am8449

I suspect, in the past, Apple has chosen to focus on making productivity devices over entertainment devices. I think this was a trade off that Apple had to make, to focus more on CPU (general computing) power and less on GPU (strictly graphics computing). But I think this has been changing, with a sea change with Apple Silicon. 

With machine learning and artificial intelligence relying heavily on graphics processing power, and Apple moving in this direction, the processing power needed to make games on par and even better than Windows games has and will continue to exist on Apple devices. 

The remaining element is to kick start a gaming revolution on MacOS and VisionOS. This may come with the convergence of two events: an affordable Vision device comes to market, and Apple buys a game studio and releases its first game. 

But before this can happen, Apple probably needs someone to champion gaming on their leadership team. Someone pragmatic enough to see that gaming is an Incredibly powerful driver of growth in computing, and be willing to lead Apple down this path. 

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. 

Of course I believe these should be respected and protected by law everywhere, but we should not be asking a business to take part in foreign policy. 

I can imagine Tim Cook saying in a closed door meeting, “Our current and near-future machine learning algorithms for an autonomous self driving system are not good enough to make a truly safe car experience, so we’re not going to bring it to market.”

On a side note, this seems quite different from what Elon Musk and Tesla have done regarding their autonomous self driving system. Even letting Tesla owners be guinea pigs and risking their own safety to test their system. 

Many pundits thought it was a good idea and kept beating the drum and spreading rumors of its imminent launch. However, those with intimate knowledge of the Apple way knew that making a TV set ultimately didn’t make sense. And now, we have the Vision Pro, which revolutionizes the TV experience. 

I suspect the fate of the Apple Car will be similar, meaning that it may be put on hold until a time when Apple can introduce a car that will be so advanced technologically that it will revolutionize the car experience. 

IMO, these kinds of decisions to not release a product until it’s insanely great, is a testament that Tim Cook learned well the lesson from Steve Jobs about saying no in order to stay focused.