I saw Greg “Joz” speak early on year at Macworld NYC and I was blown away by his presentation, speaking manner and knowledge of his presentation. Many times I’ve told Apple that they would be making a horrible mistake if they overlooked Greg for better positions. (Not that anyone read my comments, but I’m thrilled to see him on the short list.
I thought Jeff Williams had a deputy that is the de facto COO. The person who does the day-to-day running of Apple which allows Williams to be the C-suite operations strategist and allows him to lead all the other things he has to manage. The blood-glucose sensor for the Apple Watch is one of those high payoff R&D tech projects that warrants a push.
It's definitely Jeff Williams in the immediate future. He will be acting CEO if Cook decides to take a one month vacation. Sometime after 5 years? Who knows. A lot can happen in 5 years, like the retirement of most of the 60+ year olds on this list. Not mentioned on the list is Mike Rockwell, who led the Vision work, and is in control of all the special technology projects at Apple, no?
Too bad Scott Forstall is done as a tech manager. I think in hindsight, it was a huge fork in the road when Cook decided to keep Jony Ive over Scott Forstall. There have been excesses in "design" from Apple in the past 10 years while there would have been differently things happening everywhere. Swift would be different if Forstall was SVP of software at Apple. The iPads would have more PC features. Machine learning would be further ahead.
I'd like to see a more computer oriented product person be the CEO.
Or even AI oriented.
Their chips are good for AI but they are way behinder for Speech Language Processing. Until they make a chip that has a separate section for SLP, they will be behind. Even when they do make room for one, they will need to retroactively make an AI that is backwards compatible with their non SLP chips, which will be a dogshit AI experience.
I thought Jeff Williams had a deputy that is the de facto COO. The person who does the day-to-day running of Apple which allows Williams to be the C-suite operations strategist and allows him to lead all the other things he has to manage. The blood-glucose sensor for the Apple Watch is one of those high payoff R&D tech projects that warrants a push.
It's definitely Jeff Williams in the immediate future. He will be acting CEO if Cook decides to take a one month vacation. Sometime after 5 years? Who knows. A lot can happen in 5 years, like the retirement of most of the 60+ year olds on this list. Not mentioned on the list is Mike Rockwell, who led the Vision work, and is in control of all the special technology projects at Apple, no?
Too bad Scott Forstall is done as a tech manager. I think in hindsight, it was a huge fork in the road when Cook decided to keep Jony Ive over Scott Forstall. There have been excesses in "design" from Apple in the past 10 years while there would have been differently things happening everywhere. Swift would be different if Forstall was SVP of software at Apple. The iPads would have more PC features. Machine learning would be further ahead.
I'd like to see a more computer oriented product person be the CEO.
"Too bad Scott Forstall is done as a tech manager. I think in hindsight, it was a huge fork in the road when Cook decided to keep Jony Ive over Scott Forstall. There have been excesses in "design" from Apple in the past 10 years while there would have been differently things happening everywhere. Swift would be different if Forstall was SVP of software at Apple. The iPads would have more PC features. Machine learning would be further ahead."
Completely agree with this except for the part of Forstall being done as a tech manager. I still think there's a chance he could come back and he deserves a look as a possible CEO for Apple. Another "outsider" who I think deserves a look is Tony Fadell. He's one of the few ex-Apple execs who's done well for himself post-Apple.
I think Tim will stick around for the cheaper second gen Vision Pro, and then leave the glasses to his successor. I actually think you’re going to see him step down in a couple years. He’ll be 65, it’s feeling more and more like the time is right. I’d love to see Federighi take the spot. He’s clearly a smart guy, and he’s got actual charisma.
I thought Jeff Williams had a deputy that is the de facto COO. The person who does the day-to-day running of Apple which allows Williams to be the C-suite operations strategist and allows him to lead all the other things he has to manage. The blood-glucose sensor for the Apple Watch is one of those high payoff R&D tech projects that warrants a push.
It's definitely Jeff Williams in the immediate future. He will be acting CEO if Cook decides to take a one month vacation. Sometime after 5 years? Who knows. A lot can happen in 5 years, like the retirement of most of the 60+ year olds on this list. Not mentioned on the list is Mike Rockwell, who led the Vision work, and is in control of all the special technology projects at Apple, no?
Too bad Scott Forstall is done as a tech manager. I think in hindsight, it was a huge fork in the road when Cook decided to keep Jony Ive over Scott Forstall. There have been excesses in "design" from Apple in the past 10 years while there would have been differently things happening everywhere. Swift would be different if Forstall was SVP of software at Apple. The iPads would have more PC features. Machine learning would be further ahead.
