In addition to customary qualifications for the job, I suggest that the Apple Board have a battle of the bands to see who shreds the best. Craig would be a shoo-in.
I think Joz or Jeff could be the only choice, the rest are dinosaurs. Federighi could be replaced, that would probably improve development practices by a lot.
I was never a Cook fan. He's always lacked vision. Those of you who keep citing how great he is and how high the stock has gotten always missed the point. The point is that the last great products that moved the needle were all set in motion by Steve. The goggles thing, I predict, is not going to sell well until they can get the form factor and price way down. It remains to be seen why I would need it. They haven't even articulated why we need it. Steve, when he introduced the iPhone said very plainly that it's a phone, the internet, and an iPod all rolled into one. The goggles, how is it useful to people?
If you look at the folks who have helmed Apple, John Sculley matched Cook the most. He was also a very competent CEO who was able to squeeze as much out of a product as he could. That defines Cook to a tee. He's been milking Steves ideas for over a decade. He's taken Steve's legacy as far as he can take it. It's apropos that he will now try to pawn off a shell of a company that's devoid of any new tentpole product pipeline. It's Sculley 2.0. The goggles are Cook's version of the Newton.
I was never a Cook fan. He's always lacked vision. Those of you who keep citing how great he is and how high the stock has gotten always missed the point. The point is that the last great products that moved the needle were all set in motion by Steve. The goggles thing, I predict, is not going to sell well until they can get the form factor and price way down. It remains to be seen why I would need it. They haven't even articulated why we need it. Steve, when he introduced the iPhone said very plainly that it's a phone, the internet, and an iPod all rolled into one. The goggles, how is it useful to people?
If you look at the folks who have helmed Apple, John Sculley matched Cook the most. He was also a very competent CEO who was able to squeeze as much out of a product as he could. That defines Cook to a tee. He's been milking Steves ideas for over a decade. He's taken Steve's legacy as far as he can take it. It's apropos that he will now try to pawn off a shell of a company that's devoid of any new tentpole product pipeline. It's Sculley 2.0. The goggles are Cook's version of the Newton.
So Apple Watch was Steve's vision? AirPods ;and HomePods were Steve's vision? The switch to Apple Silicon Macs was Steve's vision? Streaming services were Steve's vision? Etc Etc You think all the things Apple came out with under Steve Jobs were thought up by Steve Jobs? LOL!!!! Apple has some seriously talented people working for them and it's those people who come up with this shit. Steve did have ideas yes but he didn't design them and not everything that was in those products were Steve's ideas. Stop thinking Steve was god because he wasn't. If you think anyone can come in make Apple what it is today just because of what Steve did in the past then you're fucking crazy.
As far as AVP goes...well the original iPhone also wasn't a big seller either until they got the price down and was able to get the App Store up and running and then brought on more carriers globally. It didn't sell anywhere near as well as it does today at first. You're basically making a no shit Sherlock statement there. Apple knows this but guess what, they got a product to market with a shitton of new and amazing technology and even though it's not perfect (and nobody should expect it to be), it actually sold fairly well with pretty low return rates.
I was never a Cook fan. He's always lacked vision. Those of you who keep citing how great he is and how high the stock has gotten always missed the point. The point is that the last great products that moved the needle were all set in motion by Steve. The goggles thing, I predict, is not going to sell well until they can get the form factor and price way down. It remains to be seen why I would need it. They haven't even articulated why we need it. Steve, when he introduced the iPhone said very plainly that it's a phone, the internet, and an iPod all rolled into one. The goggles, how is it useful to people?
If you look at the folks who have helmed Apple, John Sculley matched Cook the most. He was also a very competent CEO who was able to squeeze as much out of a product as he could. That defines Cook to a tee. He's been milking Steves ideas for over a decade. He's taken Steve's legacy as far as he can take it. It's apropos that he will now try to pawn off a shell of a company that's devoid of any new tentpole product pipeline. It's Sculley 2.0. The goggles are Cook's version of the Newton.
So Apple Watch was Steve's vision? AirPods ;and HomePods were Steve's vision? The switch to Apple Silicon Macs was Steve's vision? Streaming services were Steve's vision? Etc Etc You think all the things Apple came out with under Steve Jobs were thought up by Steve Jobs? LOL!!!! Apple has some seriously talented people working for them and it's those people who come up with this shit. Steve did have ideas yes but he didn't design them and not everything that was in those products were Steve's ideas. Stop thinking Steve was god because he wasn't. If you think anyone can come in make Apple what it is today just because of what Steve did in the past then you're fucking crazy.
