I think Steve Jobs had a terrible sense of style, and many would agree. His greatest contribution was re-inventing products that people didn't know they had to own until they did and constantly make things thinner, but some design cues have been way bad over the years.
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
I think Steve Jobs had a terrible sense of style, and many would agree. His greatest contribution was re-inventing products that people didn't know they had to own until they did and constantly make things thinner, but some design cues have been way bad over the years.
I agree with this completely. It's great that people line up to buy a new product, but it's really only helpful if they can actually hand you money and leave with the product they lined up for. I don't know that Jobs didn't care about this, but it became an evident problem with the launch of the iPad 2. Lot's of people lined up, and most of them left empty handed. It wasn't just because of huge demand, it was because the products weren't in stock and ready to sell.
It's hard to say if that was a supply chain failure, or an overly aggressive launch date target. They caught up relatively quickly, so my guess is it was overly aggressive. Either way, it was a bad experience for customers. I'm glad to see it was remedied with the new iPad launch, and it's safe to assume that was Cook's doing.
For the genius Jobs had, he often neglected areas Apple could excel/prosper in because he did not well, like it.
Apple is now in position to experiment in areas and at worst break even on R&D expense.
Apple is now in position to experiment in areas and at worst break even on R&D expense.
Let's also not forget that Steve Jobs was quite pleased with Phil Schiller's idea to call the iMac the "MacMan". If it wasn't for Chiat/Day fighting that one Apple would be in a very different place today.
Tim Cook is not the one doing the hardcore work on the products. Neither was Steve Jobs, as far as I can tell. He would go and pontificate with Ive about what the next thing would look like or how it would feel in the hands. Ive would make it. Steve would say yay or nay. Other people worked on the software. Steve would say yay or nay.
I don't think the product development part of things is in any trouble at Apple. Some of what people think Steve Jobs was solely responsible for was really created by other people. What I wonder is who is saying yes or no to the new stuff. Who is making the nitpicky decisions. If Forstall is making the decisions on software and Ive is making decisions on hardware and Cook is making the decisions on distribution, I think Apple is in good hands.
And in the end, we have no idea how Apple runs, and nobody who says they know or knew how Apple runs really knows either. It's a very secretive company, even within itself. Some engineer doesn't know how Ive, Cook, or Forstall operate or what they talk about behind closed doors. There are no design commitees at Apple and probably never will be. Just key A players making judgment calls.
PS: And of course, I'm generalizing. Steve Jobs was a huge part of Apple. But he also took a lot of credit for things he had nothing to do with creating.
I don't think the product development part of things is in any trouble at Apple. Some of what people think Steve Jobs was solely responsible for was really created by other people. What I wonder is who is saying yes or no to the new stuff. Who is making the nitpicky decisions. If Forstall is making the decisions on software and Ive is making decisions on hardware and Cook is making the decisions on distribution, I think Apple is in good hands.
And in the end, we have no idea how Apple runs, and nobody who says they know or knew how Apple runs really knows either. It's a very secretive company, even within itself. Some engineer doesn't know how Ive, Cook, or Forstall operate or what they talk about behind closed doors. There are no design commitees at Apple and probably never will be. Just key A players making judgment calls.
PS: And of course, I'm generalizing. Steve Jobs was a huge part of Apple. But he also took a lot of credit for things he had nothing to do with creating.
<sarcasm>It's true, without Steve, the company is churning out boring products, like the iPad 3. Back when Steve was running the ship, you saw amazing changes, like going from the iPhone 2G to the iPhone 3G and.....</sarcasm>
And seriously, Steve would've never approved of things like MobileMe or Ping or the iPod Hi-Fi.
What gets me is the implication that Cook is like Ballmer when the two are completely different people. Yes, Cook isn't Jobs and it really sucks that he isn't around anymore. Doesn't mean Apple is going to go off a cliff and become Dell (the company where the only innovation was the supply chain).
The thing that also bugged me about every iPhone/iOS release is how the servers keep bogging down on release day. I'll be nice and forgive the first iPhone because they didn't know what kind of demand there'd be. But since then, Apple should have known that these would've been wildly popular. A company could make a real killing by building a huge data center & renting it out to companies like Apple for big releases like this. Then the consumers could download & install the new iOS quicker & easier. And then after a month or so, Apple "lease" on the rented data center could end & some other company could rent it.
As for Tim as CEO, I have mixed feelings. I'm glad that he makes the employees relaxed. I just hope they're not too relaxed that they starting slacking off making their productivity & quality go down.
