Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls New 'Haunted Empire' Book 'Nonsense'

[samcraig]

Well, when I was in PR I would have never advised a notable CEO to do that. It's just elevates a book to a level you want it to be near. There is zero reason to acknowledge the book. If ask'd the CEO simply states he's been busy making a better company and isn't familiar with the book.

Referring reporter to a statement looks too defensive.

Exactly this.

The second he not only acknowledged the book - but seemingly admitted (indirectly or not) reading the book - he gave it credibility as something WORTH reading.

I would have advised him similar to you - making a statement that he's busy running Apple and that he wasn't a part of any interviews about the book so he doesn't know anything about it...

 

[robbyx]

Now let me say in no way do I think Apple is dead! Not by a long shot if for no other reason then the products are still (in many ways) the best of what is out there. The problem as I see it is what Apple has done with them since we all lost Steve.

iOS has gone down hill in both it's ascetics and usability. When it comes to OS X is barely a shadow of its former self (Snow Leopard was the last great version) mostly because Apple now seems to want to tell us how we should be working with our machine rather then letting us choose. They removed UI features we came to love and use because they felt they were no longer needed. In fact if you don't know UNiX your SOL. Not the OS "for the rest of us"...

I'm not sure I follow. You say that OS X is a shadow of its former self, then go on to say that if you don't know UNIX, you're SOL. Um, OS X has always been UNIX-based, including the "last great version", Snow Leopard. So why is UNIX a problem now if it wasn't then? If anything I'd say that Apple has increasingly (with every version) worked to hide UNIX from the user, not require him or her to know how it works. I know UNIX, not well, but I can get around Terminal, and I almost never need to use it. I'm curious to know what you're doing that requires such an intimate knowledge of UNIX to use your Mac and why you need to know UNIX more today than you did under Snow Leopard. I'm not trying to pick on you, but I really just don't get it.

As for features being removed, what are they? If we're talking about Classic MacOS features that were lost in transition to OS X, I'll grant you that there were some. But your post suggests that things have gone down hill since Snow Leopard. What features have you lost? What Apple removed that that has so dramatically sullied the OS X experience? And how is Apple telling you how to work with your machine rather than "letting us choose"? These are big, broad, sweeping statements, yet you do not back them up.

Maybe you don't like the App Store, but last I checked the App Store is voluntary (unlike iOS, which was App Store-only from day one). I really can't think of anything Apple has done to limit the ways in which you may use your machine. Personally I think OS X has improved a lot since Snow Leopard. The UI is far more refined and elegant. The addition of tags in Mavericks is awesome, and long overdue in my opinion. New APIs have been added and existing ones have been streamlined. iCloud is fantastic (fourth time's a charm). I really can't think of anything that I miss about Snow Leopard, or any other version of MacOS (including Classic), for that matter.

The only thing I do (mostly) agree with is your assessment of iOS. I find iOS 7 rather ugly. I've gotten used to it, but it feels hollow and soulless to me. I think Jony Ive should stick to hardware design because I don't think he really understands UI design very well. I can only hope that iOS 8 will address some of the aesthetic issues that 7 introduced. I never understand what was wrong with the old iOS UI. In many ways I think iOS 7 is a reaction to the incessant "Apple can't innovate" chorus. iOS 7 isn't really that different from iOS 6 in terms of functionality. They just put a new face on it to quiet the detractors. I like some of the added features, though, like being able to quickly access certain controls like volume, brightness, the wifi toggle, etc.

----------

We also only hear about unit sales, and not revenue, so if one company sells ten phones for $50 and another sells one for $500, the numbers that we are told make the second company look very bad.

Bingo! Nice to know there are a few people left out there who aren't totally brain dead.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No - but it's not entirely untrue either. The simple fact is - Tim is not Steve. He will never be Steve. And yet he will ALWAYS be compared to Steve. That will work to his advantage AND disadvantage. It comes with the territory.

It seems to work entirely to his disadvantage, especially at this moment, when the argument is being advanced in a book that Apple can only be run successfully by a dead person. Again, this would be a totally absurd argument if it was advanced anywhere else but it gains easy traction in this case. I don't think even Warren Buffett is seen as being as essential to Berkshire Hathaway was Steve Jobs is to Apple, at least according to the theory advanced by Kane.

