altivec88

StrangeDays said:

altivec88 said:

elijahg said:

I'm really not keen on Cook. Originally I rated him, but more and more he seems to be a very average corporate CEO with little vision; his main aim seems to be using Apple as a Social Justice Warrior platform. Like most of his kind, he seemingly likes everyone to be as structured and mundane as he is, dulling the "young" and "hip" image Apple used to enjoy. Yes Apple is 40 years old, but 90% of its ageing seems to have happened in the last 5 years. Cook's keynotes have no enthusiasm; a complete role reversal with Jobs who I used to prefer watching than other VPs. Now I skip Cook and jump forward to the VP's sections. Employees see a leader as just that, someone to idolise, they share in the CEO's enthusiasm, but a CEO with no enthusiasm doesn't instil the drive and ambition a company like Apple is admired for.

He continually fobs people off with "we have an exciting product pipeline", a phrase that is getting very old very fast considering the products don't come to fruition. Claims that he grew the company from $100bn to $200bn are essentially false. Fine, he was the CEO at the time but as people stated at the time of Job's death; there were plenty of products in the pipeline. It was the vision of Jobs and the enthusiasm he brought that did so, Cook just kept things ticking over. IMO, Cook is quite happy bumbling along, he's unconcerned whether Apple grows or stays stagnant. Jobs on the other hand was always pushing for the absolute best everyone could do, he always wanted to be ahead of the curve.

blastdoor said:

I have no idea if this is true, but change is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a bigger company today, after all. 

Jobs would not have wanted Apple's structure and processes to remain frozen at the time of his death. The company has to evolve. 

The tricky part is to make sure that the benefits of changes outweigh the cost. Since all humans make mistakes, some changes will be mistakes. What's imperative is to recognize when a change is a mistake and to fix it. 

We have evidence that Cook can recognize mistakes and change course. His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example. 

It remains to be seen if Cook can identify and correct the mistakes (whatever they are -- it's hard to tell from the outside) that have led to the stagnation of the Mac. 

Jobs seemed to prefer an organic working atmosphere, in fact there were problems earlier in Apple's history with engineers jumping to more interesting projects and leaving almost no one on some projects. He wanted his employees to work hard, but allowed some freedom. The Jobsian structure of Apple (and freedom for engineers to submit as many different ideas and concepts as they chose to their managers) is really where Apple's innovation came from. Telling engineers to come up with a different way to do X or Y is a very forced and inorganic way of coming up with innovation, and results in change for the sake of change. It seems to me that Cook is the source of the mistakes. He employed Browett remember - not telling Ive to tone it down with the thinness of Macs, and seemingly assigning most of the Mac teams to iOS and iPhone engineering.

In regard to CPU improvement under Cook, again that's not really Cook's vision, it's purely the extremely talented engineers that've managed it. It is no mean feat to do what they've done, but that innovation certainly cannot be tied to Cook. In a similar strain the Apple Watch, it's a very good device but it doesn't quite amaze like the iPhone and iPad did. There are some amazing innovations in the Watch, but again it's engineering, not Cook.

Great post...  I agree with you completely.

I would like to add to your keynote analysis.   Steve had the crazy ability to make a rock look so impressive, that you just had to buy one (the reality distortion field).  I get that nobody is going to replace Steve but other than Craig Federighi, there is absolutely no passion up there.  I'm sure if Steve were around, I would own an Apple watch by now but I don't and have no interest in one.   Not because I think the Apple watch is a bad product, its because they haven't wowed me in to buying a product I really don't need like Steve would have done.  The presentations seem so scripted, monotone, and bland.  When I get to the 20th "amazing" and "magical" descriptor, I almost start vomiting and must force my self to continue watching.   That does not bode well to the product they want me to buy.  I know Tims character can't change but maybe he should pass the keynotes off to someone more charasmatic because when he speaks, the boring mundane level spikes to new levels.

Have you seen Musk do a presentation? The man looks like he's about to start crying. 

