Apple's Design Team Will Soon Report Directly to Tim Cook

[Abazigal]

It seems clear that Tim Cook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

1) I feel like the board would rather Tim Cook stay around till 2028 (or at least for as long as Trump is president). There is a great deal of geopolitical movement right now, and the names being thrown around (Scott Forstall, even Craig Frederighi) don't strike me as being experienced in this area. That said, I am curious as to how Steve Jobs would have responded to the DMA though. Would he have given in long before, or flat out told teh EU to screw themselves in less diplomatic terms?

2) There is no denying that operations remains crucial to what makes Apple tick. I expect that whoever succeeds Tim Cook will similarly have several years of operations management under his / her belt. As such, I don't expect Apple to change too much regardless of whoever takes over.

3) The role of Apple CEO has expanded to not only be the public face of Apple, but also be involved in meeting with heads of state, calming wall street anxiety, handling geopolitical tension (eg: China, EU, US), travelling around the world and overseeing Apple's culture.

In this regard, being a product visionary does not strike me as being high on the list of priorities.

You can't expect modern day Apple to be run in the same way as back in the days when it was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

 

[antonrg]

It seems clear that Tim Cook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

1) I feel like the board would rather Tim Cook stay around till 2028 (or at least for as long as Trump is president). There is a great deal of geopolitical movement right now, and the names being thrown around (Scott Forstall, even Craig Frederighi) don't strike me as being experienced in this area. That said, I am curious as to how Steve Jobs would have responded to the DMA though. Would he have given in long before, or flat out told teh EU to screw themselves in less diplomatic terms?

2) There is no denying that operations remains crucial to what makes Apple tick. I expect that whoever succeeds Tim Cook will similarly have several years of operations management under his / her belt. As such, I don't expect Apple to change too much regardless of whoever takes over.

3) The role of Apple CEO has expanded to not only be the public face of Apple, but also be involved in meeting with heads of state, calming wall street anxiety, handling geopolitical tension (eg: China, EU, US), travelling around the world and overseeing Apple's culture.

In this regard, being a product visionary does not strike me as being high on the list of priorities.

You can't expect modern day Apple to be run in the same way as back in the days when it was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

While some of the points you raise are definitely relevant and are correct, one cannot ignore that what made Apple is their simplicity, unique approach, clear focus on the product and, most of all, thinking differently, ie being the leader in executing great ideas reliably. Today, it has become more about keeping the other points you noted taken care of at the expense of the user and the product.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It seems clear that Tim Cook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

1) I feel like the board would rather Tim Cook stay around till 2028 (or at least for as long as Trump is president). There is a great deal of geopolitical movement right now, and the names being thrown around (Scott Forstall, even Craig Frederighi) don't strike me as being experienced in this area. That said, I am curious as to how Steve Jobs would have responded to the DMA though. Would he have given in long before, or flat out told teh EU to screw themselves in less diplomatic terms?

2) There is no denying that operations remains crucial to what makes Apple tick. I expect that whoever succeeds Tim Cook will similarly have several years of operations management under his / her belt. As such, I don't expect Apple to change too much regardless of whoever takes over.

3) The role of Apple CEO has expanded to not only be the public face of Apple, but also be involved in meeting with heads of state, calming wall street anxiety, handling geopolitical tension (eg: China, EU, US), travelling around the world and overseeing Apple's culture.

In this regard, being a product visionary does not strike me as being high on the list of priorities.

You can't expect modern day Apple to be run in the same way as back in the days when it was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

If they don't get product driven leadership back in place, the decline is literally inevitable.

 

[delsoul]

I hope not. The Touch Bar Mac is the last MacBook he worked on.

I had reserves about the Touch Bar. I thought it was great once I bought a MacBook Pro with it. I think the biggest issue are all of the third party companies who said they would be on board and create software that took advantage of the bar, but then they bailed and left Apple hanging.

 

[maxoakland]

I had reserves about the Touch Bar. I thought it was great once I bought a MacBook Pro with it. I think the biggest issue are all of the third party companies who said they would be on board and create software that took advantage of the bar, but then they bailed and left Apple hanging.

Apple’s the one who left the touchbar hanging. I loved mine and it had so much potential, but they didn’t improve its software at all. They also kept it limited to a small number of Macs, most of which had fatally flawed keyboards

I’ll always be disappointed that they let the Touch Bar die on the vine

 

[frownface]

It seems clear that Tim Cook isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

1) I feel like the board would rather Tim Cook stay around till 2028 (or at least for as long as Trump is president). There is a great deal of geopolitical movement right now, and the names being thrown around (Scott Forstall, even Craig Frederighi) don't strike me as being experienced in this area. That said, I am curious as to how Steve Jobs would have responded to the DMA though. Would he have given in long before, or flat out told teh EU to screw themselves in less diplomatic terms?

