When I read that, my first thought was: 'What? They had important meetings and didn't invite project and global supply management?'
I doubt that was the case; and if it was, then up until now they've been lucky.
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
When I read that, my first thought was: 'What? They had important meetings and didn't invite project and global supply management?'
I doubt that was the case; and if it was, then up until now they've been lucky.
It's not about SJ didnt left plans and guidelines for next couple of years, its all about it wont be "so wonderful and perfect" as it would be if SJ would be here (I mean all, overally - ML, iOS, new HW etc.) He definitely planned the most of what's coming this and even next year, but the final result I think wont be that great and shining...
Tim is great guy but what if great is not enough for coming years? Steve is simply missing here, no doubt.
Tim is great guy but what if great is not enough for coming years? Steve is simply missing here, no doubt.To be completely honest I kind of dislike Tim Cook entirely simply because there is no life in him. Just watch the keynotes!
He talks like a turtle, hе doesn't have the expression to make me feel the thing he is talking about. The words just go out of his mouth and you can feel that this is just a clever scenario. Steve is irreplaceable!
He talks like a turtle, hе doesn't have the expression to make me feel the thing he is talking about. The words just go out of his mouth and you can feel that this is just a clever scenario. Steve is irreplaceable!
It's hard to know what exact affect having PMs in Eng meetings leads to, but I can't imagine this is exciting news for engineers who are told X part shouldn't be used because it's "hard to find" or it's "expensive." It's the PMs jobs to make engineering dream projects practical, not limit vision due to pricing and supply constraints.
Steve's last couple of years weren't all that full of life and excitement in the keynotes either. His younger (and healthier) days were much different. Still, this has very little importance in the grand scheme of things. The keynotes are more for the media and tech bloggers than the millions of actual consumers. And the media doesn't care about that kind of stuff as much as you probably do.
I agree. Even without Jobs, all will be fine as long as they keep up with that passion that makes Apple great. I'd be much more worried if Ive ever leaves.
Tim Cook has always been know as a wizard of logistics. It's why Steve Jobs hired him back in the late 90s. So it should come to a surprise to any Apple watcher that he is most concerned about operational efficiency. It's his wheelhouse.
But it's way too early in the game to judge Cook on his ability to birth innovative products. We are still in the Jobs era in that regard. I would think someone as smart and experienced as Cook understands what made Apple "boom." So I doubt Apple is the next IBM or even Microsoft as far as management style and product innovation go.
He was there when Apple was floundering and his stock options were practically worthless. (Remember you could buy all the Apple stock you wanted in the late 90s to early 2000s for $5-15.) It was only until after iPod hit Windows that Apple started to hit jackpot.
But it's way too early in the game to judge Cook on his ability to birth innovative products. We are still in the Jobs era in that regard. I would think someone as smart and experienced as Cook understands what made Apple "boom." So I doubt Apple is the next IBM or even Microsoft as far as management style and product innovation go.
He was there when Apple was floundering and his stock options were practically worthless. (Remember you could buy all the Apple stock you wanted in the late 90s to early 2000s for $5-15.) It was only until after iPod hit Windows that Apple started to hit jackpot.
Tim Cook looks like an organizer, not a leader.
He'd be best as a number 2 to execute the ideas of a productive mind.
How does Apple want to stay ahead of the game with a corporate apparatchik like him?
Do designers and product developers have so much freedom it doesn't matter that the CEO is not an idea man?
He'd be best as a number 2 to execute the ideas of a productive mind.
How does Apple want to stay ahead of the game with a corporate apparatchik like him?
Do designers and product developers have so much freedom it doesn't matter that the CEO is not an idea man?
I see where you are coming from... If that is true, and he is lacking in the entrepreneur mentality that Steve had, his only option is to hire people to do it. Created departments, and have them compete against each other
Yeah, because nobody complained about the iPhone 3GS being a "rehashed iPhone 3G" when it was Steve in charge.
Steve was on medical leave during that update.
And if anything, the iPhone 3GS was a huge leap forward over the iPhone 3G. They pretty shared a casing. New CPU architecture, video recording, much faster GPU, compass, etc..
Apple employees and board members will never forget the Scully era.
When Apple was managed by a sales guy and there were no new technical or design ideas.
They won't let that happen again. Ever.
And, despite Jony Ive's high-profile Order of Knighthood Ceremony, he's very low-key.
He was perfectly happy to let Steve take the spotlight. Same with Tim Cook.
And that led superficial analysts to the conclusion that Steve Jobs did all the work and had all the ideas.