Jobs was a terrific spokeperson and keynote presenter, but that certainly isn't the norm. Without googling name other CEOs who did double duty as awesome spokespersons? Not Musk, not Bezos, not Zuck. It's not normal for CEOs to be awesome keynote guys and that's a fact. 

canukstorm said:

altivec88 said:

canukstorm said:

altivec88 said:

canukstorm said:

altivec88 said:

Its interesting that the Apple Car was brought up in this article as just being a few years off.  Wasn't it a few days ago that the lead Swift creator, Chris Lattner also left Apple and is now "thrilled" to be at Tesla working on something new and important such as car AI.    Hmmmm, couldn't Apple use someone like that in their auto division working on their car AI.  Sounds like this former engineer hit the nail on the head by saying each employee is forced to be narrow focused.  Clearly, Chris must have heard rumors about Apple's car AI, why couldn't he be transferred over to the auto devision if thats what he was interested in?  As this engineer said, Apple use to be "thin, competitive, dynamic".  Does anyone believe those words to ring true today.   It just seems all blahhh over at Apple.

Lattner already addressed his reasons for leaving

1.  https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030063.html

"Apple is a truly amazing place to be able to assemble the skills, imagination, and discipline to pull something like this off"

2.  Here:   https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030078.html

3.  Here:  http://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/17/chris-lattner-says-tesla-irresistible/

"This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years"

4:  And lastly

https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/819974025371787264

Yes, I am aware why he left Apple. His direct quotes:

"I've been writing code for more than 30 years, and 16 of those years have been in the developer tools space. I love it, but I am ready to move on to something else. Autopilot is clearly incredibly important to the world because of its ability to save people's lives (and increase convenience). It is also a very, very hard technology problem and my experience building large scale software and team building is useful. Of course, I’ve also been a huge Tesla fan for some time."

"This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years. In the end though, the opportunity to dive into a completely new area and work with the amazing Tesla Autopilot team was irresistible."

As I mentioned,  Apple is supposedly working on an "Tesla Autopilot" competitor.   You would think that Apple would want to keep a talented employee that had a difficult decision to leave because he loved Apple but yet wanted to try something new after 30 years.   One employer (Elon Musk) showed he cared about his wants and one didn't.

Chris Lattner is leaving for Tesla in a VP position, so he's in charge of the entire Autopilot Software team. What if that position is already filled within Apple, which is a huge possibility? Would he have taken on "lesser" role to stay at Apple?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/apple-taps-blackberry-talent-as-car-project-takes-software-turn

Of course its impossible for us to know for sure.  If he loves Apple as much as he says he does and he's as good as Elon thinks he is,  I'm sure Apple could have or should have come up with something that Lattner would have been happy with.   Just saying, something does not seem right here.

Unlike other ex-Apple engineers, he seems to be going out of his way to defend Apple and calm fears that Apple is crumbling. 

canukstorm said:

altivec88 said:

canukstorm said:

altivec88 said:

Its interesting that the Apple Car was brought up in this article as just being a few years off.  Wasn't it a few days ago that the lead Swift creator, Chris Lattner also left Apple and is now "thrilled" to be at Tesla working on something new and important such as car AI.    Hmmmm, couldn't Apple use someone like that in their auto division working on their car AI.  Sounds like this former engineer hit the nail on the head by saying each employee is forced to be narrow focused.  Clearly, Chris must have heard rumors about Apple's car AI, why couldn't he be transferred over to the auto devision if thats what he was interested in?  As this engineer said, Apple use to be "thin, competitive, dynamic".  Does anyone believe those words to ring true today.   It just seems all blahhh over at Apple.

Lattner already addressed his reasons for leaving

1.  https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030063.html

"Apple is a truly amazing place to be able to assemble the skills, imagination, and discipline to pull something like this off"

2.  Here:   https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030078.html

3.  Here:  http://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/17/chris-lattner-says-tesla-irresistible/

"This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years"

4:  And lastly

https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/819974025371787264

Yes, I am aware why he left Apple. His direct quotes:

"I've been writing code for more than 30 years, and 16 of those years have been in the developer tools space. I love it, but I am ready to move on to something else. Autopilot is clearly incredibly important to the world because of its ability to save people's lives (and increase convenience). It is also a very, very hard technology problem and my experience building large scale software and team building is useful. Of course, I’ve also been a huge Tesla fan for some time."

"This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years. In the end though, the opportunity to dive into a completely new area and work with the amazing Tesla Autopilot team was irresistible."

As I mentioned,  Apple is supposedly working on an "Tesla Autopilot" competitor.   You would think that Apple would want to keep a talented employee that had a difficult decision to leave because he loved Apple but yet wanted to try something new after 30 years.   One employer (Elon Musk) showed he cared about his wants and one didn't.