As far as AVP goes...well the original iPhone also wasn't a big seller either until they got the price down and was able to get the App Store up and running and then brought on more carriers globally. It didn't sell anywhere near as well as it does today at first. You're basically making a no shit Sherlock statement there. Apple knows this but guess what, they got a product to market with a shitton of new and amazing technology and even though it's not perfect (and nobody should expect it to be), it actually sold fairly well with pretty low return rates.
The Apple Watch was Jony Ive's vision. He pushed for it. The HomePod isn't exactly setting the world on fire. The switch to Apple Silicon was 100% Steve Jobs' vision. The two acquisitions that kickstarted the Apple Silicon transition were PA Semi and Intrinsity, both spearheaded by Steve Jobs. Cook gets zero credit for the latter. As far as streaming services go, how well is that going for Apple. The vast majority of Apple's services revenue is coming from the App Store, which again started under Steve Jobs. I agree with the person that said the Vision Pro is going to be Tim Cook's Newton.
"VP of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives" is a title for which there is no advancement. Completely ridiculous speculation for a job that does not need to exist.
Did any one of them foresee the imminent need of end-point AI on iPhone and on Mac? If one does, they are qualified CEO candidates.
What about putting a SIM/eSIM on a MacBook Pro?
What about a MacBook Pro AI Pro?
Still need to wait 10 years?
Why in the world would you need a SIM/eSIM on a MacBook Pro. I use my iPhone and it automatically figures it out when I am out of WiFi range. There are no upsides unless you are one of the people who will not have a smartphone. It is also is another device on your account with an associated monthly cost. Someone please enlighten me.
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.
Wall Street has been sold a bill of goods on everything having the AI connection. While of value the processing will require the cloud for the real work.
Gurman is rumormongering that Jeff Williams would takeover as CEO in the short term, less than 3 years, and John Termus is the likely choice for CEO if Cook retires after 3 years.
Good choices, imo. The only thing I’m reticent about is whether these successors will be bold enough and have the force of will to make that boldness pan 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.
Biggest job in tech doesn’t come from market cap. That changes regularly.
You’ve re-run your story, but you’re keeping the same caption graphic showing two Joswiaks. Why two Joswiaks when only one Federighi? I like Joswiak, but I would probably show 2.5 Federighis to 2 Joswiaks — that seems like the appropriate ratio.
And why no nod to Tim Millet? Really impressed with his presentation at the iPad event. Solid.
Gurman is rumormongering that Jeff Williams would takeover as CEO in the short term, less than 3 years, and John Termus is the likely choice for CEO if Cook retires after 3 years.
Good choices, imo. The only thing I’m reticent about is whether these successors will be bold enough and have the force of will to make that boldness pan out.
Jeff Williams seems like a nice man, but I just don’t get “bold” from him. If you want bold, Federighi seems like the perfect choice — the man comes across as fearless. Lots of history with Apple, working with Jobs, brilliant speaker, and young.
Man, I do wish Scott was still at Apple. I would love to know what really went down. Firing someone over the issues with Maps is so damn petty — has to be something more than this. I wonder if Ive and him clashed — if that is the case, why not bring him back now since Ive is (seemingly) out of the picture?
Comments
Federighi could be replaced, that would probably improve development practices by a lot.
If you look at the folks who have helmed Apple, John Sculley matched Cook the most. He was also a very competent CEO who was able to squeeze as much out of a product as he could. That defines Cook to a tee. He's been milking Steves ideas for over a decade. He's taken Steve's legacy as far as he can take it. It's apropos that he will now try to pawn off a shell of a company that's devoid of any new tentpole product pipeline. It's Sculley 2.0. The goggles are Cook's version of the Newton.
As far as AVP goes...well the original iPhone also wasn't a big seller either until they got the price down and was able to get the App Store up and running and then brought on more carriers globally. It didn't sell anywhere near as well as it does today at first. You're basically making a no shit Sherlock statement there. Apple knows this but guess what, they got a product to market with a shitton of new and amazing technology and even though it's not perfect (and nobody should expect it to be), it actually sold fairly well with pretty low return rates.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/08/phil-schiller-advances-to-apple-fellow/
He wanted more time for family, friends and personal projects and passed marketing duties to Joswiak.
And why no nod to Tim Millet? Really impressed with his presentation at the iPad event. Solid.
Then Apple would get back to innovating rather than re-using the same iPhone design created in 2007.
Who has the personality for it: Craig Federighi
Who I wish would get it: Scott Forstall