Apple under Tim Cook

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by ImperialX, Oct 6, 2011.

  1. ImperialX macrumors 65816

    ImperialX

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #1
    Now that I've finally gotten over the shock of today's tragic news, I really want to say to myself that Apple will do just fine without Steve just because Tim is the one he chose, but then I remember that John Sculley was also chosen by Steve…

    Steve is not your average CEO, and that's what made Apple not your average company. He is a college dropout. He never finished higher education. Tim on the other hand finished his MBA at Duke and is totally a by-the-books CEO. If you look at the Keynote yesterday and listen to the earning calls, you can really tell that Tim is a man or numbers and economics - and not a man of arts or creative genius.

    I know, I know, having artistic sense is not selection criteria for a CEO. However, Apple is a company of liberal arts and creative genius! They're not a regular company. I really want to quote Steve here:

    [​IMG]

    That quote is what defines Apple at its core, and why it's so successful. The music industry sucked, so Steve changed it with iTunes + iPods. They were successful, but Apple under Steve didn't stay still. They changed phones again with the iPhone. After the iPhone sells millions and was still selling millions - BAM, out comes the iPad. No matter how successful Apple got, they never stood still. They moved onto the next wonderful thing.

    You know, when Steve left Apple the first time, they were years ahead of the competition. They were looking like a beast. But then what happened? They stood still and Microsoft caught up. Just take a look at what radical new products came out in Sculley's reign. That's right - absolutely nothing. The CEO came in at the best time when Mac OS was years ahead of Windows 1.0 and the company was worth more than Microsoft, but still managed to drive Apple to near bankruptcy in just a few years.

    People may think it's absurd that Apple can fall given they are the second most valuable company in the World right now, but they don't realize Apple was in a similar position 15 years ago! When Steve left, Apple WAS looking just like they are today - being years ahead of the competition and being an innovator.

    Apple is not a company that makes cheap things. They make expensive things. How do you get people to buy expensive things? By constantly evolving - making sure that your expensive things are DIFFERENT from the cheap replacements. For a company to succeed with such a business model, the man in charge must have phenomenal insight and creativity. John Sculley was a great CEO by normal standards. He did well for Pepsi, but did Pepsi need new products constantly to keep people buying them? No! Trust me, if Sculley became CEO of Apple in 2009 when the iPhone was selling like hotcakes, he wouldn't bother making the iPad because Apple is already doing so great. Not Steve. He just took another gamble and made the iPad. Sculley's mindset is what ruined Apple within a few years.

    One thing's for sure. Apple has been led to success by a man without a Bachelor degree. Apple is currently successful because they're constantly innovating and the leader is a man who doesn't sit on his achievements. Tim is radically different to Steve. Tim is a great CEO for normal companies. He has an MBA. He knows his economics. Who does this remind you of - you nailed it: John Sculley.

    All I know is, last time Apple was run by a by-the-books CEO like Tim, they almost went bankrupt. It didn't happen overnight because Steve left on such a high note - it happened because they stood still. At this time when Google is so rapidly advancing and innovating, Apple standing still will most certainly kill themselves faster than anyone can imagine.

    For Haruhi's sake, I hope I'm wrong and Tim can keep innovating, but let me say one thing - if by 2015, Apple's main product line still only consist of just Macs, iPhone 8 and iPad 6 - they will most certainly die. That's how they almost died 15 years ago.


    Does Tim seem like a 'crazy one'? Uhh...nope.
     
  2. Grolubao macrumors 65816

    Grolubao

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
  3. blunti macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #3
    I second this.
     
  4. vitzr macrumors 68030

    vitzr

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #4
    Apple fanbois should be very worried. After the passing of Gerry Garcia the Cult of the Grateful Dead faded into oblivion.

    It's the "Post Jobs Era" now. It's time for us to see what Apple is really like. There will be a spike in Sympathy Sales, then the next phase will be Apples run on autopilot, then eventually they will be laid bare for all to see.

    Time will tell.
     
  5. Grolubao macrumors 65816

    Grolubao

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    When in the latest keynote they were congratulating themselves for having the same data transfers than the competition I couldn't believe it! This is not apple! They don't draw themselves based on the competition but rather the competition is based on them.

    Was very disappointed, not just with the lame 4S, but mostly on the boring and uninspiring attitude.
     
  6. maril1111 macrumors 68000

    maril1111

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #6
    It will be really interesting with tim,

    I did read somewhere that Steve Jobs has left them plans on future products for the next couple of years.. so now they just have to work on their presentation skills.
     
