Why do we always hear from former employees and contractors about how Apple is now failing under Cook? We already got Woz trashing the company from time to time. We got the “If Steve were alive” crowd pounding away, even though many of them called Jobs the supreme asshole of the universe when he was alive. We got the disgruntled headless Mac luddites clamoring for integrated optical disc drives and RS-232 ports (okay, overkill on the sarcasm but you get it). We got the notch haters, the keyboard haters, the bezel haters, we got the troll army in the trenches.
Yet Apple under Tim Cook keeps chugging along, keeps being profitable, keeps selling products most people like, keeps rewarding shareholders, keeps competitors nervous at all times (look no further than the recent Samsung “ads”).
He didn't say Apple was failing. He said they weren't taking chances. Although during the time he was involved, Apple was "beleaguered", so they had to.
I believe that his message is Apple isn't as hungry as they used to be, and they aren't.
Profits are more of a priority now.
Take it as a warning. Don't rest on your laurels or you can end up like, well Microsoft.
And many people here constantly point out this fact as if nothing matters so long as Apple makes the most profits. I had family in town the past week and several family members complained about their Apple devices. They complained about constant software changes and battery issues with iPhone. My 21 year old nephew even said he wanted to get an Android. Most likely they won’t leave Apple. Why? Because getting a new phone and changing platforms can be a pain in the ass. I don’t know of anyone who looks forward to buying a new phone. So they’ll stick with Apple for now even though they don’t love it because they don’t have the time or energy to deal with switching. This is just anecdotal of course but I think it’s instructive. Of course it’s not so great in Android land but I think Apple should have higher aspirations than just being better than Android.
You bring up a non-trivial issue. I hear this a lot too (and spare me, I know I am just one data point).
Apple is, by far, still the best. But increasingly, only because others are worse.
I love that article of Tim Cook as the new Steve Ballmer. Under Ballmer they made more money then ever (actually tripled their income) but missed out on some of the biggest opportunities in the tech world. I don't even think Cook himself would argue that he is an innovator. His skill set is definitely execution. You can love Apple and still be sad about the current state of affairs. https://www.inc.com/steve-blank/tim-cook-steve-ballmer-visionary-ceo-replacement.html
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe
Blah Blah
Um... Apple didn't get permission? Cite, please. Otherwise, delete your post.
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe
Blah Blah
Um... Apple didn't get permission? Cite, please. Otherwise, delete your post.
If only we could delete/redact some of our posts but that’s not possible on this forum software or has been disabled by management. So we wind up editing a post to an ellipsis (...) so the software will accept it. This ain’t Twitter.
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe without reaching an agreement with their estates. Someone tried to cop on the Beastie Boys recently and the surviving members went nuts.
Doesn't matter if they're "paying tribute" — featuring John Lennon and Martin Luther King in an advertisement is weird and creepy. The campaign confirmed many anti-Apple biases of the company being conceited and hollow. Twenty years later, they're still combatting that image.
That said… the only truly great ad they've made in years was the Spike Jones HomePod bit.
Well, that's the weirdest take on that ad campaign that I've seen.
Are you certain that Apple did not receive permission from the estates to use the likenesses? Chiat-Day was a prominent agency that had an effective legal team that would not have put themselves at legal risk just for the use of a photo.
And no, Apple was not "confirmed" by that campaign as being conceited and hollow. Quite the contrary, it was award-winning and memorable. And gave Apple a huge public boost as good advertising is supposed to do.
And all those people featured matched the overriding theme of honoring the "Crazy Ones". Most were dead. And in my memory, nobody found the use of the images weird or creepy. The photo choices themselves were brilliant, and the art direction as well.
Smart companies adapt their strategies to address the highly dynamic world in which they live, including but not limited to their current market standing, competitive position, core competencies, technical and business strengths, real and relative weaknesses, their own constantly evolving legacy and history, installed base, current consumer demands, and a slew of other highly dynamic factors. Few things in business, technology, or dealing with people in any capacity is static. People's tastes change, cultural norms change, local and global economies rise and fall, blind squirrels find nuts, and businesses too big to fail - fail miserably. A bold marketing campaign from 10 years ago may look downright silly today and prove entirely ineffective. The notion of constant change, adaptation, and fighting today's battles with today's strategies also explains why companies that rest on their laurels for too long, i.e.. applying a static approach to a dynamic world, are doomed to failure.
One problem with ex-employees or associates, retired generals, and so on is that once they leave they are usually disconnected from the dynamics of the organization and domain that they once were immersed in on a daily basis. Lacking the current context and perspective they tend to lean on their past knowledge and outmoded perspectives. What mattered then is not necessarily what matters now. If they realized this very simple truth they'd turn their current focus to what they know, understand, and have relevant context for today and leave those who are still slogging through the grind at their old organization alone to do their jobs today.
