It will be Joz, since his twin can fill in for him if needed…
Maybe a co-CEO situation?
When a company gets to a certain size (150k+ employees), it makes sense to have multiple CEOs. There isn't much benefit to putting all the responsibility on one person. They could have 3 top decision makers and majority rules on each issue. Joz + Tim + Jeff for now and then switch them out over time. They can even have a break for a few months and come back. Tim could get up at 6am instead of 4am.
Interesting read but also very interesting no one looked at Apple executives outside the USA. There are a number of extremely bright, highly regarded and very successful senior executives in Europe and Asia/Pacific. One of them could be a smart move for Apple. One thing about succession planning is you have multiple people as choices but that also means you potentially lose some of those people if they don’t get the job. A difficult proposition but I am sure Apple will work it out.
Small correction: 'There are clear frontrunners for the biggest job in tech" - isn't that the Microsoft CEO position? Apple's market cap is $2.6T and Microsoft's is $2.9T. Apple lost the crown a few weeks back.
Puh-hu-leeze, let's think outside the Pedantic Zone.
It will be Joz, since his twin can fill in for him if needed…
Maybe a co-CEO situation?
When a company gets to a certain size (150k+ employees), it makes sense to have multiple CEOs. There isn't much benefit to putting all the responsibility on one person. They could have 3 top decision makers and majority rules on each issue. Joz + Tim + Jeff for now and then switch them out over time. They can even have a break for a few months and come back. Tim could get up at 6am instead of 4am.
Good points, and it makes me wonder why you don’t see this arrangement in more large companies.
My comment was really a joke though — I was thinking of two Joswiaks as co-CEOs. The machine they used in The Prestige makes me think this could be possible.
Despite Joz mysteriously appearing TWICE in that photo (who the heck created that anyway?), it's been clear for a long time that Jeff Williams will be the next CEO. Don't get me wrong, Federighi has great hair, but he's doing the best job in his current position right now. And don't get me started about why Eddy Cue would be the wrong pick. Yikes!
Craig Federighi all the way. He’s got the hair for the job.
I'd be on Team Hair Force One
Publically, when he talks off the cuff, it is very clear he's all about the customer, how the product drives them, and enables them. Look Tim Cook has done wonderful things and will continue to do so but he seems to see customer satisfaction as a number that needs to go up, Craig seems to see customers as people who will surprise him and challenge him to design better based on how they invent news ways of doing things with the tech.
Would make a nice Tick-Tock A CEO with vision supported by people who understand how to be efficient because the last CEO was effecient surrounded by vision. Situation reverses each time.
Nadella was a home grown talent at MFST, putting in 22 years at the company before being named CEO in 2014. What he has done to catalyze growth since taking over--not to mention the growth in stock price that followed--has been remarkable. And while it may seem like AI has been the driver, the share price has been moving up every single year since he started as CEO, which neither Gates nor Balmer ever achieved. In fact, what Nadella inherited had long since stopped being seen by investors as a growth company and its stagnant share price reflected that assessment.
Of course, you know who else had an incredible run in his first 10 years as CEO? Tim Cook. And I never would have picked Cook as a guy who could inherit a Jobs-less Apple and drive the company to record growth. He lacks Jobs's charisma, salesmanship and visionary imagination. But you can't argue with his success. So while no one jumps out at me on the list of possible contenders to be the next CEO, it's because I'm (still) looking for the next Steve, and maybe that's my problem.
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.
You may want to look at Apple's share price growth from end of Oct 2011, when Cook took over, until now. You think that's the result of a guy who just kept pushing out what Steve was doing with no vision for growth? Wearables and Services didn't exist when Steve died. Apple's own chips for its products weren't even a dream yet. And these are just three of the absolutely transformative innovations that have happened under Cook's leadership that have had a massive impact on Apple's bottom line. Vision Pro's spatial computing may prove to be another one, and we'll know more about that in a few years as it continues to develop. And yeah, Cook sure isn't great about global politics...nevermind that China has become Apple's biggest market in the world on his watch, no doubt because Xi Jinping absolutely loves American consumer tech companies becoming sales leaders on his home turf. Yeah, piece of cake making that relationship work.
I can’t imagine Tim Cook repeating the same mistake that almost bankrupted Apple previously of installing a CEO from outside of Apple. I think Tim cares so much about leaving Steve Jobs’s beloved Apple in good hands that he would not dare do something so risky.
Looking back at when Tim was given the CEO position, there were many doubters, myself included. We were worried about him not being a product guy, not having a strong vision nor aesthetic sense; basically a bean counter who was almost the opposite of Steve. But in retrospect, I can see how Tim has made Apple more cohesive internally and codified The Apple Way through Apple University, grown Apple’s business through operational excellence, and left the design and engineering to the experts.
I think this last point is important for success, that the next CEO executes on their strengths and lets others do the same. In this context, Apple is already set up for success with a team of talented leaders with various areas of expertise. It think the crux of the matter of succession is not who is “right” for the job, because I think any one of the senior leaders within Apple could successfully grow into the role of CEO, like Tim did. The crux is how that person’s strengths will determine the direction that Apple heads into in the future.
All of the following companies currrently have an engineer as CEO: Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, AMD, … and yes, even Apple (as well as countless other successful tech companies).
Amazon was founded by Bezos, with a degree in Electrical Engineering (not commonly known).
Elon has a degree in physics which is similar to engineering, and he has an engineering mindset no doubt. It shows when he speaks about the challenges of starting and running Tesla and SpaceX. No marketer, designer or HR lightweight could ever match his wits.
Every astronaut who’s walked on the moon is/was an engineer.
Even LVMH, the fashion powerhouse, was founded by an engineer, and run by an engineer. Go figure lol.