2) There is no denying that operations remains crucial to what makes Apple tick. I expect that whoever succeeds Tim Cook will similarly have several years of operations management under his / her belt. As such, I don't expect Apple to change too much regardless of whoever takes over.

3) The role of Apple CEO has expanded to not only be the public face of Apple, but also be involved in meeting with heads of state, calming wall street anxiety, handling geopolitical tension (eg: China, EU, US), travelling around the world and overseeing Apple's culture.

In this regard, being a product visionary does not strike me as being high on the list of priorities.

You can't expect modern day Apple to be run in the same way as back in the days when it was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

As disappointing as those points are; they're truths.
When apple was the undog and on the attack, they were optimised for shock and awe; ready to capture the market with their amazing products. This was a steve jobs led company.

Now they're king of the hill, and their focus is on defence; through optimisation of their operations, litigation to stifle competitors and lobbying governments for favourable policies. This is a tim cook led company.

I'd argue that apple have more than enough scale to chew gum and walk at the same time; yet here we are. Fact remains; there's only 1 ceo, and when push comes to shove; tim will elect to do what's safe and best for the shareholder.

Jobs would've told shareholders to go f themselves and bet the farm on a big thing.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Both of these statements are beyond absurd. MS hasn’t been far ahead of anything since W95. To say they are crushing it is hilarious because they are taking heavy losses in gaming, they are irrelevant in console sales, and adding copilot to notes or windows search hasn’t revolutionized their OS, as shocking as it may be. Not that it matters because MS bread and butter is licensing anyway. So long as they control the space, the product itself can rot. And does. Look at Skype.

From Zune to Xbox to phones to just about anything they touch, it all goes to ****. How a company like that can be so far ahead is a mystery to be sure.

I also love AI boys talk like they even know what the hell it is or what value it can actually bring.

This is some raw doggin rage bait my man. Touché!

Ridiculous your reply. Microsoft owns the software world globally. The number of software applications they have put out and how interconnected they all are is insane. Apple has nothing like MS Teams. Nothing like Power Platform with Power Automate, Power Pages, Power Apps, etc. Nothing like Azure. Nothing like Dynamics. Nothing like Microsoft's infrastructure to power business applications.

Microsoft holds a 70% marketshare with Windows on desktops and laptops. No, they don't have a mobile version of their OS. Microsoft holds around 30% of the global office/productivity software market, Apple holds about 0.1 % of the market in the collaborative or overall office productivity category. Microsoft's revenue growth is up 14% YOY; Apple's is only a few percentage points.

My team and I just finished building an AI solution using Azure AI Services. It's a responsive Web App that serves every business unit and we were able to build it quite quickly. The entire development framework with Microsoft and its suite of interconnected software applications is not in the same universe as Apple: Apple looks like a droopy eyed armless child in this context.

I hate Windows. I use my Mac everyday, but I use a lot of Microsoft applications. Apple needs to get its act together and evolve all of its software quickly. The world is moving to AI. AI Browsers are going to serve as full blown operating systems, and these "offgrid" traditional operating systems like MacOS and Windows are going to look like DOS before anyone knows it.

 

[laptech]

This is not a good move for Apple because it will cause tension and issues within the design team because there will be some who will resent having a boss who has no product design experience at all. When I say boss I am referring to their direct boss, i.e their direct manager. The design team manager is someone who would be considered to have numerous years of product design which would allow them to assist and help members of their team when they are struggling with their design ideas. Now if the design team have design related issues they have to go directly to Tim Cook, a person who has no product design experience in him. Jeff Williams, Jony Ive, Evans Hankey all had numerous years of product design experience behind them before joining Apple. Tim Cook has none.

How is Tim Cook going to direct them in the right direction? Yes as the CEO is gets to make the final decision on what products get made and which ones do not but to have him now be directly responsible for how a product is designed, that is not a good idea.

This next part is difficult to explain because a person needs to be in that position to understand it. When your employed by a company/business you expect your immediate boss (manager) to be someone who is experienced in the job position they are in because one of the issues employee's will have to face during their time at the job is having to face criticism about their work. No one likes to have their work criticized BUT it can be a bit more understanding when the person making the criticism is a person who is very experienced in the work. Yes it can still be annoying but others will say 'look, this person has 10-20 years experience, they know what they are talking about and are able to provide valid feedback/criticism.

Now, how are members of the design team going to feel when their direct manager Tim Cook who has no product design experience criticizes their design? I'll tell you how, they are going to feel angry because they are going to feel it's wrong that a non designer is telling a designer what they have initially designed is wrong or no good.

Many of the design team will give Tim Cook the benefit of the doubt to begin with because they will want to see who he behaves as their new design team boss but I do believe there will be some who will leave purely based on principle in that they will not work with a boss who does not have any experience in the position they are being given.