Managing a $10 or $20 billion/year Apple is inevitably going to be different from managing a $100-$150 billion/year Apple.
Its impossible to say whether or not Steve Jobs would necessarily have been better. Its also not impossible to rule out the possibility that Steve Jobs approach might, ultimately, have led to failure. Time may well show that Tim Cook might actually be the best guy to be running the company at this particular point in its history. (Steve Jobs certainly thought so, for whatever that is worth.)
If you look at the flap over working conditions at Foxconn, I think Tim Cook probably was a better CEO to have in charge of Apple than Jobs would have been. I, personally, think Steve Jobs would have lost his temper at what he might have considered unfair criticisms of his company. Tim Cook, for a whole host of reasons, probably was more keenly aware of how a PR backlash might harm the brand, and had the skills - and demeanor - to respond in the best possible way for the company.
Regarding the presence of logistics and project-management people at product meetings? When you are selling products in the tens of millions, it becomes super,super important that you can actually get your hands of enough of every single component in a timely manner. There is nothing more useless than 99.8% of a finished iPhone.
Its impossible to say whether or not Steve Jobs would necessarily have been better. Its also not impossible to rule out the possibility that Steve Jobs approach might, ultimately, have led to failure. Time may well show that Tim Cook might actually be the best guy to be running the company at this particular point in its history. (Steve Jobs certainly thought so, for whatever that is worth.)
If you look at the flap over working conditions at Foxconn, I think Tim Cook probably was a better CEO to have in charge of Apple than Jobs would have been. I, personally, think Steve Jobs would have lost his temper at what he might have considered unfair criticisms of his company. Tim Cook, for a whole host of reasons, probably was more keenly aware of how a PR backlash might harm the brand, and had the skills - and demeanor - to respond in the best possible way for the company.
Regarding the presence of logistics and project-management people at product meetings? When you are selling products in the tens of millions, it becomes super,super important that you can actually get your hands of enough of every single component in a timely manner. There is nothing more useless than 99.8% of a finished iPhone.
People seem to forget Tim has run the day to day stuff at apple for years, Steve was CEO but tim handled the day to day stuff, add to that we are forgetting Jony Ive, its been reported that Steve left the management structure in such a way he has a very large amount of power, intact possibly more than Tim when it comes to product control.
i see Apple as having a rather different Management structure than it seems, Tim is the CEO steering the company but the heads of each dept have overriding control over there own aspects. this way no one person can control everything, this way all depts have to agree for a product to move forward.
i see Apple as having a rather different Management structure than it seems, Tim is the CEO steering the company but the heads of each dept have overriding control over there own aspects. this way no one person can control everything, this way all depts have to agree for a product to move forward.
"When I was there, engineering decided what we wanted, and it was the job of product management and supply management to go get it. It shows a shift in priority."
No Jobs to keep the untalented at bay at Apple - and the idiotic iOS community eating away from the outside... sad times.
No Jobs to keep the untalented at bay at Apple - and the idiotic iOS community eating away from the outside... sad times.
Companies need vision
Tim Cook is obviously an intelligent and talented manager. He does not appear to have a visionary bone in his body. Steve "lived" Apple. For him, it seemed to be a live long obsession. For Time, Apple seems to be just a job, albeit a very well paying and challenging one.
Though I own many (too many) Apple products, my greatest admiration for Steve's vision was for the idea of pure, unadulterated simplicity as the standard for elegance in design. My greatest criticism of Apple stems from the exact same idea. Often, the beautiful, elegant products do not perform well at the extremes. For example, iPhoto is great with 500 photos, with 55,000 photos...not so much. iTunes? With a 1000-2000 tunes it's great, but with 25,000 tunes it's a mess. Don't get me started on the whole MobileMe, iCloud thing.
Back to Tim Cook as a leader, I hope the Ive and his team will continue be a driving force behind Apple's future.
Tim Cook is obviously an intelligent and talented manager. He does not appear to have a visionary bone in his body. Steve "lived" Apple. For him, it seemed to be a live long obsession. For Time, Apple seems to be just a job, albeit a very well paying and challenging one.
Though I own many (too many) Apple products, my greatest admiration for Steve's vision was for the idea of pure, unadulterated simplicity as the standard for elegance in design. My greatest criticism of Apple stems from the exact same idea. Often, the beautiful, elegant products do not perform well at the extremes. For example, iPhoto is great with 500 photos, with 55,000 photos...not so much. iTunes? With a 1000-2000 tunes it's great, but with 25,000 tunes it's a mess. Don't get me started on the whole MobileMe, iCloud thing.
