I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve said. But doubling down on Steve Jobs’ vision of an integrated Apple ecosystem does not make Tim Cook a visionary. Remember, it was SJ that gave the iCloud presentation that laid the groundwork for much of the integration you see today. As for why Apple is worth 3 trillion, a lot of that has to do with the fact that Apple purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of their own stock. When Steve was in charge, Apple’s growth came purely from innovation, not stock buybacks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Is 'Ungodly Well-Managed,' Billionaire Investor Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, I think. If I remember correctly, they made the case of looking at Apple from a marketing standpoint and not as a tech company, back in around 2015 or 2016.
Apple didn’t invent wearables. Airpods did not feel revolutionary to anyone who owned wireless buds, but they were best in class out of the gate. Unlike Apple Watch, which seemed confused about its purpose and was not any better than Android Wear, and fitness bands were around long before Apple Watch. To Apple’s credit, they had the persistence to keep developing it and eventually made it best in class. The M1 chip is not any more revolutionary than other A series chips. Steve Jobs buying PA semi and becoming vertically integrated at a time when everyone thought that was a boneheaded move; now that was revolutionary.
Anybody thinking Apple software/hardware is worse than it used to be obviously wasn't using their products during the 1990's early 2000's. As far as I'm concerned everything about the Mac, in particular, is better now and as far as cost go back then they really did cost you an arm and leg. This for a machine that was far less capable than today's M1 Macs.
I believe that what Tim Cook did in transforming Apple is nothing short of revolutionary also. So it's not my logic, per se.
And apple didn't invent the cell phone. It is true apple invented the iphone, ipad, mac, airpods, homepod, apple watch, apple pencil, apple monitor, etc.
That is a solid, subjective opinion.
Maybe the first iteration. Like the iphone 1 did not have basic copy and paste.
To me from reading this forum for so many years, words like innovation, revolutionary, best in class and whatever else are subject to one's biases.
Stock buyback doesn’t change the value of a company. It simply decreases the number of shares outstanding.
If "ungodly well-managed" means robbing customers, extracting inhumane labor from the other side of the world, spitting in the faces of your developer community, and making sure even your high-salaried engineers operate in fear... then, yes, Apple is "ungodly well-managed."
And I say this as a long-time Macintosh user. The magic is gone under Tim Cook, and quite frankly, Apple disgusts me more and more each day.
And I say this as a long-time Macintosh user. The magic is gone under Tim Cook, and quite frankly, Apple disgusts me more and more each day.
Hear, hear!
Sad, but true. They could be killing babies behind closed doors and people would be defending it.
I found it! The straw-man sarcastic post that deliberately misrepresents honest criticisms in an attempt to sound smart!
I wish you weren't as right as you are.
Egos? What egos? Earned criticism has nothing to do with the "egos" of the people offering it. Moreover, people are never as one-sided as their arguments. It is possible to entertain multiple viewpoints in your head, but if you're trying to argue a point, you need to focus on what will buttress your argument.
This also feels like one aspect of Apple that doesn’t quite get enough appreciation. If at first they don’t succeed, Apple will just keep iterating and improving until it does.
Which is a lot more than what can be said for the competition, especially other tech giants like Google and Microsoft. For example, Apple has had one chat app that they have been supporting since 2011, which had contributed to the dominance of the iphone in the US, while Google flits from one chat service to the next like a butterfly with ADHD. To the point where they have to basically beg Apple to support RCS because it’s clear that said feature is dead in the water otherwise.
Looking at the veritable number of services and products that Google has discontinued, it just screams of a lack of vision and a dysfunctional product development culture.
In the same vein, my impression of Microsoft is that while they may have all the vision they need, they just can't execute, or when they do, it's too early or too late and they show up at the party like a half inflated balloon, or cripple the product in a small but meaningful way. I mean, when the iPad came out, everyone was like "MS did tablets years ago". I remember them. They *sucked*. Absolutely ***** product. Terrible.
I mean, you can look back at some of the promotional videos and stuff that Microsoft released 25 years ago about connected homes, media center PCs, all that ****, and it all mostly came true. They saw it. They knew it was coming. And they blew it.
Meanwhile, Apple continues to do what it does best: take an emerging product category with a frustrating user experience and deliver a polished product made possible by its control over both the hardware and software.
It sometimes feels like amongst all the companies I have seen, Apple is the only one with not only a long-term product roadmap, but more importantly, the only one with the discipline to stick to it and the will to execute.
Yes, there’s some subjectivity when it comes to definitions, but you’re definitely in the minority. 50 years from now, I highly doubt people remember Tim Cook for any of his innovations, if they remember him at all. But they will remember Steve Jobs and Elon Musk for pushing the human race forward.
We’ll see in 50 years, G-d willing. But I do think what Tim Cook did with wearables and services will be remembered.
He is, as he has been doing the CEO job even when Jobs was the CEO.
It doesn't mean I, as a consumer, like what Apple is doing, but from a business perspective, Tim Cook is at the top of the list.
Except “someone”, a lot of people actually, DID say just that until a few years ago. I had people I otherwise hold in pretty high regard tell me that they “guaranteed” that within ten years after SJ died Apple would be bankrupt. It has died out because it has become blatantly obvious just how stupid that statement always was, and that is why it has now become a meme.
We will never know, but I think we would have a few amazing products we don’t have now, a few failures we don’t have now, and an Apple worth about a third of what we have now. Better for us, worse for Apple.
Spoken by a true hypocrite, much like the company itself. Apple claims it’s most valuable assets are their people, yet it’s clear time and time again it’s merely human capital, RE: expendable assets.