----------

Well, when I was in PR I would have never advised a notable CEO to do that. It's just elevates a book to a level you want it to be near. There is zero reason to acknowledge the book. If ask'd the CEO simply states he's been busy making a better company and isn't familiar with the book.

Referring reporter to a statement looks too defensive.

So "no comment" works when the questions inevitably are asked?

Had some PIO training myself. I was taught that "no comment" is the worst thing anyone can say. The reasons seem obvious enough.

----------

Exactly this.

The second he not only acknowledged the book - but seemingly admitted (indirectly or not) reading the book - he gave it credibility as something WORTH reading.

I would have advised him similar to you - making a statement that he's busy running Apple and that he wasn't a part of any interviews about the book so he doesn't know anything about it...

Only works if you think nobody will ever ask him a question about the book. That seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[samcraig]

It seems to work entirely to his disadvantage, especially at this moment, when the argument is being advanced in a book that Apple can only be run successfully by a dead person. Again, this would be a totally absurd argument if it was advanced anywhere else but it gains easy traction in this case. I don't think even Warren Buffett is seen as being as essential to Berkshire Hathaway was Steve Jobs is to Apple, at least according to the theory advanced by Kane.

----------



So "no comment" works when the questions inevitably are asked?

Had some PIO training myself. I was taught that "no comment" is the worst thing anyone can say. The reasons seem obvious enough.

I would say no comment. I would divert the question into talking about more important matters and negate the hoopla over the book by simply saying he wasn't consulted or provided any interviews for the book.

Without getting into politics - Tim inherited a legacy. Some of that legacy involves staffing and product issues. He also hasn't "introduced" anything revolutionary yet at his helm - more iterative. That's the fundamental issue I think. He's not a golden boy because, to some, nothing much has happened (true or not) since he took over. He says great things are in the works. But no one has seen that yet. That's why there's more to his disadvantage currently. If/when there's a new breakthrough product that's release under his watch - I'm pretty sure the sentiment would shift more in his favor.

 

[bsolar]

I'm not concerned with fairness, but I do care about logic. Is Sergey Brin charismatic? Mark Zuckerberg? Jeff Bezos? It seems illogical to suppose that Apple's success should be predicated on charismatic leadership, when this certainly is not the case nor is it the expectation anywhere else, even in the tech world.

I'm not so sure it would not be the case at least for Zuckerberg and Bezos: if any of these two would leave there would be a lot of uncertainty. About Brin, I would take Larry Page as example, being the CEO. If Page were to retire I guarantee you there would be a lot of uncertainty about Google's future. Most likely not as much as in Apple's case, but that's because Apple's last successes were even more impressive and sudden, not to mention Steve Jobs' charisma.

I also agree that logic should dictate expectations differently, at least in magnitude, but expectations are most often not dictated by logic at all, as is charisma itself. This makes the expectation often unfair, but you simply cannot ignore human nature.

I don't buy the "false security" argument. Time and again, Steve Jobs put all of Apple's chips on the table and bet that they had the right ideas. Most of them paid off, and not because they were sure things, but because the ideas were good, they were fully committed to them, and the execution of the strategy was first rate. If anything, Cook is not only a product of, but was a front-line participant in this process. He might not have the rock star persona that Steve so carefully cultivated, but it hasn't been demonstrated to me why that is important, when it is easily shown that other companies have succeeded quite nicely without it.

I didn't intend to suggest that Steve had success only because he took "safe bets": what I meant is that human beings in general tend to react irrationally to change. You have to admit that switching leadership from Jobs to anyone else was considered a big change for the company. Every change is both a risk and an opportunity, but very few focus on the opportunity: most will focus on the risk. And they will tend to focus more on the risk the more "secure" and satisifed they felt in the old situation, even if that "security" is irrational.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I would say no comment. I would divert the question into talking about more important matters and negate the hoopla over the book by simply saying he wasn't consulted or provided any interviews for the book.

Without getting into politics - Tim inherited a legacy. Some of that legacy involves staffing and product issues. He also hasn't "introduced" anything revolutionary yet at his helm - more iterative. That's the fundamental issue I think. He's not a golden boy because, to some, nothing much has happened (true or not) since he took over. He says great things are in the works. But no one has seen that yet. That's why there's more to his disadvantage currently. If/when there's a new breakthrough product that's release under his watch - I'm pretty sure the sentiment would shift more in his favor.