Why is this important? Because engineers understand how to get things done, not just give spin or worry about how something will be perceived. They play chess when everyone else plays checkers. Look around you at all the infrastructure, buildings, bridges, satellites, planes, medical devices, automobiles, rockets, computers, internet, AI and so on.
If it’s a female they pick she’ll likely be an engineer.
Maybe it’ll be a non binary engineer. But an engineer nonetheless.
Craig F seems the best choice, if he’d want to. Tony Fadell would also be a great choice.
Small correction: 'There are clear frontrunners for the biggest job in tech" - isn't that the Microsoft CEO position? Apple's market cap is $2.6T and Microsoft's is $2.9T. Apple lost the crown a few weeks back.
Market cap is but one measure, and it’s more a measure of investor sentiment, which changes often, than a true measure of the underlying business. It may be arguable which company has more impact upon society and the technology landscape, but it wouldn’t be difficult to argue that Apple has had the greater impact.
Nadella was a home grown talent at MFST, putting in 22 years at the company before being named CEO in 2014. What he has done to catalyze growth since taking over--not to mention the growth in stock price that followed--has been remarkable. And while it may seem like AI has been the driver, the share price has been moving up every single year since he started as CEO, which neither Gates nor Balmer ever achieved. In fact, what Nadella inherited had long since stopped being seen by investors as a growth company and its stagnant share price reflected that assessment.
Of course, you know who else had an incredible run in his first 10 years as CEO? Tim Cook. And I never would have picked Cook as a guy who could inherit a Jobs-less Apple and drive the company to record growth. He lacks Jobs's charisma, salesmanship and visionary imagination. But you can't argue with his success. So while no one jumps out at me on the list of possible contenders to be the next CEO, it's because I'm (still) looking for the next Steve, and maybe that's my problem.
I think my requirement with the stock price says all. I have no right to judge their abilities. They are good at what they do. No question. Therefore, I just say: Someone who can drive the stock price higher.
Higher stock price indicates that the company is doing right and investors love them.
Small correction: 'There are clear frontrunners for the biggest job in tech" - isn't that the Microsoft CEO position? Apple's market cap is $2.6T and Microsoft's is $2.9T. Apple lost the crown a few weeks back.
Market cap is but one measure, and it’s more a measure of investor sentiment, which changes often, than a true measure of the underlying business. It may be arguable which company has more impact upon society and the technology landscape, but it wouldn’t be difficult to argue that Apple has had the greater impact.
If you were talking about mobile, yes Apple is the company that has more impact in society and tech landscape. If you are talking about desktop or business / enterprise, then it's Microsoft. If you were talking about consumer cloud services, easily goes to Google. I don't see any of these companies ahead of the other from an impact POV. They just impact the market in different ways.
I don't want a bean counter who sits in his fancy office and stares at the stock price. Honestly I hope the next CEO doesn't really give a shit about the stock price. This is one of the things I liked about Steve when he was CEO is never appeared to give 2 shits about Apple's stock price and just focused on running the company. Tim does it to an extent as well.
If you just focus on making the company the best it can be and keep putting out great products its customers like then the stock price will take care of itself. If they have to take a lower profit a quarter or two to do this then so be it.
My $ is that it's going to be Williams. His current position puts him in the top running I think. But they could always throw us a curve ball as well...Federighi, not likely if ever.
Comments
What about putting a SIM/eSIM on a MacBook Pro?
What about a MacBook Pro AI Pro?
Still need to wait 10 years?
My comment was really a joke though — I was thinking of two Joswiaks as co-CEOs. The machine they used in The Prestige makes me think this could be possible.
Publically, when he talks off the cuff, it is very clear he's all about the customer, how the product drives them, and enables them. Look Tim Cook has done wonderful things and will continue to do so but he seems to see customer satisfaction as a number that needs to go up, Craig seems to see customers as people who will surprise him and challenge him to design better based on how they invent news ways of doing things with the tech.
Would make a nice Tick-Tock A CEO with vision supported by people who understand how to be efficient because the last CEO was effecient surrounded by vision. Situation reverses each time.
Of course, you know who else had an incredible run in his first 10 years as CEO? Tim Cook. And I never would have picked Cook as a guy who could inherit a Jobs-less Apple and drive the company to record growth. He lacks Jobs's charisma, salesmanship and visionary imagination. But you can't argue with his success. So while no one jumps out at me on the list of possible contenders to be the next CEO, it's because I'm (still) looking for the next Steve, and maybe that's my problem.
Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, AMD, … and yes, even Apple (as well as countless other successful tech companies).
Amazon was founded by Bezos, with a degree in Electrical Engineering (not commonly known).
Elon has a degree in physics which is similar to engineering, and he has an engineering mindset no doubt. It shows when he speaks about the challenges of starting and running Tesla and SpaceX. No marketer, designer or HR lightweight could ever match his wits.
Every astronaut who’s walked on the moon is/was an engineer.
Why is this important? Because engineers understand how to get things done, not just give spin or worry about how something will be perceived. They play chess when everyone else plays checkers. Look around you at all the infrastructure, buildings, bridges, satellites, planes, medical devices, automobiles, rockets, computers, internet, AI and so on.
Maybe it’ll be a non binary engineer. But an engineer nonetheless.
Craig F seems the best choice, if he’d want to.
Tony Fadell would also be a great choice.
I think my requirement with the stock price says all.
I have no right to judge their abilities. They are good at what they do. No question.
Therefore, I just say: Someone who can drive the stock price higher.
Higher stock price indicates that the company is doing right and investors love them.
Jony is great at making anything, big or small.
If you just focus on making the company the best it can be and keep putting out great products its customers like then the stock price will take care of itself. If they have to take a lower profit a quarter or two to do this then so be it.