I'd like to see a more computer oriented product person be the CEO.
Or even AI oriented.
Their chips are good for AI but they are way behinder for Speech Language Processing. Until they make a chip that has a separate section for SLP, they will be behind. Even when they do make room for one, they will need to retroactively make an AI that is backwards compatible with their non SLP chips, which will be a dogshit AI experience.
Time for innovation really.. It is long overdue.
I'm still skeptical of "AI" as a revenue generating feature for client computers. It's a new tool in the software toolbox and a new feature set for a product, but I don't think it will affect client computer buying trends. People aren't going to be shortening the lifespan of their current computers for new "AI PCs".
There's obviously a huge penetration and buildup of servers and server-side AI features. We will see how far it goes. It probably is not a crypto-currency like bubble, but I'm waiting to see what happens. If it makes money, the buildup that is happening today is small-fry as all those GPU-based AI hardware will be replaced with specialized AI accelerators, using less power, more performant, etc.
I digress. A product person is different from an AI person. Even if the future is AI everything, it needs to be wrapped into consumer product that people buy. Hence, I think having a product person is really important. It can't be a Sam Altman type. It has to be someone who understands how people use computers.
Age doesn’t matter so long as the faculties are sharp.
A young hotshot as a founder is awesome. Not for someone to carry things into the future. We need someone with enough edge but also maturity.
Schiller is not the typical ceo type. But I could see him returning apple to a culture of careful craftsmanship and building anticipation while maintaining the supply chain.
Perhaps Joz makes the most sense out of anyone. Has a firm grasp on pretty much everything.
O’Brien is ok for HR. Not at all for CEO.
Craig and John aren’t ceo types. More hands on engineers.
But the sleeper dark horse would be the return of Jony. He’s had his rise, he’s taken his lumps, and he’s gained deep insightful perspective. Very similar to the rise, fall, and meteoric rise of Jobs.
1. This is way overdue. 2. It definitely has to be someone outside of the company. Apple culture has degraded tremendously, it's now all about politics, not ideas. They need to open the window and let the fresh air in.
I thought Jeff Williams had a deputy that is the de facto COO. The person who does the day-to-day running of Apple which allows Williams to be the C-suite operations strategist and allows him to lead all the other things he has to manage. The blood-glucose sensor for the Apple Watch is one of those high payoff R&D tech projects that warrants a push.
It's definitely Jeff Williams in the immediate future. He will be acting CEO if Cook decides to take a one month vacation. Sometime after 5 years? Who knows. A lot can happen in 5 years, like the retirement of most of the 60+ year olds on this list. Not mentioned on the list is Mike Rockwell, who led the Vision work, and is in control of all the special technology projects at Apple, no?
Too bad Scott Forstall is done as a tech manager. I think in hindsight, it was a huge fork in the road when Cook decided to keep Jony Ive over Scott Forstall. There have been excesses in "design" from Apple in the past 10 years while there would have been differently things happening everywhere. Swift would be different if Forstall was SVP of software at Apple. The iPads would have more PC features. Machine learning would be further ahead.
I'd like to see a more computer oriented product person be the CEO.
"Too bad Scott Forstall is done as a tech manager. I think in hindsight, it was a huge fork in the road when Cook decided to keep Jony Ive over Scott Forstall. There have been excesses in "design" from Apple in the past 10 years while there would have been differently things happening everywhere. Swift would be different if Forstall was SVP of software at Apple. The iPads would have more PC features. Machine learning would be further ahead."
Completely agree with this except for the part of Forstall being done as a tech manager. I still think there's a chance he could come back and he deserves a look as a possible CEO for Apple. Another "outsider" who I think deserves a look is Tony Fadell. He's one of the few ex-Apple execs who's done well for himself post-Apple.
Forstall would not have made a great ceo. He was great at attaching himself to people in power and playing the game. He gets a lot of miles out of being the team lead over the iOS fork that was built on Mac OS. But that’s his claim to fame. After that, crickets. Before that, crickets. Oh and that initial maps hiccup that took forever to be forgotten. And since then? What? Broadway? Nah. Not missing much. Even as a presenter, he was super awkward.
Joz is brilliant guy and it seems he’s been groomed for the ceo role for a while. He knows enough of the business complexities, is careful with media, and cares about what made apple what it is. He’s the number one pick I’m sure.
Outside of that, I don’t really see anyone. Maybe hil since he really cares about what makes apple… apple. But he might need a deputy to shore up any supply chain and financial complexities. That could be a bit of a mess.
