why is it well said? because i didnt see any mention of accountants taking over design meetings, or even attending them. you do realize a bean-counter is an accountant, right, and not supply chain?
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's Evolution Under the Leadership of Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
why is it well said? because i didnt see any mention of accountants taking over design meetings, or even attending them. you do realize a bean-counter is an accountant, right, and not supply chain?
But may not be good for innovation or users. Another Dell is not something we need.
Yes, but let's not take away Steve Jobs importance. To make good decisions you have to be visionary. I'm sure the designers come up with several different ideas, good and bad ones. The good thing about Steve Jobs is that he was able to pick the good ones. Even though he wasn't the designer, he had a good sense of style, form and function to be able to make those decisions.We're on the same page.
Um didn't Jony Ive just say yesterday that Apple is making products today the same way they did 2, 5, 10 years ago? I trust what he says more than Adam Lashinsky at Fortune Magazine. He wants to give the impression he's on the inside but he's not.
Probably, a necessary step to take, but I don't think it's a good sign. It shows the sign of fading the 'pirate spirit' and slowly becoming HP.
The designers and engineers should decide not the project managers. Sure it's more risky but that's how you push the envelope. Sir Ive has his job cut out for him, I guess.
The designers and engineers should decide not the project managers. Sure it's more risky but that's how you push the envelope. Sir Ive has his job cut out for him, I guess.
Glad he did not listen to customer maybe that is why I like buying their products. Screw the customers like they know what they want, please what marketing did you take.
Apple may still do well because job made sure certain people would stay and be allowed to continue their revolutionary work, but Apple becoming a Dell is a possibility as we saw before we can see again. Apple is not immune to becoming a dell. I will give Apple the benefit that it will take few years to get its act together but don't get all smug thinking Apple could not fall again and we be left with the useless Microsoft/PC market again. Without founders companies are know to go the route of mediocracy full speed.
----------
And we have plenty of those here. I also so love how they think Marketing works, brings a smile to me every time.
Tim Cook was right by his side when they launched the iPhone, iPad, Unibody Macbook Pro, Macbook Air, Spaceship Campus etc and probably running more than we know when Steve was to ill to work (which was quite often).
I'm not sure how anyone thinks the bean counters are in charge when they are splashing the cash like never before.
I think Apple will be fine but they do need something new with major WOW factor.
Make it magical or die.
I'm not sure how anyone thinks the bean counters are in charge when they are splashing the cash like never before.
I think Apple will be fine but they do need something new with major WOW factor.
Make it magical or die.
What has been released in the days post Jobs? Nothing, because he was involved in everything that has happened since Tim Cook took over.
If something "HUGE" doesn't happen at WWDC it will have a negligible effect on shareholders.
Guess what? If Apple releases a 7" iPad it will sell like crazy and be a huge success.
Apple's best days are probably behind it, and everyone will downvote this because no one wants to believe it
Will you people give it a rest? Apple is what it is today because those with power at Apple have made not just good decisions but the right decisions. There has been no sign whatsoever that they have strayed from this course yet. It's a good thing most of you aren't making decisions for Apple, that's for damn sure.
That's what Apple's marketing engine wants you to believe, but I doubt that it is the truth. Steve Jobs probably has left many ideas and fragments of ideas behind, but from all we've seen so far, the first iPad was the last big product that he was deeply involved with and it certainly was the last product that actually had a big impact.
iCloud was a necessary evolutionary step of Apple's online services, but nothing ground breaking, revolutionary or even new. The last incarnations of iOS, the iPhone and the iPad also were merely evolutionary developments but also nothing that in any way changed the game. Compared to Leopard and Snow Leopard, Lion and Mountain Lion are steps backwards and demonstrate that Apple have completely lost the interest in their desktop platform.
And now the news is that Apple is becoming more like a corporation. Well, the same thing happened with Microsoft when Gates retired and let Ballmer run the company.
Soon we will be reading that developers and engineers are leaving Apple to work for other companies and startups.
Is this comment a result of your personal close relationship with Steve Jobs, or a regurgitation of the blabber you've read on the internet as others, like you, attempted to become a part of the 'in-the-know' crowd? Lacking people skill doesn't make someone an *******, just as lack of vision doesn't make someone a blundering idiot. Variation is what enables mankind to evolve, and Steve certainly left his footprint on all of mankind.
Because the news is about information and iPad alone means absolutely nothing, kid.
Call it iPad 3, New iPad, iPad ver. 3, iPad A5X, iPad Retina its all about people not getting confused about the product. I personally call it the iPad 3 and have moved away from the retarded marketing departments joke of the week.
The next iPhone will be called the "iPhone" so would you like an iPhone 4s or just an iPhone mam/sir?