All these billionaires and companies are built off the backs of employees, and unfortunately also bootlickers who have been convinced that keeping their fellow humans down is to their advantage. We are arguing about the most asinine things while these companies sit back and laugh.
Yes, obviously Apple as a company is superb at management. Hell, Cook got the job because he’s a supply chain genius. But really - is this what matters to us as humans? If Apple’s goal is to enrich the human experience then I would say they are a complete failure.
Anymore, Apple just seems like the lesser evil. Privacy is merely a bullet point and differentiating factor rather than a core value.
Why did this happen? Fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Nothing else matters but the stock. And placating the financial sector certainly is not driving innovation. My two cents ??♂️
All these billionaires and companies are built off the backs of employees, and unfortunately also bootlickers who have been convinced that keeping their fellow humans down is to their advantage. We are arguing about the most asinine things while these companies sit back and laugh.
Yes, obviously Apple as a company is superb at management. Hell, Cook got the job because he’s a supply chain genius. But really - is this what matters to us as humans? If Apple’s goal is to enrich the human experience then I would say they are a complete failure.
Anymore, Apple just seems like the lesser evil. Privacy is merely a bullet point and differentiating factor rather than a core value.
Why did this happen? Fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Nothing else matters but the stock. And placating the financial sector certainly is not driving innovation. My two cents ??♂️
Very much agree with this. Although I think on some level it wasn’t Tim’s choice to willfully lower the quality of the company so much as it is nearly impossible to match the success and quality of the iPod and iPhone launches under the marriage of Jobs + Ive. That was a once-in-century combination of complimentary skills.
Please elaborate.
Have some evidence to back this up? 1) the part about the "bootlickers", 2) Companies sit back and laugh.
Does having any type of job matter then?
The universe disagrees with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Is this an opinion or a fact?
Customers matter. Don't please the customers and a company will not get very far.
Maybe $.01.
Glad you asked. My opinion has nothing to do with ideology. Just business. I respect builders of companies that create lasting shareholder capital and have improved society. Musk has done neither relative to Jobs or Bezos. He has built a business based on government largesse (nothing to do with politics here) primarily built on debt and regulatory credits. His company is mostly based on a narrative. Several things to consider is that (1) he does not sell a lot of cars relative to the competition yet Tesla is the leader in market value (all hat no cattle), (2) Tesla has built it's business on debt financing (unlike Apple for comparison) made possible by historically low interest rates for a very long time, (3) Tesla's profitability comes almost exclusively from regulatory credits -- $1.6 billion in 2020 versus net income of $721 million (and would have lost money without it), (4) Musk himself has engaged in various circumstances of stock market pumping to help TSLA stock (for example, his silly announcement regarding bitcoin which was soon retracted). My opinion is that Elon Musk is a con man and that TSLA is a very different kind of company than either Apple or Amazon, which both has created lasting shareholder value and a contribution to society. This is just my opinion though and realize that many short sellers with the same view have been burned very badly over the last few years. The story is not over though.
EDIT: Typo
Last edited:
Resulting in Apple creating products and services millions of customers, many repeat, want and love, and willing to pay premium prices for those products. Year after year after year.
It is the result of happy and satisfied customers consistently rewarding Apple with their currency for the products they produce. That's where the money comes from. Apple produces products and services people want.
Steve Jobs had been preparing Tim to take over as CEO since 2004, when he took his first medical leave of absence.
When he took his second medical leave of absence in 2008/2009, guess who he appointed as temporary CEO? Tim Cook.
When he took his third leave of absence in 2011, guess who he appointed as temporary CEO? Tim Cook.
And when he resigned from the company, guess who became the CEO? Tim Cook.
That’s seven years, it wasn’t just a move he made in the last two months of his life, it was something he had been planning for seven years, a long time.
Steve wasn’t stupid.
And clearly it worked, when he left in 1985, 11 years later the company was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Almost 11 years after he resigned, the company is worth three trillion.
Reread what I said.
Tim isn’t responsible for hiring everyone.
Schiller, Craig, and many others where there before Tim, and still remain (Schiller of course not). These are top level executives. Some have changed some we don’t hear anything in the news from like Riccio but many where there before, this is fact.
Sun level management before VPs, and directors are not Tim’s dictions for hiring but still have a significant role.
We’ve seen more, newer VP faces during events the last 4yrs to be sure but don’t presume they’ve not been there long.
John Ternus joined Apple in 2001, you know the mr “nutty” guy that announced the Mac Pro cpu, yeah him. Cool joined apple in 2011 although Ternus reports to Cook. He replaced Dan Riccio whom was former SVP and Dan is working on an unnamed secret project at Apple. Riccio joined apple in 1998.
So just cause tIms been there now 10yrs at CRO you’re making a big mistake all of Apple’s success is just cause of him. Even Jobs wasn’t this blinded, he valued a great team and that was e widener when he left to start NeXT taking team members of value with him from Apple.
Musk:
Tesla paid its regulatory credits long ago. The company barely has any left.
A car company that’s also a clean energy company - fostered as one founder left and is head of battery recycling - has a profitable business that helps reduce emissions - that’s great for society and the planet. (I had a friend whom we didn’t know suffered from severe depression and killed himself inhaling exhaust fumes from his parents act in a garage. You cannot do that with a Tesla).
Tesla has paid back government loans 5yrs early while GM still has that debt to pay off. Stock split and value has increased investors wealth 1000% since 2016! It’s well managed incredibly advancing beyond anything the industry has ever seen.
The reporting you’re stating isn’t accurate.
Lastly name me one CEO that sold their stock and directly donated $6billion to charities or more in 2021?!
Tim has promised at retirement, talk is cheap action is real. No reason why Tim cannot do it now. That helps society.