No one else could fill the role - unless Jony Ive returned. That would be a master class. He’s had his meteoric rise, knew jobs better than anyone there and has also had to learn the hard way through mistakes. As with jobs, sometimes leaving and going through tough times gives you insight and perspective that you’d never have otherwise.
Hair force one? Great guy. Phill isn’t software lead. Don’t see the ceo bit.
Ternus? Again, great guy. Brilliant hardware lead. Don’t see the ceo bit.
And on and on.
But Joz? Yep. No doubt. Ive? Yep. with an asterisk. Schiller? Maybe. Also an asterisk.
Forstall would not have made a great ceo. He was great at attaching himself to people in power and playing the game. He gets a lot of miles out of being the team lead over the iOS fork that was built on Mac OS. But that’s his claim to fame. After that, crickets. Before that, crickets. Oh and that initial maps hiccup that took forever to be forgotten. And since then? What? Broadway? Nah. Not missing much. Even as a presenter, he was super awkward.
Joz is brilliant guy and it seems he’s been groomed for the ceo role for a while. He knows enough of the business complexities, is careful with media, and cares about what made apple what it is. He’s the number one pick I’m sure.
Fully agree about Forstall after how he handled Maps. He did the wrong thing. Joz... we simply can't have one more COO going CEO at Apple. This is not HP. I would rather see Michael Dell. He reimagined distribution using tech from NeXT (later Apple used the same for their online shop), started from nothing, and well... he worked with Jobs. However, it likely is going to be a corporate insider, and the COO is the most likely candidate. It would however be nice to have one with a vision for the products and one that wouldn't accept 10 years of Car-to-nowhere or 6 years of butterfly keyboards. One that can push us forward and is better at global politics than Cook without being Elon Musk.
Forstall would not have made a great ceo. He was great at attaching himself to people in power and playing the game. He gets a lot of miles out of being the team lead over the iOS fork that was built on Mac OS. But that’s his claim to fame. After that, crickets. Before that, crickets. Oh and that initial maps hiccup that took forever to be forgotten. And since then? What? Broadway? Nah. Not missing much. Even as a presenter, he was super awkward.
Joz is brilliant guy and it seems he’s been groomed for the ceo role for a while. He knows enough of the business complexities, is careful with media, and cares about what made apple what it is. He’s the number one pick I’m sure.
Fully agree about Forstall after how he handled Maps. He did the wrong thing. Joz... we simply can't have one more COO going CEO at Apple. This is not HP. I would rather see Michael Dell. He reimagined distribution using tech from NeXT (later Apple used the same for their online shop), started from nothing, and well... he worked with Jobs. However, it likely is going to be a corporate insider, and the COO is the most likely candidate. It would however be nice to have one with a vision for the products and one that wouldn't accept 10 years of Car-to-nowhere or 6 years of butterfly keyboards. One that can push us forward and is better at global politics than Cook without being Elon Musk.
Dang. Musk would be awesome. But I think Ive could do a stellar Job.
Joz would be another cook - taking established DNA and maximizing it.
But you may be right. It’s probably time for a fresh set of eyes.
It’s going to take a product person. Craftsman with serious care for the smallest detail. Someone who thinks like a small business owner, but has mass enterprise chops. Tall order for sure.
Forstall would not have made a great ceo. He was great at attaching himself to people in power and playing the game. He gets a lot of miles out of being the team lead over the iOS fork that was built on Mac OS. But that’s his claim to fame. After that, crickets. Before that, crickets. Oh and that initial maps hiccup that took forever to be forgotten. And since then? What? Broadway? Nah. Not missing much. Even as a presenter, he was super awkward.
Joz is brilliant guy and it seems he’s been groomed for the ceo role for a while. He knows enough of the business complexities, is careful with media, and cares about what made apple what it is. He’s the number one pick I’m sure.
Fully agree about Forstall after how he handled Maps. He did the wrong thing. Joz... we simply can't have one more COO going CEO at Apple. This is not HP. I would rather see Michael Dell. He reimagined distribution using tech from NeXT (later Apple used the same for their online shop), started from nothing, and well... he worked with Jobs. However, it likely is going to be a corporate insider, and the COO is the most likely candidate. It would however be nice to have one with a vision for the products and one that wouldn't accept 10 years of Car-to-nowhere or 6 years of butterfly keyboards. One that can push us forward and is better at global politics than Cook without being Elon Musk.
Tough choice. Scott Forstall probably would have been the top candidate if he was still with the company. I like Federighi the most, but I don’t think he wants that position. If he does, and shows that side of him, he is the one without question. Second would be Joswiak, but he would be up there in age. The rest don’t seem like they could handle it.