Too Soon to Tell
The article uses a lot of half baked instances that don't necessarily show a pattern of all out change from "insider" and "close to knowing" sources. So a room is more populated with Project Managers and Supply-Chain folks, that means folks are getting in a room to talk things out more, instead of sending emails or having to interpret what's needed. If they said SupplyChain was running the discussion, that's a different animal. You will know that Apple may be headed for trouble when Jon Ive or Scott Forestall decide to up and leave. They are the mini-Steve's now. Cook never was and won't be a Steve, however people fail to remember that Cook had been running Apple for almost 2years before he officially took over as CEO. Let's see where Apple is in 5 years, then you can say whether or not he's been effective in leading.
For those saying that Steve would have never allowed Siri to happen ... remember we had MobileMe for a very very long time and that was a train-wreck.
The article uses a lot of half baked instances that don't necessarily show a pattern of all out change from "insider" and "close to knowing" sources. So a room is more populated with Project Managers and Supply-Chain folks, that means folks are getting in a room to talk things out more, instead of sending emails or having to interpret what's needed. If they said SupplyChain was running the discussion, that's a different animal. You will know that Apple may be headed for trouble when Jon Ive or Scott Forestall decide to up and leave. They are the mini-Steve's now. Cook never was and won't be a Steve, however people fail to remember that Cook had been running Apple for almost 2years before he officially took over as CEO. Let's see where Apple is in 5 years, then you can say whether or not he's been effective in leading.
For those saying that Steve would have never allowed Siri to happen ... remember we had MobileMe for a very very long time and that was a train-wreck.
An Apple designed Car or other kind of personal vehicle is likely still on the drawing board somewhere. Google is working on this (self driving car) and It wouldn't be too far fetched to think there are people at Apple doing it to. When was the last time GM or Ford came out with something everyone wants. The innovator in the automobile field right now is Toyota. But cars today look and function exactly like they did in 1992, and the only innovation since then is the Hybrid.
The iPanel/iHub or whatever the pundits think the Apple TV is going to be, has to do something innovative and last 7 years. Look at the existing TV-like things we have, the iMac and iPad. The last innovation for televisions was "3D" and nobody gave a care about that feature. I'm going to argue because like the "If you see a stylus you're doing it wrong" argument, 3D glasses is doing it wrong. 3D has to work without glasses, from any angle, and not give people a headache from eyestrain. Nobody's cracked that nut, and the Nintendo 3DS's 3D is barely effective.
Nintendo is the innovator in the game console field, but they never make the mistake of subsidizing the console, unlike Sony and Microsoft. Unfortunately the cost/fun return on a Nintendo console is rather low, you might only buy 5 games over the life of the console, and those will primarily be Nintendo properties. They're exactly like Apple, they make their own hardware and software and don't licence anyone else to build hardware that can run their software. Anything you build for the Xbox 360 can be ported to the Windows PC by changing the build target, but the Xbox 360 has also been holding back Windows games because that's where the money is (consoles.)
So it's pretty hard to argue that Apple can't make anything new when they're already attracting software developers to their cheaper ecosystem and similarly priced hardware. (An iPad2's current price is 399 versus Xbox 360's launch price 399$.) A TV could replace the living room game console, the television, the cable box, blue ray player, and the audio/speaker system, stream netflix and rent new releases. Right now the Xbox 360 and PS3 can do some of this, but not very well. I could imagine a television coming equipped with some kind of wireless 7.1 speaker system. Eliminate about 10000$ in hardware with one device.
Where did people find the Apple management organization chart that bloated to Microsoft levels of disfunction (e.g. the committee behind Vista's shutdown button) over the last few months?
exactly.
Like the rest of us all the naysayers have no idea how Apple internally functions.
all the negativity is pure speculation without any tangible merit. As of now Apple is still doing great and they seem to be following the roadmap Steve left for them.
People also seem to forget that Apple is a company comprised of thousands of individuals. Steve was the leader but he certainly wasn't the only talented person in the company.
In our business the term is refers those who limit design, idea's and/or bring in conservative profit minded types. But thanks anyway.
This scares me
"Apple is becoming more traditional and conservative, becoming an "execution engine" driven by business-oriented managers with MBAs and less dependent on its design and technical expertise to lead the way..."
This scares me, MBA and bean counters having a say and runs the company. What good is a great supply chain if the handcuffs are put back onto the creatives?
The wonderful creative products is what the consumers desires from Apple, sure hope the MBAs and engineers don't go back to say **** like, "we can't do that? or "that's too expensive" or "that's never been done before.
Jonny Ive must have some say in Apple, if Apple is to continue to be Apple.
"Apple is becoming more traditional and conservative, becoming an "execution engine" driven by business-oriented managers with MBAs and less dependent on its design and technical expertise to lead the way..."