Chris Lattner is leaving for Tesla in a VP position, so he's in charge of the entire Autopilot Software team. What if that position is already filled within Apple, which is a huge possibility? Would he have taken on "lesser" role to stay at Apple?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/apple-taps-blackberry-talent-as-car-project-takes-software-turn

canukstorm said:

altivec88 said:

Its interesting that the Apple Car was brought up in this article as just being a few years off.  Wasn't it a few days ago that the lead Swift creator, Chris Lattner also left Apple and is now "thrilled" to be at Tesla working on something new and important such as car AI.    Hmmmm, couldn't Apple use someone like that in their auto division working on their car AI.  Sounds like this former engineer hit the nail on the head by saying each employee is forced to be narrow focused.  Clearly, Chris must have heard rumors about Apple's car AI, why couldn't he be transferred over to the auto devision if thats what he was interested in?  As this engineer said, Apple use to be "thin, competitive, dynamic".  Does anyone believe those words to ring true today.   It just seems all blahhh over at Apple.

Lattner already addressed his reasons for leaving

1.  https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030063.html

"Apple is a truly amazing place to be able to assemble the skills, imagination, and discipline to pull something like this off"

2.  Here:   https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/030078.html

3.  Here:  http://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/17/chris-lattner-says-tesla-irresistible/

"This was a very difficult decision, because I care deeply about the technology and people at Apple and because I could see myself staying there for many more years"

4:  And lastly

https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/819974025371787264

elijahg said:

I'm really not keen on Cook. Originally I rated him, but more and more he seems to be a very average corporate CEO with little vision; his main aim seems to be using Apple as a Social Justice Warrior platform. Like most of his kind, he seemingly likes everyone to be as structured and mundane as he is, dulling the "young" and "hip" image Apple used to enjoy. Yes Apple is 40 years old, but 90% of its ageing seems to have happened in the last 5 years. Cook's keynotes have no enthusiasm; a complete role reversal with Jobs who I used to prefer watching than other VPs. Now I skip Cook and jump forward to the VP's sections. Employees see a leader as just that, someone to idolise, they share in the CEO's enthusiasm, but a CEO with no enthusiasm doesn't instil the drive and ambition a company like Apple is admired for.

He continually fobs people off with "we have an exciting product pipeline", a phrase that is getting very old very fast considering the products don't come to fruition. Claims that he grew the company from $100bn to $200bn are essentially false. Fine, he was the CEO at the time but as people stated at the time of Job's death; there were plenty of products in the pipeline. It was the vision of Jobs and the enthusiasm he brought that did so, Cook just kept things ticking over. IMO, Cook is quite happy bumbling along, he's unconcerned whether Apple grows or stays stagnant. Jobs on the other hand was always pushing for the absolute best everyone could do, he always wanted to be ahead of the curve.

blastdoor said:

I have no idea if this is true, but change is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a bigger company today, after all. 

Jobs would not have wanted Apple's structure and processes to remain frozen at the time of his death. The company has to evolve. 

The tricky part is to make sure that the benefits of changes outweigh the cost. Since all humans make mistakes, some changes will be mistakes. What's imperative is to recognize when a change is a mistake and to fix it. 

We have evidence that Cook can recognize mistakes and change course. His rapid replacement of that retail guy with Ahrendts is a great example. 

It remains to be seen if Cook can identify and correct the mistakes (whatever they are -- it's hard to tell from the outside) that have led to the stagnation of the Mac. 

Jobs seemed to prefer an organic working atmosphere, in fact there were problems earlier in Apple's history with engineers jumping to more interesting projects and leaving almost no one on some projects. He wanted his employees to work hard, but allowed some freedom. The Jobsian structure of Apple (and freedom for engineers to submit as many different ideas and concepts as they chose to their managers) is really where Apple's innovation came from. Telling engineers to come up with a different way to do X or Y is a very forced and inorganic way of coming up with innovation, and results in change for the sake of change. It seems to me that Cook is the source of the mistakes. He employed Browett remember - not telling Ive to tone it down with the thinness of Macs, and seemingly assigning most of the Mac teams to iOS and iPhone engineering.

In regard to CPU improvement under Cook, again that's not really Cook's vision, it's purely the extremely talented engineers that've managed it. It is no mean feat to do what they've done, but that innovation certainly cannot be tied to Cook. In a similar strain the Apple Watch, it's a very good device but it doesn't quite amaze like the iPhone and iPad did. There are some amazing innovations in the Watch, but again it's engineering, not Cook.