Mike Wuerthele

wood1208 said:

Anyone who publish trade secret of a company without company's written approval; that person weather works for that company or stole directly or indirectly is considered trade secret criminal, traitor of country. Company and country where this company resides should punish such individual or a group to maximum extent including large fine and multiyear jail time with worse criminals in prison.

Why ? Because such act puts company's product at dis-advantage against it's competitors. Millions of developers and investors like me in Apple and thousands of employees suffer financially in a short and long run.

napoleon_phoneapart said:

Hugely larger?

Okay. 

mattinoz said:

Retirement later in the year. 

So how do justify calling it turmoil when it has been planned for and the plan still has time to run. 

I get you need grabby headlines and Apple to keep business as usual in a country gone mad is likely to turn some people off. 

I would have thought putting the team directly under the CEO who you think is fairly busy but also sign they are supportive of the next tier of the leadership team to keep things moving along but aren’t ready to name someone as head.  Maybe they want to let a larger team shine move away from “single personality” narratives. 

charlesn said:

This made me laugh: "Jobs would claim to not think about money, and trust that if you do good work, the results follow."

Oh, really? Jobs's first tenure at Apple nearly drove the company to bankruptcy, a fate avoided only by firing him, because Steve was too devoted to admittledly excellent, groundbreaking products that did not sell at their price point. So much for the belief that results will follow if you do good work. "Visionary" doesn't count if you can't keep your business IN BUSINESS. 

Next Inc was next for Steve, also a failure--good work but poor results. And it's at this point that Apple saves Steve from Next and Steve saves Apple from pretty much the state in which he left it: near bankruptcy. And what's interesting is that his Apple-saving big idea was the antithesis of his work to that point, not really a "big" idea at all: the iMac, an all-in-one consumer desktop that broke new ground for Apple in affordability and cuteness, two descriptors with which I never would have never associated with Steve in the past. But it worked and the rest is history. 

People keeping waiting for the next iPhone moment and criticize Cook for never having one one, but Cook has shown that you can be very successful without a clear home run like the iPhone--Cook just keeps hitting singles, doubles and the occasional triple (Services for sure in that category), and what he doesn't do is hit "outs." And Apple has done extremely well under his leadership. 

nubus said:

mikethemartian said:

If he meets shareholders future expectations he will stay, if he doesn’t he will go. It is as simple as that.

Dropping from #1 to #3 and on his way to #4 due to sales stalling, the Google deal, tariffs, and an infinite number of lost legal battles. Cook made Warren Buffett sell 2/3 of his holdings. Clearly shareholders are not pleased. In a decade of cloud computing and AI we experienced Apple having the best chip, being first with Neural Engine, and then... instead of doing a gaming console, cloud computing, or shipping AI... he killed the server business and spent 10 years on a car and headset with the same success as when Sculley did Newton.

The Google deal is around 10% of profits for Apple and tariffs are hitting hard. Apple will remain relevant but Cook can't bring Apple back to #1. He was an outstanding COO, made Apple scale, and probably saved Watch by transitioning it from fashion to health (or somebody did). It really is time for the next CEO.