"No comment" sounds evasive at best, like an admission at worst, and it doesn't stop the questioning.

Nobody saw anything that was in the pipeline during Steve's years either, not until they were released. The years in between the big bangs were filled with a lot of iterative products. How soon we forget.

 

[melendezest]

I don't know if he is or not, but I think you might be on to something with your comment.

Apple arose near the end of the hippy movement, and there was originally a good bit of "power to the people" philosophy involved. Early Apple users were joining a movement as much as they were buying a product.

That original sense of noble mission was lost as the boomer generation transitioned from being philosophical hippy types to an embrace of rampant yuppie consumerism.

Thanks to Job's marketing genius, Apple culture has always contained a bit of almost religious fervor, and perhaps some people are mourning the loss of the larger vision. Apple is just about gadgets and gizmos now, a much smaller affair.

I agree with the "power to the people" thing. I am genuinely disillusioned with Apple's recent "vision", as it has gradually taken that power out of the enthusiast by closing their products tighter and tighter, thus turning them all (even the ones that aren't meant to be) into appliances. I simply don't want what they are putting out. I don't see eye to eye anymore in issues of choice and taste, and their competition has begun to satisfy what, in the past, only Apple could.

So, my love for iOS, OSX and their hardware is being gradually killed off by the release of new versions, one at a time. Keynotes have turned from excitement to disappointment (they did WHAT?!).

This is the first time I find myself looking for alternatives to Apple products in 14 years. Competitor products have me going "wow, that's nice" for the first time as well. This is significant, and speaks to Apple's vision for the future, as well as my role in (or out of) it. If someone like me (a diehard) can walk away, Apple is perhaps not really paying attention to the game. They are kicking the Apple enthusiast to the curb and going after the (obviously bigger market) general consumer. I guess the game has changed and Apple doesn't want me to play anymore. Maybe that was their game to begin with, and is now coming to fruition.

This is not to say that Apple won't be successful (no one can predict that) with their current strategy. But it just saddens me that, after so long, they are leaving me out of it.

 

[kitsunestudios]

"For Tim Cook to have such strong feelings about the book, it must have touched a nerve,” Kane said.

That argument needs to die in a fire. "Gee, no-one ever gets pissed of when people make **** up about them."

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not so sure it would not be the case at least for Zuckerberg and Bezos: if any of these two would leave there would be a lot of uncertainty. About Brin, I would take Larry Page as example, being the CEO. If Page were to retire I guarantee you there would be a lot of uncertainty about Google's future. Most likely not as much as in Apple's case, but that's because Apple's last successes were even more impressive and sudden, not to mention Steve Jobs' charisma.

I also agree that logic should dictate expectations differently, at least in magnitude, but expectations are most often not dictated by logic at all, as is charisma itself. This makes the expectation often unfair, but you simply cannot ignore human nature.


I didn't intend to suggest that Steve had success only because he took "safe bets": what I meant is that human beings in general tend to react irrationally to change. You have to admit that switching leadership from Jobs to anyone else was considered a big change for the company. Every change is both a risk and an opportunity, but very few focus on the opportunity: most will focus on the risk. And they will tend to focus more on the risk the more "secure" and satisifed they felt in the old situation, even if that "security" is irrational.

I bring up Zuckerberg, Brin, et. al., entirely in response to your charisma argument. My question is: Why is charisma so important in the case of Steve Jobs and not the least bit important for the others? The double standard is staring me right in the face.

The change is smaller than it seems. Steve was very ill during at least the last two years of his life. During those years the company was run, sometimes officially and sometimes not, by Tim Cook. This is the problem with the Dear Leader view of Steve Jobs. He was such a larger than life personality that the assumption is made that he was doing everything at Apple but sweeping the floors. We should know better, especially now that someone is peddling the theory that Steve built a company that only he could run (and maybe even deliberately!).

I would also focus on the opportunity. Steve had a lot of good qualities as a corporate leader obviously, but his likes and dislikes, and his personal style, were quirky. This is not necessarily a beneficial quality for the leader of a company the size of Apple. Even more importantly, his instincts were far from perfect. I wouldn't want Cook to spend any part of his day thinking "WWSD?" Cook knows more about Apple and had more to do with making it the company it is today than any living person. If you don't trust him to make sound decisions for Apple, then who are you going to trust?

