis, including three of the four major US mobile carriers, did everything within their power to restrict Wallet's key feature, which is mobile payment via NFC. As a matter of fact, Verizon went as far as to restrict installation of the app entirely on their smartphones, even those that didn't even have NFC. It was a power play to prevent the death of Isis before it was even launched, because Google had their product ready first.
Then how come ISIS itself has not taken off? MasterCard PayPass? Visa Wallet?
Google does have a monopoly on search in Europe as it constitutes over 80% share of the search market in Europe, far higher than here in the states. Plus Android is being investigated for anti competitive behavior as other competing and sometimes superior products are locked out due to the bundling of Google services in Android. Much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows in the EU I look for Google to be forced to give Android users the option of hangin built in search and other services in Android!!!!
Apple has publicly outlined plans to expand into automotive with iOS in the Car, a business it has incrementally expanded into successfully over the past decade with iPod and iPhone integration.
Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model, and floating an interest in chasing Apple into the automotive and wearable arenas after doing such a poor job of capitalizing its cloning of the iPhone and iPad.
Google were involved in the automotive arena before Apple, and expanding from driverless cars running Google software to cars augmented with Google software is a fairly logical progression.
'Wearable' does not mean just 'smart watches'. To some extent, Google's not even moving in the same direction as Apple - they're investigating the watch side of things, but Glass and other optical devices are completely different to anything we're hearing about from Apple.
Android fans always take it out of context. Every financial quarter, there are marketshare reports and they report the ratio of device sales over a 3 month period. Android fans then say things like 'why does iOS get exclusive apps when 80% of people use Android devices'. Smartphones have been around for 7 years, you don't assess ownership ratio from a 3 month sales period.
Apple has sold 700 million iOS units, Android has 1 billion activations as of the end of last year. The ratio between them isn't 20:80 and it's not close to that. The 1 billion includes everything Android too, which isn't just the premium smartphones and tablets Apple sells.
The description used in the article that it's a pacifier is very apt because it's always the stat claimed in defense of something people are unhappy about. When a new game comes out on iOS first, they say 'this developer clearly doesn't like making money then because Android has 80% marketshare'. It's a delusion in the face of the fact that games typically make developers more money on iOS, which wouldn't be the case with such a large share. Same goes for the device usage stats, the ad revenue stats and so on.
For Android to reach 80% marketshare (as in total marketshare, not marketshare in a 3 month period), they need to convince Apple's 600 million+ customers to part with their devices or consume the rest of the market. There's only at most 3.5 billion people who can afford a smartphone, probably a good bit less. 1 billion have Android products already, 700 million have iOS, give or take some broken hardware and returns. This leaves less than 2 billion. Say that Apple's total marketshare doesn't grow at all and Google reaches 3 billion activations while iOS is at 700m, that's pretty much 80% marketshare but Apple isn't going to stop selling devices and like I say, I don't think the remaining market is that big.
I would estimate that Android ownership will reach 2:1 vs iOS and plateau e.g 30% iOS (1 billion), 60% Android (2 billion), 10% other (300m between Windows Phone, RIM etc, this is likely optimistic). Manufacturers of all products are experiencing slowed growth. I don't know when this plateau might happen as it's heavily dependent on the developing countries but probably 5 years. Apple might decide to bring out lower cost phones to accelerate unit growth but it's at the expense of profits and it won't be necessary.
Android fans do the same thing Windows fans did. It was all about units, software support, raw hardware spec for the price. Steve Jobs acknowledged that Windows won that war but notice he didn't say the hardware manufacturers won. Right now, the hardware companies are struggling to stay above water and Apple recently mentioned that they are the only hardware company that survived since the start. This time with mobile, they nailed it because they have significant unit volume, they have the software support, they are forefront with specs (nothing like PPC vs Intel) and they have the mindshare.
The same thing is going to happen with hardware. Companies can't survive forever with losses. There's only two companies making profit: Apple and Samsung. Samsung doesn't have any allegiance to Android. They account for over 60% of all Android devices. They already customize Android to separate themselves from their competition. Apple still tops them in profit despite Samsung selling 2-3x the units.
It will hurt to hear but whether people like it or not, Apple will stand the test of time and they will as long as they lead the direction of the technology industry. The hopes of Android are pinned to a follower: Samsung, nothing more than a plagiarist. When they veer away from their leader and go their own way with the likes of the S4 and smartwatch, the results speak for themselves - disappointing.
It's always the fault of the user huh?
Thank you very much for writing. I have been saying some of the same things online for a very long time. Google's many many flaws have been ignored for years. Apple fails to meet unrealistic estimates and it is the end of the world. Unfortunately none of the negativism directed at Apple is new. Having been a Mac user/shareholder etc. since 1989 it's the same story different authors. Apple can't do this. Apple can't do that. The Newton is a flop. Who needs colored computers? Apple doesn't know anything about phones. The iPad? what is that a female product, etc. etc.
Unfortunately you are preaching to the choir as the saying goes. Those of us who have followed Apple for sometime understand this article and appreciate the work required to produce it. Those in the other camp will not alter their thesis no matter how many facts you provide.
Good work. Thank you.
What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail. Jobs took a company which was bleeding to death, righted the ship, released OS X - the basis of all their success - on time; then when Apple was stable produced new and ground breaking products. Cook has taken over that company and as yet has done nothing in terms of innovation, is far too beholden to Wall Street ( buy backs and dividends would never have happened under Jobs - he never tried to prop up the stock). Cook may come good yet, we'll see this year.
Sure smells like deluded fanboys in here.