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
On Tim Cook's potential "failures" as a CEO compared to Steve Jobs, Ive strongly believes that won't happen. "We're developing products in exactly the same way that we were two years ago, five years ago, ten years ago. It's not that there are a few of us working in the same way: there is a large group of us working in the same way," he said.
No, not uncomfortable at all. I don't see Apple going into the hopper because Cook is not Jobs. As many have mentioned above, Jobs did not create everything single handedly. Cook needs to make sure, as it appears he is, that the development teams have a supportive environment in which to work.
What's a "geordie tosser"??
(Just another dumb American)
Term of endearment
While increased efficiency is great and needed, filling the meetings with project managers and global supply people is a mistake. Eventually, ideas will be rejected because it will not be convenient for project managers to implement.
Also, a golden standard is that too many MBA's in a room will eventually destroy any company.
Also, a golden standard is that too many MBA's in a room will eventually destroy any company.
So Steve Jobs had no input in the third iPad? Even though there were rumors of an iPad sized retina display before the iPad 2 was even announced, implying Apple had been working on it for over a year?
Also, an iPad comprises of a display, processor, battery, and mobile wireless communicator. All of these were improved a great deal, as well as software updates and the launch of iPhoto for iOS
If that's a "re-hashed iPad 2" what were you expecting?
----------
The company seems cool still. Great products. OS X Mountain Lion looks like it's going to be good - it's not going down the Windows 8 route of tablet OS on a desktop, rather making tablet features desktop worthy.
Rumors are the new iPhone will be a solid update. iPad had a solid update.
Rumors also indicate the new Macs will be impressive updates.
Last but not least, Steve Jobs himself recommended Cook. Apple's good
It really depends on how the role of resource managers plays out. If they come in on the early development of a new product, or major product update, with the attitude "Umm, no, you can't do that because component DX4593Y is too hard to find.", then that model will squelch innovation.
OTOH, if they come in with the attitude "Okay, so to make the release deadline, we need to get out there and secure a good supply of DX4593Y's", then that can work to possibly get a new product on the shelves a bit sooner.
Since Cook's area of expertise seems to be organizing the supply chain, my fear is the former scenario is more likely than the latter.
I have the feeling that under Jobs, the attitude was "This is what we're gonna build. Go get the parts for us." with no excuses or prevarications, unless they wanted to get screamed at in the elevators. Will that hold under Cook (although maybe a bit nicer attitude), or will the supply guys be telling the engineers what can't be done instead of finding a way to do it?
Geez, calm down dude. In case you haven't been paying attention, the concern is not about the devices Apple is CURRENTLY manufacturing due to Apple's superior supply chains. The concern is about NEW devices, and what role the supply management and project management people play in the development of NEW devices. According to the engineer interviewed, the way things were done under Steve is the engineers would come out with the prototype, and then the project managers and supply managers would figure out how to get it on the shelves. Having those people involved earlier in the design stage could go two directions: either to tell the engineers what can't be done (which Jobs would not have put up with) or to get a heads up what they will need to do when the design is finalized. Considering Cook's area of expertise, I fear the former is more likely than the latter.
Yes. Tim knows he's not Steve, and never even considers himself to be a replacement. In his own words:
"Replace Steve? No way. He's irreplaceable, one of a kind. I imagine him being in his 70s and still running Apple. I could never replace him."
Tim isn't trying to be another Steve, and knows that he will never be. Some people need to think about just how daunting of a task it is to take the helm from someone as legendary as Steve.
Tim understands Apples culture more than any of us on this message board, so I think the fears that Tim may be meddling with Apples DNA is ridiculous. The man was PART of that culture, and practically ran the company behind the scenes for years now. I think he knows just a tad more than any of you do about what makes Apple unique. And I don't think he intends on destroying any of that.
This.
I have never seen a project manager, supply person or other "resource allocation" person innovate anything. Most of them could not innovate their way out of a paper bag. A perfect example was Tim Cook, in a conference call sometime in the last six months going on and on about "shipping units"...
What they are extremely good at doing is using formulas to squeeze every nickel of inefficiency out of a business.
The problem is that building creative products is not an exercise in efficiency, and if they have more influence at Apple they can squelch innovation.
The flip side is also true.... creative types and engineers, with no constraints will also bankrupt a company.
I fear the MBA/supply people though far more than I fear the creative/engineer types when it comes to getting the products I drool about.
7 inch iPad
Ive seen a couple of posts on here that suggest that a 7 inch iPad would be bad for apple. This would actually help the company in several ways. First and foremost, a cheaper tablet would make a lot of people happy. Think about it. If apple were able to sell a $300 tablet, android would almost completely disappear from the tablet market share because most people prefer iPads but don't have the money to pay for one. Just saying there's still a lot of market apple could claim if they did the 7 inch iPad right.
Ive seen a couple of posts on here that suggest that a 7 inch iPad would be bad for apple. This would actually help the company in several ways. First and foremost, a cheaper tablet would make a lot of people happy. Think about it. If apple were able to sell a $300 tablet, android would almost completely disappear from the tablet market share because most people prefer iPads but don't have the money to pay for one. Just saying there's still a lot of market apple could claim if they did the 7 inch iPad right.
Yeah they could make a smaller iPad. They could even make a larger one. At this point no one knows but typically that's just not how Apple rolls. At least not how they rolled under Jobs. There was a vision and even to the determent of profit/market share that's the way is was going to be. Sure there's been times Steve went against something he previously said Apple would never do but not often. Leave that lack of focus to Samsung.
but steve jobs has also proved that the closed model work. even though sometime we would want to know more.
Actually, the opposite is true. Apple's credibility is higher than it ever was since Jobs returned, and a lot of it has to do with him pruning the Apple tree as it were, and with him insisting on development secrecy.