 

[mccldwll]

Anyone can check my assertion, and find it to be true. Therefore I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you might be confused about the topic.

I was pointing out that Samsung has spent less money over the past few years dealing with lawsuits brought by Apple... which have resulted in extra publicity for Samsung... than they have spent on their own commercial ads.

For example, last year Samsung spent billions of dollars on Galaxy ads. How much did they actually pay Apple for lawsuit results so far? A few million for lawyer's fees?

One of us definitely is confused. IMV, the lawsuits and advertising expenses are in no way related, which is what you seem to be claiming. Again, IMV, "thank you sir, may I have another" is hardly an appropriate response when you're getting screwed by a copycat corporation.

----------

I agree with the "power to the people" thing. I am genuinely disillusioned with Apple's recent "vision", as it has gradually taken that power out of the enthusiast by closing their products tighter and tighter, thus turning them all (even the ones that aren't meant to be) into appliances. I simply don't want what they are putting out. I don't see eye to eye anymore in issues of choice and taste, and their competition has begun to satisfy what, in the past, only Apple could.

So, my love for iOS, OSX and their hardware is being gradually killed off by the release of new versions, one at a time. Keynotes have turned from excitement to disappointment (they did WHAT?!).

This is the first time I find myself looking for alternatives to Apple products in 14 years. Competitor products have me going "wow, that's nice" for the first time as well. This is significant, and speaks to Apple's vision for the future, as well as my role in (or out of) it. If someone like me (a diehard) can walk away, Apple is perhaps not really paying attention to the game. They are kicking the Apple enthusiast to the curb and going after the (obviously bigger market) general consumer. I guess the game has changed and Apple doesn't want me to play anymore. Maybe that was their game to begin with, and is now coming to fruition.

This is not to say that Apple won't be successful (no one can predict that) with their current strategy. But it just saddens me that, after so long, they are leaving me out of it.

When you're looking at cars you'll probably like Hyundai/Kia as well. It just rips off others' designs and markets "attractive" products which fail to live up to promises (not to mention it falsifies data).

----------

Exactly this.

The second he not only acknowledged the book - but seemingly admitted (indirectly or not) reading the book - he gave it credibility as something WORTH reading.

I would have advised him similar to you - making a statement that he's busy running Apple and that he wasn't a part of any interviews about the book so he doesn't know anything about it...

May I assume you're a PR professional working closely with the executive team of a major international corporation? Certainly, those were the people involved in advising him.

----------

Exactly. The problem is, most of the people commenting on Apple are new to the party. They don't have any real history with the company. They were blown away by the iPhone and now they slavishly expect something new and amazing around every corner. If they don't get it, they accuse Apple of having lost its mojo, of not being innovative, etc. Never mind the fact that no one else has delivered anything particularly Earth-shattering lately either.

I've been an Apple customer since 1982. When Steve was booted out of Apple, I got rid of my Mac and got a NeXT computer and used NEXTSTEP until Steve returned to Apple and NEXTSTEP became MacOS X. I've followed Steve/Apple for 3/4 of my life to date and I can assure all of the newbies (as I'm sure you can too, IJ Reilly) that it wasn't a constant stream of endless innovation.

Technology ebbs and flows. We get periods of great innovation followed by YEARS of iteration. The cycles have been getting shorter, but they're still cycles. It took several DECADES to move from the command line to the GUI. It took another two decades to move from a mouse-driven GUI to multitouch. It's only been six short years since Apple completely revolutionized the industry (again) with multi-touch. But for some pundits, idiotic fanboys and Apple haters alike, six years is an ETERNITY. The fact that Apple hasn't delivered anything utterly Earth-shattering in those six years is a clear sign that they can't innovate, that they are out of ideas, and that we all might as well write them off.

Morons.

I'll take the "Apple is dead" and "Apple can't innovate" camp seriously when they can show me one product released by another company in the past few years that meets the (idiotic, unrealistic) standard to which they hold Apple. One. Just one. I'm waiting.

Like you said!

----------

Tim Cook: "Apple has over 85,000 employees that come to work each day to do their best work, to create the world's best products, to put their mark in the universe and leave it better than they found it. This has been the heart of Apple from day one..."