I feel there is no downside to selecting an “outsider” if the person has the appropriate reputation, the right type of knowledge and experience, and can bring gravitas and a sense of excitement to the job.
The person I would select is Dr. Lisa Sue, current CEO of AMD. She has deep understanding of the technical aspects of computers (PhD physics, MIT) and has shown vision, demonstrated by her incredible turn-around and spectacular trajectory of AMD. Furthermore, she appears unpretentious and has boundless energy.
But the sleeper dark horse would be the return of Jony. He’s had his rise, he’s taken his lumps, and he’s gained deep insightful perspective. Very similar to the rise, fall, and meteoric rise of Jobs.
I don't think that analogy works because Jobs was an entrepreneurial leader who, from an early age, eagerly learned multiple aspects of how to run a business. CEOs needs to not just understand, but have a passion for, multiple aspects of a business. They need to balance competing priorities in order to achieve larger goals. Ive is more similar to Wozniak in the sense that he is a narrowly focused specialist. The world needs narrowly focused specialists (I'd put myself in that category, actually). But a CEO needs to be more of a generalist.
Cook is somewhere in between. His speciality is operations, but specializing in operations is kind of like specializing in being a generalist (because operations touches so many aspects of a business), so it sort of works.
Putting Ive in charge of Apple would be like asking Picasso to run Spain -- it wouldn't work.
Forstall would not have made a great ceo. He was great at attaching himself to people in power and playing the game. He gets a lot of miles out of being the team lead over the iOS fork that was built on Mac OS. But that’s his claim to fame. After that, crickets. Before that, crickets. Oh and that initial maps hiccup that took forever to be forgotten. And since then? What? Broadway? Nah. Not missing much. Even as a presenter, he was super awkward.
Joz is brilliant guy and it seems he’s been groomed for the ceo role for a while. He knows enough of the business complexities, is careful with media, and cares about what made apple what it is. He’s the number one pick I’m sure.
Fully agree about Forstall after how he handled Maps. He did the wrong thing. Joz... we simply can't have one more COO going CEO at Apple. This is not HP. I would rather see Michael Dell. He reimagined distribution using tech from NeXT (later Apple used the same for their online shop), started from nothing, and well... he worked with Jobs. However, it likely is going to be a corporate insider, and the COO is the most likely candidate. It would however be nice to have one with a vision for the products and one that wouldn't accept 10 years of Car-to-nowhere or 6 years of butterfly keyboards. One that can push us forward and is better at global politics than Cook without being Elon Musk.
Forstall was more pragmatic than Steve Jobs. Having a nice balance of pragmatism, idealism, ambition, and managing smart people is hugely important in these roles. Forstall essentially saved Apple by promoting the Carbon API and he played a huge part in the iPhone. Without Carbon, it meant MS Office and Adobe apps weren't going to be on Mac OS X, at least in anything resembling a quick timeline. Without those apps, Apple would have gone out of business. Then for the iPhone, he basically took all that they learned from AppKit and made UIKit, a second generation Obj-C platform, which is the basis for all iPhone apps until Swift came out.
So, he was really good at making these platforms, revising them, making the developer community came along. This all plays out in hardware and products. Swift and SwiftUI is basically Apple's next gen platform, and is essentially the official end of NeXT technologies at Apple. It's pretty slow going on the Swift front, and, its benefits don't seem that great. I wonder what a 3rd revision of an Obj-C platform would mean for all of Apple's hardware and user interfaces. You have to wonder what Apple's products would be like if Jony Ive wasn't in charge of UI and UE.
He wasn't fired because Apple Maps. He was fired because he didn't "get along" with Jony Ive, Phil Schiller, et al. On the one hand, the C-suite needs to work together. On the other hand, the C-suite can't become compliant to one dominant person either. They shouldn't be susceptible to group think. Someone needed to say no to some products or some actions. Apple Maps was initially a fiasco, but it was also a 1.0. With time and data, it became competitive, and it would have happened with Forstall remaining in charge of it. I didn't think anyone needed to publicly "apologize" for it.
I do think Apple is quite stuck in its own triangulation of what features its products should have. Apple puts limitations on their platforms that don't need to be there. iPads are hyper triangulated. They don't seem to want to have new product just cannibalize an old product. They don't want to take any chances at an odd or unusual product. (AVP is a breath of fresh air here). We've all lived through 2012 to 2018 or so. There were a lot of strange mistakes during this time. There needs to be a book written about how those mistakes were made and why it took so long to fix of change. Eg, 3 iterations of butterfly keyboards that didn't work. iPadOS multitasking is limited on purpose, with UI that don't get fixed or fixed fast.