On the other hand, if the 'bean counters' are being brought in early to be sure they have the time and resources properly allocated to *support* the process of innovation, then it bodes *very* well. The presence of said 'bean counters' says nothing about what their impact will be, where their *role* says quite a bit, but isn't mentioned at all.
WTH?? Do many of you "get it" that this company TODAY under Cook's leadership is MANUFACTURING, SHIPPING, DISTRIBUTING, and SELLING TENS OF MILLIONS OF PRODUCTS EVERY QUARTER?? I mean, WHY wouldn't those people "be involved".
Um, I've been an Apple Customer for 24 years. The company with these MASSIVE product launches INTERNATIONALLY could never, I repeat NEVER have been capable of handling the sheer stress of VOLUME if it weren't for Cook, Not Jobs, Not Ivey, Not anybody there today or ten years ago could do it.
For the life of me I can't figure out how people are hating on a company that has had the most EXPLOSIVE GROWTH in modern history in what 4 years time and have managed that growth amazingly well.
So I guess it's Cook's fault that the iPhone became an instant sensation and they should just back away from it and focus only on innovation and let the Customer service, production side literally implode and totally destroy the company??? In other words, this ship has grown so large in scale on every fricking level that it's the guy "managing" the growth that's the damn genius here people.
Some of you have limited, fantastically lame thinking. Wake up to reality folks. Apple will continue to innovate. The company has grown way way beyond core clients like myself that literally kept them in business before most you smart heads were born.
Last edited:
I disagree with you and that's a gross simplification of the successful products Apple has come up with over the years. You are obviously bias to something other than Apple (or Steve Jobs).
That may well have been absolutely true. The exec team decided on the best product, even if the supply chain said it wasn't possible.
Then Tim Cook's team and a multi-billion dollar billy club were used to beat suppliers into doing what they said was impossible. The story about the custom glass panels that nobody made is one example.
In R&D, the monster payoffs rarely go to the safe, careful, cautious and unlucky.
See, this is where people are worried. Your first paragraph is great, but then the "PS" claims the first one means nothing. You are arguing with yourself. Supreme Management Control is what Steve did. That DOES have a lot to do with everything, and is why people use terms like "overlord" to describe him.
Steve had final control on which products go forward. It remains to be seen what kind of control exists in Apple today. So, how will that happen these days? Cook is Supreme decider? Ive? Committee? Again, this is why people feel the need to speculate. Seems strange so many don't understand this simple procession of thought, and need to fill the internet with craziness.
Yeah, having two models of a product is a death sentence.
Giving your customers a choice is corporate cancer.
Hm, maybe you just met Cook on an off day? I know when I went into the Apple Store to get my iPhone from Cook he had a bit of time to talk to me while finishing building the phone. I didn't get the impression you got.
I think that when you hear the phrase "Apple's DNA" thrown around in articles and in other places, (this is a phrase coined by Apple, actually), part of that DNA is that they don't decide by committee. They just don't. That's not how they operate. I even read that they don't even really HAVE committees. They just have people working on their own individual things and don't necessarily know what's going on in other parts of the company. And so I want to know as well--who decides now? I've heard that aside from Jobs, Ive had more power than anyone at Apple. I imagine he has a pretty major say in what goes out the door. But I also think there are plenty of other people at Apple who could also approve a design that proves to be popular with consumers. And I don't think Apple is dumb enough to think that they can ignore their history. They have two choices--maintain/improve the standard, or die a slow horrible death.
I don't want to say Apple will run the same as it did with Jobs, because it won't be the same ever again. But that doesn't mean everything Jobs did was brilliant. He took a lot of credit for a lot of other peoples' designs and ideas. He marketed the products in a way that he seemed like the Willy Wonka type of guy who was back behind the curtain coming up with all these brilliant ideas and designs. He didn't invent the MP3 player--hell, he didn't even invent the iPod. But he had an eye for a good design vs. a great design vs. an "insanely great" design. So who has that eye now?
There's another aspect to this that people seem to ignore too. Apple doesn't have Steve Jobs anymore, and that sucks. But you know what? The WORLD doesn't have Steve Jobs anymore. It's not like he went to Google or MS or something crazy like that. He is gone forever. What is the only existing company (besides Pixar) that ever got to work with him? Apple. They're the only company that has the benefit of the Steve Jobs DNA being infused into the way they operate. That by itself is a great thing for Apple.
apple's best days are probably behind it, and everyone will downvote this because no one wants to believe it
qft
Steve and Jony were very close (I read that Jony was in the room with Steve's family when Steve died). Jony is still at Apple and from all we know he has no plans to leave. Does anyone think he'd still be there if things had drastically changed or changed for the worse?