WRONG... Steve Jobs, Jony Ive, and several other heavyweights were the heart of Apple. Art by committee is invariably mediocre and Cook's reliance on quantity as proof of quality is demonstrative of the intellect of a follower, not a leader.

And that conclusion with respect to the presented facts is demonstrative of a clear lack of intellect.

 

[robbyx]

This is the first time I find myself looking for alternatives to Apple products in 14 years. Competitor products have me going "wow, that's nice" for the first time as well. This is significant, and speaks to Apple's vision for the future, as well as my role in (or out of) it. If someone like me (a diehard) can walk away, Apple is perhaps not really paying attention to the game. They are kicking the Apple enthusiast to the curb and going after the (obviously bigger market) general consumer. I guess the game has changed and Apple doesn't want me to play anymore. Maybe that was their game to begin with, and is now coming to fruition.

I'm curious, could you provide a few examples? What competitor products are drawing your attention and why? What should Apple be doing differently? How are they kicking the enthusiast to the curb? I'll grant that much has changed over the past decade, but I personally see almost all of the changes as being for the better. As a long-time customer (32 years now!), I'd like to hear what is driving another long-time customer away. No judgement, just curious!

 

[mccldwll]

Well, when I was in PR I would have never advised a notable CEO to do that. It's just elevates a book to a level you want it to be near. There is zero reason to acknowledge the book. If ask'd the CEO simply states he's been busy making a better company and isn't familiar with the book.

Referring reporter to a statement looks too defensive.

Many moons ago?

 

[gnasher729]

Well, when I was in PR I would have never advised a notable CEO to do that. It's just elevates a book to a level you want it to be near. There is zero reason to acknowledge the book. If ask'd the CEO simply states he's been busy making a better company and isn't familiar with the book.

Calling it "nonsense" is not quite what I would call an acknowledgement.

 

[samcraig]

"No comment" sounds evasive at best, like an admission at worst, and it doesn't stop the questioning.

Nobody saw anything that was in the pipeline during Steve's years either, not until they were released. The years in between the big bangs were filled with a lot of iterative products. How soon we forget.

Typo. I meant "wouldn't" advice no comment.

May I assume you're a PR professional working closely with the executive team of a major international corporation? Certainly, those were the people involved in advising him.

I have in the past, yes. Been in the PR and Marketing industry for over two decades. Currently I wouldn't consider the company I do PR for as a "Major International Corporation." Large and significant company/corporation in the technology space that is also global, yes. But not an ATT, IBM, Apple, etc.

But that "dig" falls flat because that assumes that the only people that could advise appropriate are those who work for Apple or a similar type of organization. Nothing about the question or the response requires that level of PR expertise.

----------

Calling it "nonsense" is not quite what I would call an acknowledgement.

It is. Because it immediately indicates that he knows the book exists and knows enough about it that he doesn't find it of value (he finds the content to be nonsense).

You can't call something nonsense without knowing the content. So whether he was briefed about the content (likely) or read it himself (highly unlikely) - he took time to let the reporter know that he knows the book exists and that he content is of no value to him.

Can you explain how you consider this not acknowledging the author or book?

 

[bsolar]

I bring up Zuckerberg, Brin, et. al., entirely in response to your charisma argument. My question is: Why is charisma so important in the case of Steve Jobs and not the least bit important for the others? The double standard is staring me right in the face.

Because charisma was a defining caracteristic of his leadership at Apple in the last years, when Apple rose to incredible success. Most people don't want Apple to find another formula for success, because they fear failure: they want Apple to keep the old trusted formula going, which means finding another CEO providing the "charismatic leader" ingredient. It's obviously irrealistic and irrational, but it's so. The other leaders you mention rose to success due to other characteristics and charisma is not the key ingredient, or at least not as prominent as in Apple's case. I for sure don't remember anyone of the CEOs you mention captivating the audience in presenting a new product the way Steve Jobs was able to do when he presented e.g. the iPhone or the iPad. And I agree that these are two very bright moments between many "dull" presentations, but people remember what impresses them, not what is "logical".

The change is smaller than it seems. Steve was very ill during at least the last two years of his life. During those years the company was run, sometimes officially and sometimes not, by Tim Cook. This is the problem with the Dear Leader view of Steve Jobs. He was such a larger than life personality that the assumption is made that he was doing everything at Apple but sweeping the floors. We should know better, especially now that someone is peddling the theory that Steve built a company that only he could run (and maybe even deliberately!).