"He wasn't fired because Apple Maps. He was fired because he didn't "get along" with Jony Ive, Phil Schiller, et al. On the one hand, the C-suite needs to work together. On the other hand, the C-suite can't become compliant to one dominant person either. They shouldn't be susceptible to group think. Someone needed to say no to some products or some actions. Apple Maps was initially a fiasco, but it was also a 1.0. With time and data, it became competitive, and it would have happened with Forstall remaining in charge of it. I didn't think anyone needed to publicly "apologize" for it."
This paragraph reminds of this Steve Jobs on the necessity of friction with respect to make great products. Forstall essentially got fired because he didn't kiss ass. Cook essentially got rid of what was causing friction and surrounded himself with "Yes" men.
Comments
Their chips are good for AI but they are way behinder for Speech Language Processing. Until they make a chip that has a separate section for SLP, they will be behind. Even when they do make room for one, they will need to retroactively make an AI that is backwards compatible with their non SLP chips, which will be a dogshit AI experience.
Time for innovation really.. It is long overdue.
Completely agree with this except for the part of Forstall being done as a tech manager. I still think there's a chance he could come back and he deserves a look as a possible CEO for Apple. Another "outsider" who I think deserves a look is Tony Fadell. He's one of the few ex-Apple execs who's done well for himself post-Apple.
There's obviously a huge penetration and buildup of servers and server-side AI features. We will see how far it goes. It probably is not a crypto-currency like bubble, but I'm waiting to see what happens. If it makes money, the buildup that is happening today is small-fry as all those GPU-based AI hardware will be replaced with specialized AI accelerators, using less power, more performant, etc.
I digress. A product person is different from an AI person. Even if the future is AI everything, it needs to be wrapped into consumer product that people buy. Hence, I think having a product person is really important. It can't be a Sam Altman type. It has to be someone who understands how people use computers.
Craig and John aren’t ceo types. More hands on engineers.
2. It definitely has to be someone outside of the company. Apple culture has degraded tremendously, it's now all about politics, not ideas. They need to open the window and let the fresh air in.
the job.
MRM
I feel there is no downside to selecting an “outsider” if the person has the appropriate reputation, the right type of knowledge and experience, and can bring gravitas and a sense of excitement to the job.
The person I would select is Dr. Lisa Sue, current CEO of AMD. She has deep understanding of the technical aspects of computers (PhD physics, MIT) and has shown vision, demonstrated by her incredible turn-around and spectacular trajectory of AMD. Furthermore, she appears unpretentious and has boundless energy.
Cook is somewhere in between. His speciality is operations, but specializing in operations is kind of like specializing in being a generalist (because operations touches so many aspects of a business), so it sort of works.
Putting Ive in charge of Apple would be like asking Picasso to run Spain -- it wouldn't work.
So, he was really good at making these platforms, revising them, making the developer community came along. This all plays out in hardware and products. Swift and SwiftUI is basically Apple's next gen platform, and is essentially the official end of NeXT technologies at Apple. It's pretty slow going on the Swift front, and, its benefits don't seem that great. I wonder what a 3rd revision of an Obj-C platform would mean for all of Apple's hardware and user interfaces. You have to wonder what Apple's products would be like if Jony Ive wasn't in charge of UI and UE.
He wasn't fired because Apple Maps. He was fired because he didn't "get along" with Jony Ive, Phil Schiller, et al. On the one hand, the C-suite needs to work together. On the other hand, the C-suite can't become compliant to one dominant person either. They shouldn't be susceptible to group think. Someone needed to say no to some products or some actions. Apple Maps was initially a fiasco, but it was also a 1.0. With time and data, it became competitive, and it would have happened with Forstall remaining in charge of it. I didn't think anyone needed to publicly "apologize" for it.
I do think Apple is quite stuck in its own triangulation of what features its products should have. Apple puts limitations on their platforms that don't need to be there. iPads are hyper triangulated. They don't seem to want to have new product just cannibalize an old product. They don't want to take any chances at an odd or unusual product. (AVP is a breath of fresh air here). We've all lived through 2012 to 2018 or so. There were a lot of strange mistakes during this time. There needs to be a book written about how those mistakes were made and why it took so long to fix of change. Eg, 3 iterations of butterfly keyboards that didn't work. iPadOS multitasking is limited on purpose, with UI that don't get fixed or fixed fast.
This paragraph reminds of this Steve Jobs on the necessity of friction with respect to make great products. Forstall essentially got fired because he didn't kiss ass. Cook essentially got rid of what was causing friction and surrounded himself with "Yes" men.
Steve Jobs - Beautiful Polished Rocks on Vimeo