This scares me, MBA and bean counters having a say and runs the company. What good is a great supply chain if the handcuffs are put back onto the creatives?
The wonderful creative products is what the consumers desires from Apple, sure hope the MBAs and engineers don't go back to say **** like, "we can't do that? or "that's too expensive" or "that's never been done before.
Jonny Ive must have some say in Apple, if Apple is to continue to be Apple.
I really didn't read anything too frightening in the Fortune article. Lashinsky basically just summarized what most of us already know. Cook is embracing a slightly more open posture as CEO than Jobs did. He's making some internal policy changes that employees seem to like. He's demanding, but not scary like Jobs was. (I appreciate the work and passion of Steve Jobs, but there is no denying that while he was certainly respected, he also scared the crap out of his employees)
The comments about an increase in the number of MBA's at Apple don't bother me. This started two years ago and is necessary in a company as big as Apple. You need people to manage the business, and as it grows you will need more of them. Those people are MBA's.
What would scare me is if we saw that Apple was expanding creative departments, or adding more. That would be an indicator that management was trying to fragment the work that the existing design people do, or impose some kind of BS "friendly competition" mentality that so many managers love. That would be a sign of a coming decline. Not the addition of people to manage the business of a rapidly growing company.
I quite honestly don't expect much to change. The reality is that Tim Cook has been the "Adult supervision" at Apple ever since Jobs hired him. Jobs realized his biggest mistake was appointing someone who could fire him from his own company, John Sculley, but he also realized that he needed someone who could actually run a major corporation. Tim Cook is and was that guy. This time around, he just made sure that he didn't hand over all the power.
Cook has been quietly running Apple for quite some time. It's foolish to believe otherwise. Jobs was a rockstar. He was highly visible, he had great influence and he was involved in many different projects. However, there were really no products that Steve created all on his own. Yes, he gave the green light when deciding what would move forward, but there's no reason to believe that he did so without the input of his team of executives.
Where Jobs was most influential and had almost singular control was marketing and branding. Here, we will see a difference. It won't necessarily be bad, but it will be different. Steve had unique and particular tastes. It is unlikely that whoever takes over this role will match those exactly.
We can be sure that Steve had his hands on a lot of projects that will roll out over the next 5-10 years. A company like Apple is constantly working and developing new concepts. Many of which simply have to wait until the technology to implement them can match the designs. Others will surely be finishing the work that was begun with Steve leading the team, but his influence will be there for years to come.
The comments about an increase in the number of MBA's at Apple don't bother me. This started two years ago and is necessary in a company as big as Apple. You need people to manage the business, and as it grows you will need more of them. Those people are MBA's.
What would scare me is if we saw that Apple was expanding creative departments, or adding more. That would be an indicator that management was trying to fragment the work that the existing design people do, or impose some kind of BS "friendly competition" mentality that so many managers love. That would be a sign of a coming decline. Not the addition of people to manage the business of a rapidly growing company.
I quite honestly don't expect much to change. The reality is that Tim Cook has been the "Adult supervision" at Apple ever since Jobs hired him. Jobs realized his biggest mistake was appointing someone who could fire him from his own company, John Sculley, but he also realized that he needed someone who could actually run a major corporation. Tim Cook is and was that guy. This time around, he just made sure that he didn't hand over all the power.
Cook has been quietly running Apple for quite some time. It's foolish to believe otherwise. Jobs was a rockstar. He was highly visible, he had great influence and he was involved in many different projects. However, there were really no products that Steve created all on his own. Yes, he gave the green light when deciding what would move forward, but there's no reason to believe that he did so without the input of his team of executives.
Where Jobs was most influential and had almost singular control was marketing and branding. Here, we will see a difference. It won't necessarily be bad, but it will be different. Steve had unique and particular tastes. It is unlikely that whoever takes over this role will match those exactly.
We can be sure that Steve had his hands on a lot of projects that will roll out over the next 5-10 years. A company like Apple is constantly working and developing new concepts. Many of which simply have to wait until the technology to implement them can match the designs. Others will surely be finishing the work that was begun with Steve leading the team, but his influence will be there for years to come.
They're just in the meeting. Nobody said they were running it. It's weird to see all this negativity about having supply managers in the room because the first thing I thought when I read that was, "Oh, that might explain why Apple was actually able to meet demand for the new iPad in relatively prompt fashion."
It has already been said many times that Tim is a believer in logistics, and it's easy to imagine that Steve dismissed it as unimportant. "What, who cares if supply is low? This is the ****ing iPad. People will stand in line until they pass out from starvation to have one." One area where I could see Steve's arrogance hurting the company, and Tim quickly fixed it.
yep, just like Microsoft, Google and Samsung are dying and this is the year of the Linux Desktop...
Although, I think your post was sarcasm...