  7. ImperialX thread starter macrumors 65816

    ImperialX

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #7
    I will agree with you that the attitude of yesterday's keynote was definitely not Apple. For the first time in years I was actually bored to death for half the event.

    As for the iPhone 4S being lame, that I disagree with. I predicted everything 100% spot on this time and I knew it was coming.

    The iPhone 4 was more than an incremental update to the iPhone line. It introduced the new form factor made from stainless steel and glass. To this date, I have yet to see a phone that's as comfortable or as pleasing to look at as the iPhone 4, even though it's already 18 months old. I own the Galaxy S2, and I know how awkward it is to hold it compared to the iPhone 4.

    I can see why people can hate on the iPhone 4S - because this design has remained the same for two years. However let me ask you this - if none of Apple's competitors have made something better than the iPhone 4 design, what would motivate them to change it? I actually want a redesign to, but as much as it pains me to say it, no competition is driving Apple here. No one has made a phone that looks and holds better than the iPhone 4, so Apple didn't change it.

    The iPhone 4 design is phenomenal. The Retina Display still has more pixels than the SGS2's display which is bigger by far - it's the flagship Android phone and reading websites on it is a pain if you switch from the iPhone (Trust me, I know). Nothing needed changing on the display aspect either. Also, you know sliding down from the top for notifications? Yeah, try doing that on a screen larger than 4". Feels awkward, doesn't it? The iPhone 4's display size not only is super sharp, but it's a good form factor for that reason also. This is why Apple didn't change the screen size.

    Enough about the things that haven't changed and onto the things that have - A5 chip, more RAM, 2x faster, 7x faster graphics. The iPad 2 has proven itself with benchmarks and all that is now in the iPhone. There's nothing to say here. Even if the iPhone 4S was a redesign the internal would still be the same, and it's still a beast. Graphics look better than anything another phone can conjure up.

    The camera is amazing. My iPhone 4's 5MP camera has always beaten the SGS2's 8MP. It's all about the lens, and not the pixels. Megapixles have been a myth that has fooled tons of people for years. The iPhone 4S has a CMOS backside illuminated sensor AND a high-end IR filer! Also, an unprecedented f/2.4 aperture. This is simply mind-blowing for a smartphone camera that isn't Nokia. I was ready to shell out the money for it as soon as I saw the camera specs, and that's not even the best part.

    Siri is revolutionary. It will change the way people use their phones. Voice Recognition has always been around, but Apple today has made it into something actually usable. INSTANT responses. INSANELY accurate recognition. LIMITLESS commands you can say. If you're unconvinced by the video, you should have seen Apple's live demo at their keynote today. Not a SINGLE mistake and immediate response. From "Do I need my raincoat today" to "Define Mitosis" and "Find some nice restaurants nearby." - EVERYTHING just works seamlessly. In a room full of background noise. This is the core of what makes the iPhone 4S revolutionary - the first phone you actually want to talk to - and communicates back accordingly.

    iOS5 brings every feature users could want to the iPhone line, and iCloud is something I've talked about and we all know about - the entire user experience is completely seamless and up in the cloud. I am extremely happy with the announcement even though I saw everything coming as shown in my predictions - and I know when people get their hands on these AAPL will climb right back up.

    Taking all that into consideration, there's no reason for me not to buy an iPhone 4S.

    And what happens after those years? That's what I was implying with this thread.
     
  8. SimonMW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #8
    I also agree, and it is what I was getting at in my other thread of a similar theme.

    I just feel that under Tim Cook they will just maintain the status quo and won't do anything radical. Jonathan Ive has creative vision/genius for practical objects, but Jobs could see beyond gadgets. The iPod for example wasn't just an MP3 player. Jobs had iTunes and a whole music delivery system built around it.

    Certainly Other companies had made MP3 players before the iPod but hadn't bothered to think much about how people could legally put their music on them. Under Steves watch the Mp3 player became practically usable and a must have item.

    I am sure that a certain roadmap lies ahead. But one thing that struck me about Apple under Steve was mentioned in the news today that also separated Apple from every other company in the world. Apple doesn't really do market research for products. They din't go out and ask us if we wanted a tablet like the iPad. They didn't ask anyone if a phone like the iPhone would sell. They just went out and made them. Steve had so much conviction in his ideas and vision that he could get the company to do that.

    Under Tim Cook I am convinced that because the necessary firm vision isn't heading the company any more, products will now start to be commissioned by committee, and possibly after market research.

    And the big problem with doing market research for the types of products Apple have been making, like the iPad, is that before they were released I'd bet most people would have said "I wouldn't really have a use for that" and as a result they wouldn't have been made!