The Apple that existed under Steve Jobs is not the same Apple that exists under Tim Cook. Apple has moved on, they had to in order to survive. When Tim Cook steps aside they will move on beyond Tim once again, because they'll have to.
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe
Blah Blah
Um... Apple didn't get permission? Cite, please. Otherwise, delete your post.
Why do we always hear from former employees and contractors about how Apple is now failing under Cook? We already got Woz trashing the company from time to time. We got the “If Steve were alive” crowd pounding away, even though many of them called Jobs the supreme asshole of the universe when he was alive. We got the disgruntled headless Mac luddites clamoring for integrated optical disc drives and RS-232 ports (okay, overkill on the sarcasm but you get it). We got the notch haters, the keyboard haters, the bezel haters, we got the troll army in the trenches.
Yet Apple under Tim Cook keeps chugging along, keeps being profitable, keeps selling products most people like, keeps rewarding shareholders, keeps competitors nervous at all times (look no further than the recent Samsung “ads”).
Why do you discount their expertise. Either Apple's latest advertising is vanilla or it isn't. I think it is
Patently false. It's a subjective topic based on feeling and preferences (akin to "Chocolate ice cream is better"), and you're trying to pass it off as a quantitative fact.
You see me passing it off as a fact by saying "I think it is". Maybe you should possibly research the meaning of the word subjective.
Why do we always hear from former employees and contractors about how Apple is now failing under Cook? We already got Woz trashing the company from time to time. We got the “If Steve were alive” crowd pounding away, even though many of them called Jobs the supreme asshole of the universe when he was alive. We got the disgruntled headless Mac luddites clamoring for integrated optical disc drives and RS-232 ports (okay, overkill on the sarcasm but you get it). We got the notch haters, the keyboard haters, the bezel haters, we got the troll army in the trenches.
Yet Apple under Tim Cook keeps chugging along, keeps being profitable, keeps selling products most people like, keeps rewarding shareholders, keeps competitors nervous at all times (look no further than the recent Samsung “ads”).
He didn't say Apple was failing. He said they weren't taking chances. Although during the time he was involved, Apple was "beleaguered", so they had to.
I believe that his message is Apple isn't as hungry as they used to be, and they aren't.
Profits are more of a priority now.
Take it as a warning. Don't rest on your laurels or you can end up like, well Microsoft.
And many people here constantly point out this fact as if nothing matters so long as Apple makes the most profits. I had family in town the past week and several family members complained about their Apple devices. They complained about constant software changes and battery issues with iPhone. My 21 year old nephew even said he wanted to get an Android. Most likely they won’t leave Apple. Why? Because getting a new phone and changing platforms can be a pain in the ass. I don’t know of anyone who looks forward to buying a new phone. So they’ll stick with Apple for now even though they don’t love it because they don’t have the time or energy to deal with switching. This is just anecdotal of course but I think it’s instructive. Of course it’s not so great in Android land but I think Apple should have higher aspirations than just being better than Android.
I don't think that profit matters more than everything else to Apple now, but I do think that Cook is a bit of a bean counter. I personally don't get the fascination with share buy backs, except perhaps to increase EPS.
Steve would be less concerned about that.
Of course Apple is missing Steve. If you look at the stores about the iPhone he kept rejecting the original proposals until they spent one weekend working on a version that looked exactly like the first iPhone we saw and he accepted that. To work like that for someone you need to hold them in awe, or to hold them in in fear. Or both.
Tim probably doesnt get involved in that. And I wonder if Steve would have liked the Touch Bar or even the watch interface. Pretty but pretty useless.
And as well as what he might have rejected we don't know what he would have come up with, not on his own, but with the designers. We will never know.
As for the iPhone, I think the X is great looking but most people I know who have iPhones ( and most people I know do have iPhones) are not really that in love with them. Theres a lot of bitching about batteries, but that might be common to all smart phones. Last year I showed my new 8 around but it generated little interest.
However a colleague with an X did get some interest so I think Apple should really push on the X form factor, reducing last years version significantly if possible.
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe
Blah Blah
Um... Apple didn't get permission? Cite, please. Otherwise, delete your post.
If only we could delete/redact some of our posts but that’s not possible on this forum software or has been disabled by management. So we wind up editing a post to an ellipsis (...) so the software will accept it. This ain’t Twitter.
I was being figurative... you could, for example, put a strikethrough through it....
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe
Blah Blah
Um... Apple didn't get permission? Cite, please. Otherwise, delete your post.
Apple should have gotten sued like mad over the Think Different campaign.
It would be illegal for a company to make commercials featuring Tom Cruise without first reaching an agreement with him. It's illegal to use the likenesses of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe
Blah Blah
Um... Apple didn't get permission? Cite, please. Otherwise, delete your post.
Damn. I did not know that. “Jobs pulled some strings to get usage rights from celebrities including Joan Baez (Jobs’ ex-girlfriend) and Yoko Ono (once a neighbour). If Clow had approached these people, he would be another adman. When Jobs called, he was a friend.” Alright, I redact some of that. I still think it comes off as creepy and arrogant, but glad to hear that.