Back to Tim Cook as a leader, I hope the Ive and his team will continue be a driving force behind Apple's future.
It also depends on how you define "success" and "failure", "better" and "worse". Some people might consider getting $100 billion in profits but totally unhappy employees while others would thing the opposite is a success: $20 billions profits but really happy employees. Whatever floats your boat.
More to the point, Cook has essentially been running the company for the last two or three years, not only during Steve's medical leaves but very probably for all intents and purposes in between the medical leaves -- so he's been the CEO in all-but-name for several years. Further, Tim Cook is the person Steve Jobs trusted to take charge of Apple during his absences and after he was gone. This fact alone should mitigate the hyperventilation fits some people are going through now.
CEO's
It seems that so many CEO's are all business. The fact that Tim is using some of his own money really speaks highly of him.
It shows that not only is he showing that he cares, he shows that he takes pride in Apple, and wants it to become better. A family member of mine works for a semiconductor company in the bay area. a few years ago the board laid off the the CEO who was a close friend. The first thing the new CEO did was sign a check for a 10,000,000 sign on bonus for himself.
I admire Apple CEO's because of their drive to improve apple and want it to be the best. It isnt about money, it is about being the best in everything that they do.
It seems that so many CEO's are all business. The fact that Tim is using some of his own money really speaks highly of him.
It shows that not only is he showing that he cares, he shows that he takes pride in Apple, and wants it to become better. A family member of mine works for a semiconductor company in the bay area. a few years ago the board laid off the the CEO who was a close friend. The first thing the new CEO did was sign a check for a 10,000,000 sign on bonus for himself.
I admire Apple CEO's because of their drive to improve apple and want it to be the best. It isnt about money, it is about being the best in everything that they do.
Apple's problem is that if they want to build products with a wider appeal they will have to abandon their professional users and lower the cost. How far will they go? I liked Apple better when they were happy to have a 5% market share.
No, but Apple's MO was taking products (mp3 player, phone, computer, tablet) that you never thought you needed, and then get a bunch of people to say "how did I ever live without this?!?" I don't know if Tim Cook shares that vision, not because he doesn't want to, but because his brain doesn't work that way. It takes a person with a rare talent to say "I'd like to re-popularize this" I doubt Tim has any ideas up in his brain, unless Steve put them there.
Like including a stylus!
Look, they've just patented one, let the lawsuits against Samsung commence.
This is so true. I remember talking to the financial manager of Arcam (hifi company) in Sept 1992 and asking him how his summer had been (my student orchestra were receiving sponsorship from them at the time). "Terrible." he said "we brought out the new range, and we're currently almost three months behind on orders." "That's great that so many people want your stuff!" I replied "No it's not," he said, "It means there are loads of people out there who want our products, but are buying other people's instead, because they can't get ours. And once they start buying someone else's stuff, they're less likely to come back to us."
Producing an amazing product is important, yes, but don't underestimate the importance of the logistics of supply and demand as well.
hmmmm... not sure about the direction they are taking. But as said, when Jobs passed away Apple has 5 years worth of projects, it's what every company that size does, tries to plan 5 years or more in the future.
And as for the next iPhone can we all please remember it was stated as fact it is the last project Steve worked on completely, so what ever it is, it has been made and designed to Steve Jobs specifications, NOT Tim Cooks!!
I just hope Sir Ive's has a strong enough voice to keep the company on track with it's products as Apple is all about design. It's why we love em!!
And as for the next iPhone can we all please remember it was stated as fact it is the last project Steve worked on completely, so what ever it is, it has been made and designed to Steve Jobs specifications, NOT Tim Cooks!!
I just hope Sir Ive's has a strong enough voice to keep the company on track with it's products as Apple is all about design. It's why we love em!!
Steve Jobs built the frame that Cook must work within, so I don't expect dramatic changes at Apple in the next five or so years. There may be some tweaks here and there, but I expect that the walled garden approach is here to stay and strengthen. I know I'm not alone in finding this the most distasteful thing about Apple, but I doubt this is a consumer sentiment Apple will listen to.
Also, Steve Jobs seems to have been a big idea sort of person. He was very good at anticipating and judging future trends (iPhone, for ex), but he wasn't so good at dealing with present needs (Apple Hi-Fi). Cook may be the opposite and that may not be a good thing for Apple (or it may be good, who knows?).
Also, Steve Jobs seems to have been a big idea sort of person. He was very good at anticipating and judging future trends (iPhone, for ex), but he wasn't so good at dealing with present needs (Apple Hi-Fi). Cook may be the opposite and that may not be a good thing for Apple (or it may be good, who knows?).