    Part of the beauty of Apple products is that people didn't realise that they wanted or needed them until they had actually been released and the true scope of their usefulness became apparent.

    Another risk is that Apple could go the other way in an effort not to stand still. The big risk of doing that is encapsulated with one product. The Newton. A good idea, but far too early for its time. And that's where Jobs wouldn't have made that mistake. Steve Jobs not only had creative vision, he knew the time and the place in which to release that vision. He instinctively knew when the market was ready. Something that Sculley did not.

    I only hope that Tim Cook recognises his limitations with regard to these aspects. He needs a number two who can help bridge the gap that Jobs has left. But I do not think that such a person exists.

    Even if he did, it is the fine tuning of those products that is important. Lets say that the iPad hadn't been developed yet, and Steve Jobs wasn't around. Would Apple have made their tablet as good as the iPad is now, or would it have been more like the competitions current lineup? That's the thing Jobs brought along with everything else. The ability to fine tune the detail.
     
  9. Grolubao macrumors 65816

    Grolubao

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    They did this incremental update just to milk the cow a bit more. I understand that when they were doing the 3GS because competition was not at the same level, but don't underestimate google and android because they are really close to Apple, and this move may cost their reputation.

    Even my friends that are not very techie said: well, it's the same device with an S, so I'm not going to buy it.
     
  10. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #10
    Actually it seems that you just trolled rumor sites the day before (i.e. when "rumors" start to firm up) and "predicted" what everyone else predicted. Good job, you can read and repeat.
     
  11. swingerofbirch macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #11
    I always imagined Apple as like Willy Wonka's chocolate factory and thought that it would be wonderful if they could have found a new leader the way Will Wonka found Charlie.

    I feel like I get Steve Jobs--I'm sure a lot of people do. I even had the thought today, as deluded as it is, that I should somehow become CEO of Apple and save it from people who wouldn't "get it."

    Of course, that's just daydreaming, but more seriously, I don't understand, and it worries me a bit that I don't, who is now the lead inventor at Apple--the editor who says yes and no, and I think the direction is this way? From what I understand Tim Cook has been the one who's handled business type stuff for a long time. Now he's doing in the role of CEO. But who is doing what Steve Jobs did? I mean Steve Jobs had the courage to go toward the MacBook Air--a device that when it came out was super expensive and less powerful than any other notebook--but now it's the saving grace of computers.

    Is Tim Cook a person who sees and "gets" things like that? Jonny Ive is the only person I've heard talk like that besides Jobs and he's in design of products he's been assigned to make--not of coming up with new product ideas, as far as I know.

    It seems like there should be someone else. A chief inventor and editor. I volunteer myself, but kidding aside, who?

    And what will happen to Apple without a person like that? No matter what the title is, it seems Steve Jobs and Tim Cook were always doing different jobs, Jobs as CEO and Cook as COO (as of 2007). Cook's main claim to fame was shutting down Apple's manufacturing warehouses and increasing efficiencies (product margins).

    I think he needs to do something to show the public who he is and start doing a couple of interviews on his views of technology and how he fits in, what he sees his role as, is he trying to be Steve Jobs or does he have a different vision--of course at a more appropriate time.
     
  12. Jarland macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    #12
    Apple after the firing of Steve became it's own thing, not Steve's creation. Apple now, without Steve, is his creation. It is left under his terms. He chose his replacement this time, and it isn't someone who disagrees with him about how to run the company. I think that is a significant difference. We'll see though.
     
  13. SimonMW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #13
  14. Henri Gaudier macrumors 6502a

    Henri Gaudier

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    France
    #14
    Are you serious? If so, it's very worrying to me. Are people so brain dead, so corporatised as to do that? A very troubling idea.
     
  15. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #15
    Really ? I've felt this way about every Apple keynote ever made. A few high moments followed by long winded demos that never end or go into too much details. I don't think the keynote for iPhone 4S was any different in that regard.

    I think Apple made a few great improvements in the last few years and especially this year as far as long winded boring keynotes go : they now moved more product releases to press releases and website updates. This year had a few keynotes for a few key products and even those managed to be long and boring.

    Let's face it, keynotes should be reserved for truly special announcements, not yet another iOS/OS X version preview or some spec bump/new case for laptops.
     
  16. Macman45 macrumors demi-god

    Macman45

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
    #16
    When Tim Made The Keynote

    He would have been well aware that Steve had a limited time to live. That would have made things tough as for him to start with. I remember having to do a large Corporate presentation while my Father was dying in hospital.