The campaign confirmed many anti-Apple biases of the company being conceited and hollow. Twenty years later, they're still combatting that image.
This is insanity. It was a great ad, and it didn't confirm anything of the sort, nor are they combatting that image twenty years later. Normals have no idea of the "But Apple is arrogant!" troll trope. It's all in your head.
Even Steve knew. “This is great, this is really great … but I can’t do this. People already think I’m an egotist, and putting the Apple logo up there with all these geniuses will get me skewered by the press.”
1) Your original comments stated that they "should have gotten sued like mad" but it never occurred to you that they did get permission? Not even a thought of, "I wonder if they got permission?"?
2) It's great you quoted Steve's first thought on one of the most iconic ads in history, but then you failed to include the rest of Jobs thoughts on the matter:
"This is great, this is really great … but I can’t do this. People already think I’m an egotist, and putting the Apple logo up there with all these geniuses will get me skewered by the press.” […] Steve then paused and looked around the room and said out loud, yet almost as if to his own self, “What am I doing? Screw it. It’s the right thing. It’s great. Let’s talk tomorrow.” In a matter of seconds, right before our very eyes, he had done a complete about-face.
I find it interesting that before the Think Different ad campaign was launched Steve Jobs did a Q&A where he's asked by an audience member, if I remember, correctly why Apple is adopting standards used by other PC vendors and Windows. He even states that Apple should be the company that thinks different to which Jobs replies that it's not about thinking different but about thinking better, and if another standard is better than what Apple has created then Apple should adopt it. I believe that Apple moving to Ethernet and dropping AppleTalk was specifically mentioned. I'll see if I can find the clip.
edit: The specific Q&A starts at 09m:23s and the specific statement starts at 12m:20s.
WWDC that year was 13–16 May that year. Did the Think Different campaign launch before then?
Comments
You bring up a non-trivial issue. I hear this a lot too (and spare me, I know I am just one data point).
Apple is, by far, still the best. But increasingly, only because others are worse.
Are you certain that Apple did not receive permission from the estates to use the likenesses? Chiat-Day was a prominent agency that had an effective legal team that would not have put themselves at legal risk just for the use of a photo.
And no, Apple was not "confirmed" by that campaign as being conceited and hollow. Quite the contrary, it was award-winning and memorable. And gave Apple a huge public boost as good advertising is supposed to do.
And all those people featured matched the overriding theme of honoring the "Crazy Ones". Most were dead. And in my memory, nobody found the use of the images weird or creepy. The photo choices themselves were brilliant, and the art direction as well.
One problem with ex-employees or associates, retired generals, and so on is that once they leave they are usually disconnected from the dynamics of the organization and domain that they once were immersed in on a daily basis. Lacking the current context and perspective they tend to lean on their past knowledge and outmoded perspectives. What mattered then is not necessarily what matters now. If they realized this very simple truth they'd turn their current focus to what they know, understand, and have relevant context for today and leave those who are still slogging through the grind at their old organization alone to do their jobs today.
The Apple that existed under Steve Jobs is not the same Apple that exists under Tim Cook. Apple has moved on, they had to in order to survive. When Tim Cook steps aside they will move on beyond Tim once again, because they'll have to.
I was going to respond to this, but reading the rest of the article is see that the author did a fine job rounding out the topic. Excellent article.
I don't think that profit matters more than everything else to Apple now, but I do think that Cook is a bit of a bean counter. I personally don't get the fascination with share buy backs, except perhaps to increase EPS.
Steve would be less concerned about that.
Of course Apple is missing Steve. If you look at the stores about the iPhone he kept rejecting the original proposals until they spent one weekend working on a version that looked exactly like the first iPhone we saw and he accepted that. To work like that for someone you need to hold them in awe, or to hold them in in fear. Or both.
Tim probably doesnt get involved in that. And I wonder if Steve would have liked the Touch Bar or even the watch interface. Pretty but pretty useless.
And as well as what he might have rejected we don't know what he would have come up with, not on his own, but with the designers. We will never know.
As for the iPhone, I think the X is great looking but most people I know who have iPhones ( and most people I know do have iPhones) are not really that in love with them. Theres a lot of bitching about batteries, but that might be common to all smart phones. Last year I showed my new 8 around but it generated little interest.
However a colleague with an X did get some interest so I think Apple should really push on the X form factor, reducing last years version significantly if possible.
Thanks. See post #23 above. :-)
Now serving 'ultra-vanilla'.
2) It's great you quoted Steve's first thought on one of the most iconic ads in history, but then you failed to include the rest of Jobs thoughts on the matter:
edit: The specific Q&A starts at 09m:23s and the specific statement starts at 12m:20s.
WWDC that year was 13–16 May that year. Did the Think Different campaign launch before then?