I completely agree with you, but you have to take into account the irrationality of people, especially given that Steve Jobs left Apple tragically. Anyone tasked to replace Jobs would have found itself overshadowed by his memory and that will last until another big success will prove to everyone that the new leadership is up to the task and that a different formula for success is possible at Apple.

I would also focus on the opportunity. Steve had a lot of good qualities as a corporate leader obviously, but his likes and dislikes, and his personal style, were quirky. This is not necessarily a beneficial quality for the leader of a company the size of Apple. Even more importantly, his instincts were far from perfect. I wouldn't want Cook to spend any part of his day thinking "WWSD?" Cook knows more about Apple and had more to do with making it the company it is today than any living person. If you don't trust him to make sound decisions for Apple, then who are you going to trust?

Sadly, it's not even entirely in the hands of Cook. Apple's success was incredible because it led a revolution, and revolutions don't happen that often. It might be that the next revolution will be after Cook's time, no matter his capabilities and ideas. Some things you can force, some others you have to wait that the time is right.

Of course, again, most people irrealistically expect revolutions happening thanks to a single man and his idea, overlooking all the momentum which was building up in the years before.

 

[robbyx]

Sadly, it's not even entirely in the hands of Cook. Apple's success was incredible because it led a revolution, and revolutions don't happen that often. It might be that the next revolution will be after Cook's time, no matter his capabilities and ideas. Some things you can force, some others you have to wait that the time is right.

Of course, again, most people irrealistically expect revolutions happening thanks to a single man and his idea, overlooking all the momentum which was building up in the years before.

This. We are in a period of evolution, not revolution. The multi-touch revolution is over and we're now waiting for all of the components of the next revolution to come together. We can see the seeds being planted today, advances in power management and battery life, voice-driven interaction, AI, sensors, etc. All of these will come together and yield amazing products in the future, but they are in their infancy today.

 

[dragje]

I have been to eight or ten different Apple stores, probably 30-40 visits total, and have never had a store employee glorify Apple to me. Maybe it's a Dutch thing. Also: what does this have to do with what the CEO, the public face of the company, says?

Of course it's not literally a Dutch phenomenon, but I did notice this glorifying brand chats when I visit the Apple store in Barcelona Spain, Paris France and in Amsterdam. At one point it's nice to see that most stores have more then enough Apple employees to help their customers, on some days even more employees then customers but that aside, but for me personally it does saves me some time when I'm able to state what I want instead of listening to an Apple employee trying to convince me what's good or not. That's all. It's just wast of time to talk about how good Apple products are for me as a client or how good Apple is as a brand. The words Cook is stating here are shallow, to put it mildly, and particularly meaningless. It's nothing more then an average PR salesmen talk used as some kind of mantra in order to convince people that this company = good. Repeat that message over and over doesn't makes it more valuable imho.

not just a dutch thing. The Toronto Eaton centre Geniuses are just as bad.

its frustrating. Take the most rabid Apple Fanboys of Mac Rumors. And hire them all as your retail sales force for the Store. Thats how it is.

True! Of course this silly, because it is silly, glorifying brand talks is something Apple could possible never paten to begin with. You see this praising a brand among various brands. Fanboys (and girls) comes in all sorts and sizes and the doctrine: this brand is better then that brand as well. Personally I think it's rather sad to see someone repeating the same lecture again and again. It simply lacks originality at some point and quite frankly, that point has been crossed some years ago.

I've no doubt that Cook is a good salesmen and has some kind of vision, even though he seems a bit conservative to me in within that given context, I even don't know the guy personally. I can only judge him on his own lectures, and quite frankly, those lectures sounding hollow and meaningless due of repeating the same mantra over and over again.

 

[dragje]

Calling it "nonsense" is not quite what I would call an acknowledgement.

True.

