YES!Gary Busey
Fortunately he neither needs nor wants a loan from you.
Anybody get the feeling that the WSJ is running this article today just before Apple posts record quarterly profits to try to keep Apple's stock price from going up?
I'm not sure having a "manager" as CEO would be a good decision. Apple needs to continue to innovate and this includes taking seemingly hazardous decisions against probabilities and calculations of potential rentability.Ive is a designer, Cook is a manager.
Cook is not simply a personnel manager. He's managing supplier and carrier relationships and many other things. He's doing Steve's job now and doing it well. People have to remember Apple is a culture, not a man.
CEO job is to be a manager. an innovater can not manage and would drive the company into the ground because they suck at managing people and putting people with the right skills in the right job.I'm not sure having a "manager" as CEO would be a good decision. Apple needs to continue to innovate and this includes taking seemingly hazardous decisions against probabilities and calculations of potential rentability.
Managers tend to avoid risky decisions - Apple's success accounts for a fair part on Steve Jobs believing his own visions and opinions. A "normal" manager can do some housekeeping and evolve the existing product lines to some point, but when it comes to the "next big thing" necessary to stay at the front of the pack he will probably chicken out rather than try anything even remotely risky...
They're going to bring back John Sculley. Or David Lee Roth. Take your pick.
How would that story keep the stock from going up? It's GOOD NEWS that the board is working on some kind of succession plan...
Steve Jobs is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs. We can wish it otherwise, but wishing won't make it so.People have to remember Apple is a culture, not a man.
Steve Jobs is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs. We can wish it otherwise, but wishing won't make it so.
Time will tell if the post-Steve Apple can thrive. But only those who underestimate Jobs believe the transition will be simple.
The very fact that those directors are seemingly "conspiring" even makes me think that they may not even truly appreciate the Apple work culture..."
I'm not sure having a "manager" as CEO would be a good decision. Apple needs to continue to innovate and this includes taking seemingly hazardous decisions against probabilities and calculations of potential rentability.
Managers tend to avoid risky decisions - Apple's success accounts for a fair part on Steve Jobs believing his own visions and opinions.
+1
I've always said that the key to replacing Jobs is to find someone who is very opinionated, but isn't a manager, programmer or designer ... and thus not only doesn't know what's impossible, but also thinks like a normal self-centered consumer ... then surround him/her with geniuses.
Most importantly, give that chosen person ABSOLUTE POWER over the end product's look and feel decisions.
It's when things are designed by a committee that they don't work out as well.
Uh, Steve Jobs' salary from Apple is $1 per year. He doesn't need any money.Well he has. He looks very thin and frail. I wouldn't lend him any money.
Honestly I think Cook is doing a better job that Jobs. He is going back trying to repair the bridges Jobs burned. He understand short term gains can lead to long term damage because the bridges were burned.
CEO job is to be a manager. an innovater can not manage and would drive the company into the ground because they suck at managing people and putting people with the right skills in the right job.
A good manager knows which people are good in which spot. CEO is a manager.
I've always said that the key to replacing Jobs is to find someone who is very opinionated, but isn't a manager, programmer or designer ... and thus not only doesn't know what's impossible, but also thinks like a normal self-centered consumer ... then surround him/her with geniuses.