If you had a stake in a tech giant, would you want to hedge your bets with a product guy who has a clear vision of what the company needs and can bring together a team of engineers together to deliver it? Or a soulless greige beancounter who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing?
You keep saying “repeat” as if it’s a thing. There used to be queues outside Apple Stores. Now, it’s just the sound of crickets.
Google has not had proper discipline and direction from the top. Lots of divisions seemingly doing what they want with no big picture cohesion. A bit like Apple today. Apple today is a CEO who does not get involved sufficiently and dreams about Wall Street rather than new innovative products and how to get the workforce to buy into his dream.
Who’s an engineer? Cook was a supply chain manager.
Akin to people clinging to highlighting a few dud products under Jobs in a sad attempt to try to show Cook is better.
There’s millions of people out there with law degrees that have never practiced law. His MBA was a prerequisite to getting his job.
I could argue the same as being done with Tim.
They would have no case because Apple promised these features on the iPhone 16, not iOS 18. Apple deserves all the public blowback they’re getting from this, but a class action lawsuit wouldn’t have any legs.
Book learning is what it is. I would take someone like Steve Jobs, a college dropout and 6 months backpacking in India with great ideas, drive and a mission over a Cook type any day of the week.
Hypotheticals and group insults in a thread about feature delay.
The flaw with your argument is that I don’t believe Tim is either of those things.
www.forbes.com
That’s a ridiculous argument to make, there used to be cues outside of movie theaters. Now people just stream.
Speaking of that UI, does anybody know what happened to the poster who had old products and talked a lot about the old UI. He repaired golf carts for a living but I do not recall his name. He stopped posting a year or two ago. Interesting fellow.
Nothing specific. I don't know much about AI, and don't feel like becoming a ludite in my old age. So when I had the chance to trade in my iPad Mini 6 I did, and immediately bought a mini 7 with the trade in money. Even though I didn't use the 6, I was looking forward to messing around with an AI that was more private than ChatGTP.
I miss the days when senior Apple execs actually had to fear getting sh*tcanned over monumental embarrassments. (Scott Forstall must really be enjoying some bitter schadenfreude...)
And with that strawman argument, I’m out.The flaw with your argument is that I don’t believe Tim is either of those things.
“Steve Jobs was once asked at an Apple [AAPL] shareholder meeting by a shareholder who wanted get some insights into his deepest thinking: “What keeps you awake at night?” Mr. Jobs replied, “Shareholder meetings.”Why Tim Cook Doesn't Care About 'The Bloody ROI'
Why Tim Cook Doesn’t Care About ‘The Bloody ROI’. Time for the NCPPR to learn the fundamentals of 21st Century management and the Creative Economy. The new bottom line for business is customer delight.
The wisdom of this insight was borne out last week when Mr. Jobs’s successor at Apple, Tim Cook, was asked at the annual shareholder meeting by the NCPPR, the conservative finance group, to disclose the costs of Apple’s energy sustainability programs, and make a commitment to doing only those things that were profitable.
Mr. Cook replied –with an uncharacteristic display of emotion–that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues. “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” It was the same thing for environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas that don’t have an immediate profit. The company does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it.”
Reportedly looking directly at the NCPPR representative, he said, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) attended the meeting as shareholder. It describes itself as a conservative think tank and was pushing a shareholder proposal that would have required Apple to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs and to be more transparent about its participation in “certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability.”
Mr. Cook made clear that Apple would continue with energy sustainability and its other initiatives. Most of the shareholders went along with that: the NCPPR’s proposal received just 2.95 percent of the vote.”
Now, do those sound like the words of a “a soulless greige beancounter who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing?”