I'm a bit surprised tough that Cook has come up with a response to begin with. Or by using this book as a platform to state what 'his' view on Apple is which isn't really surprising. For PR purposes I understand that Apple is trying to squeeze Steve Jobs legacy and his methods of presenting ideas to the max. Tough, needless to say, after hearing and reading the same glorifying Apple simplistic rhetoric again and again does't makes it more interesting to me at least.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Because charisma was a defining caracteristic of his leadership at Apple in the last years, when Apple rose to incredible success. Most people don't want Apple to find another formula for success, because they fear failure: they want Apple to keep the old trusted formula going, which means finding another CEO providing the "charismatic leader" ingredient. It's obviously irrealistic and irrational, but it's so. The other leaders you mention rose to success due to other characteristics and charisma is not the key ingredient, or at least not as prominent as in Apple's case. I for sure don't remember anyone of the CEOs you mention captivating the audience in presenting a new product the way Steve Jobs was able to do when he presented e.g. the iPhone or the iPad. And I agree that these are two very bright moments between many "dull" presentations, but people remember what impresses them, not what is "logical".


I completely agree with you, but you have to take into account the irrationality of people, especially given that Steve Jobs left Apple tragically. Anyone tasked to replace Jobs would have found itself overshadowed by his memory and that will last until another big success will prove to everyone that the new leadership is up to the task and that a different formula for success is possible at Apple.


Sadly, it's not even entirely in the hands of Cook. Apple's success was incredible because it led a revolution, and revolutions don't happen that often. It might be that the next revolution will be after Cook's time, no matter his capabilities and ideas. Some things you can force, some others you have to wait that the time is right.

Of course, again, most people irrealistically expect revolutions happening thanks to a single man and his idea, overlooking all the momentum which was building up in the years before.

I don't know what "most people" want from Apple, beyond them making the products that they desire. I think some of us have a tendency to overcomplicate the formula of successful companies, and especially in this case. If it's really all about having a rock star CEO, then Apple died the moment Steve died. I think that proposition is ridiculous on its face, no matter how you want to interpret what people want. I think the formula is about delivering, and it's about delivering for Apple no more or less than it is for any other corporation now, yesterday, or forever.

Charisma is overrated. If Apple truly needs a rock star to flog their products, then they should literally hire one to get up on the stage and do that. It would be their only job. Having that charismatic person running the company is another matter entirely, since charisma is in no way correlated with competence in running a huge corporation like Apple. If you are looking for other ways people rose to success in business, then look no further than Tim Cook. But we're not allowed to do that, apparently, because Tim is not Steve, and we all know that only Steve could run Apple. Right?

 

[FrozenDarkness]

I wouldn't be too worried about tim cook elevating the book. Considering that the author has the wall street journal machine backing her up, I think waht Tim Cook's team is telling him is that it'd be insane to hear nothing out of Apple. Rumors become facts if you don't respond

what this WILL do is every article you read about this book, if from a credible source, will include Tim Cook's response and that I think is the right thing to do

 

[aristotle]

Tim also visited China during the Foxconn crisis and to sign the China Mobile deal. I don't think you really understand the inner workings of Apple.

Are you saying that the definitions for COO and CEO are incorrect? Are you saying that Tim Cook is delegating responsibility properly? Is that what you are saying?

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Are you saying that the definitions for COO and CEO are incorrect? Are you saying that Tim Cook is delegating responsibility properly? Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying you have no idea what you're saying with no facts to back it up. There is also no definition of CEO see steve jobs

 

[Tech198]

Obviously, the guy didn't even care of what Tim said. Why ask then ?

Tim cook needs a sense of humour though...

This may also sound like Mr. Scrooge and the 'three ghosts' haunting him at night on Christmas Eve.

Starring Tim as Scrooge, and the ghosts could be Jony Ive, Scott Forstall and Steve himself.

 

[aristotle]

I'm saying you have no idea what you're saying with no facts to back it up. There is also no definition of CEO see steve jobs

Tim Cook, will you stop wasting your time posting on MR please? Also, you need to take a chill pill. Stop overreaching to criticism Tim. If you are not Tim then you might want to consider stepping away from the keyboard.

Get some fresh air man.

 

[FloatingBones]

If Cook wanted to be really subtle, they could have listed it in the iBook Store in the "fiction" section.

Subtle? Really?

Let's see: AAPL is under the magnifying glass of a cumbersome and highly expensive iBooks antitrust monitor. They would like this person to go away as soon as possible. OTOH, the monitor would love to find "evidence" of "abuse" by AAPL. I could imagine more stupid actions than TC's ordering a manipulation of the iBooks database, but I'd have to think of a long time to come up with any.

Or was this just a pointless joke on your part? I could probably come up with a less funny joke, but I'd have to think for a very long time.