    I didn't make it in time.


    Tim wil never be Steve....People are different and Steve's passion for all things Apple made hime stand out a mile from the crowd. Remember where Apple were in the 90.s? Steve comeback and turned things around.

    It's sad when anybody dies this young, and Apple have lost an invoater, and I don't think genius is too strong a word.


    We need to get behind Tim, he needs our support going forward, and making that keynote must have been tough. They were friends too.
     
  17. Henri Gaudier macrumors 6502a

    Henri Gaudier

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    France
    #17
    Well, there's my answer.
     
  18. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #18
    Unless you're an Apple employee, no, you don't need to get behind anyone nor do they need your support. Tim pays 20,000+ guys to get behind him and support him. Let them make products that I want to buy if they want my "support".
     
  19. Žalgiris macrumors 6502a

    Žalgiris

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Location:
    Lithuania
    #19
    You don't know when to shut up, do you ...
     
  20. Macman45 macrumors demi-god

    Macman45

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
    #20
    It Would Appear Not

    Some people.
     
  21. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #21
    Nice contradiction:

    Which side are you on? Innovating or waiting on others to move first?

    Frankly, I mostly agree with him. The only people who should be behind the CEO are the stakeholders (employees, stock holders, suppliers, etc), not just random people.
     
  22. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #22
    Please explain to me why I should "shut up" because I don't think as ordinary consumers with nothing to gain, we need to "back" corporate entities that make billions of dollars ?

    Let Apple innovate and make great products if it wants consumer backing. The minute they drop the ball, I have no reason to "back" or "support" them anymore, nor should anyone.
     
  23. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #23
    Well, the iMac wasn't something Steve came up with, it was created years earlier by Ives, but Apple's leadership at the time wasn't interested. And the iMac, of course, was a huge part in making Apple relevant again. It's not like Steve came up with everything himself; he had the vision to see which projects were worthwhile.

    --Eric
     
  24. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    I actually concur with that fine poster in this circumstance.
     
  25. Papanate macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #25
    Interesting comments by all...but I would like to add this. I have and still do compare Apple to Disney in their hey day. And I think the parallels between the companies is poignant.


    When Michael Eisner took over as CEO Disney was flailing badly - the company was in terrible shape. Eisner got the company profitable and on a new path within 5 years. All good right? Not in my book -


    Eisner ticked off his employees by running the company strictly on the bottom line. So long term Disney people were being handed their hats and told to **** and leave. New term employees were told in no uncertain terms that they were disposable and either put up with the draconian nonsense or...**** and leave.

    Then Eisner went about churning out 'Products' that could sell for a lot and cost very little. The China Connection comes to play. Hence the company upped their game again and restored a profit center by cutting out US jobs and manufacturers.

    Eisner's next move was to reclaim the 'Brand Image of Disney' - and he forced the mouse on everyone and McDonald'd the company. In doing so he bought Disney back into the family friendly business. He also polarized his consumer base in that too many people felt the Huckster Snake Oil approach annoying. Mickey Mouse get old for everyone...and he didn't create anything new.

    Then he started in on Movies and 'Cartoons'. Personally I thought most of them sucked big time until Steve Job's brought Pixar over to them with Toy Story.

    So years later we get Disney ousting Eisner for another CEO who brought a 'vision' with him for the future. Disney is as big as big gets in the Entertainment world thanks to Eisner. Disney folks are richer than rich thanks To Eisner. They make money hand over fist that is measured in seconds and not fiscal years. But they lacked a key element in their leadership.

    Disney had lost an intangible that was with the company when Walt Disney led them - and that was the Magic and excitement at the core levels of the company - both in delivery to the public and within the ranks of the company. It was not fun to work for them - and it their 'products' were both boring and repetitiously annoying (how many idiot doe eyed characters can you produce???). The Aesthetics of Disney were long gone and now need to be restored.

    So now we have Apple - Steve Jobs was everything Walt Disney was and more. His vision and persistence made Apple more than a 'computer' company. He brought it into a Cultural Icon that represents much more than the sum of it's parts. He also brought the intangible to the company that rarely happens in business - Excitement and Curiosity within and outside of Apple. Magic that would occur on a yearly basis. Creative ideas that blossomed into wonderfully fun products.

    IMO that's the core of what we (as consumers) should be concerned about - if we need to be concerned at all - we need people like Jobs in our lives.
    why Apple certainly has a capable CEO at the head they no longer have a Visionary leading the company. And that should be of great concern to everyone.
     

Share This Page