It will be horrible to go back to the bad old days, when Apple consisted of hundreds of little feifdoms, each of them telegraphing to users / customers products and features in development that may or may not ever see the light of day. Does anybody remember Opendoc? Or Copeland? How many cruddy prototypes of those marginally functioning "futuristic products" did people really need to see? Does that inspire confidence and credibility? What exactly what have been served if Apple had allowed future users to see the click wheel prototype of the iPhone a couple years before the original iPhone came out?
Secrecy is ideal for good product development, not just in terms of competitiveness, but also in terms of preventing your employees from setting up unrealistic expectations among customers, expectations based on "vaporware" or expectations based on "vapor products." You know, the awesome prototypes that Detroit always flaunts around, only to disappoint customers when the actual production model comes out half a decade later and looks / operates like crap in comparison to the original prototype.
Those are the things that kill a technology company's credibility.
Steve Jobs *was* very open when it was necessary to be open. He came out and explained very succinctly why Flash was not appropriate for iOS. He came out and made a presentation to the public when the iPhone 4 antennae problems were all over the press, and they gave out free antennae bumpers that alleviated the problem to all customers who bought the phone prior to the problem being widely acknowledged.
What has been done since Steve died? The iPhone 4S had an enormous battery problem for many people when it first came out. Did anybody come out and make a presentation to the public? Problems have been reported in the press that many of the New iPads have problems with WiFi connectivity, particularly the WiFi-only models. Has anyone from Apple stood up on a stage to acknowledge the problem and propose a solution?
I'm not saying I know whether Cook will ultimately make a good or bad CEO. He did have great operational expertise which I hear was instrumental in Apple being as successful as it was under Jobs. However, I question whether having such an operational mentality is the most appropriate thing for the CEO position. The CEO should be principally concerned with where the company is headed 5 years from now, 10 years from now. That's why the CEO hires an operations person, so the CEO doesn't have to get involved in quite as many details.
I have a lot of respect for Cook, but it will be a looooong time before he would even have a chance to build up the credibility that Steve Jobs built over his tenure (twice!).
To some people, Jobs may not have been a "likable" person. But it's not his job to be liked by anyone. It's his job to make the company successful.
Last edited:
hahahahaha thanks for making me laugh to start my day after reading this .. Either you are Tim Cook, or if the real Tim Cook came to an ubrupt halt your nose would disappear 18 inches up his ass
People are allowed opinions and thoughts other than those that you have. Doesn't make them lesser human beings for having them.
If you want a public forum dedicated to people with identical thoughts and ideas then I suggest you look elsewhere.
Imagine how wonderful the world would be if you applied as much passion to eradicating terrorism, or curing cancer, as you do in shooting down peoples input on a forum dedicated to lumps of metal and wire with a fruit logo on it
Reeeeeeeeellllaaaaaaaxxxxx
I doubt it's worked that way since the G4 Cube and the hockey-puck mouse. If someone had the 'non-creatives' at the meetings, then I doubt those things would have got out the door. You need folk to say, "Well, yes we can build it out of that, but the case will crack."
Or
"Yeah, it looks great, but I don't think that'll be comfortable for a lot of folk."
The other problem, I think, is that folk have an extremely narrow view of 'creativity', which leads them to believe that project managers cannot be creative and supply chain experts cannot be 'creative'. I would say that Apple has a lot of creative thinkers in a lot of roles. The success of their products is just as much down to these people, who have come up with new engineering and manufacturing processes, struck the deals that have locked up the supply chains, schemes for employee retention, bought out exclusive licenses for stuff like liquid metal... these are all creative thinkers.
The article itself is a fascinating read, but that's all. We've a lot of ex-employees who 'heard stuff' or 'have been told'. Quite a bit of heresay that could have done with being expanded in a few places. For example, it notes how a lot of MBAs are now working at Apple, which, it says, points to a more traditional, process-driven company.
Perhaps.
What the article fails to address is where these MBAs are coming from all of a sudden. Are they being appointed from outside, or are they existing Apple employees who have completed an MBA either externally or through an internal programme run at the Apple University?
This. Apple had many flaws under Steve - it could be stubborn and closed (in a bad way, not the good secret product kind of way). Flaws were often ignored, because Steve willfully ignored them. Let's not forget, he also gave the green light to the G4 Cube, iPod Hi-Fi, MobileMe, and Ping...
Unfortunately for Cook, any lemons that slip by will receive the "never woulda happened under Steve" treatment from those with memory loss...
Oi , I love my iPod Hi-Fi sits on a neat shelf underneath my bedroom tv. Okay, in all honesty was expensive as a speaker and I barely used it with my iPod at the time.. But connected to my ATV in bedroom sounds great.
On another note, I always wonder what would have happened with flash on iOS without Steve writing that legendary letter/statement of justification. I'd like to think that Tim would have written the same message.
short sighted in one respect
That's all well and good, except for one thing - Apple should always be an engineering/design driven company. That's the one thing that makes them different from all the other companies, and the one thing that makes them unique and wildly successful.
It *is* the job of product management and supply management to go get it... and engineering to decide what's needed. When business and supply managers get a say in what a product is going to be like, then the product always degenerates until it becomes crap.
This is a good short term strategy to boost margins and profits, but it is a long-term failing strategy. Here's hoping that Apple will keep some of the changes they've made, such as being more open, being supportive of employees, more efficient, etc., but go back to the correct practice of design & engineering setting the direction of the products.
That's all well and good, except for one thing - Apple should always be an engineering/design driven company. That's the one thing that makes them different from all the other companies, and the one thing that makes them unique and wildly successful.
It *is* the job of product management and supply management to go get it... and engineering to decide what's needed. When business and supply managers get a say in what a product is going to be like, then the product always degenerates until it becomes crap.
This is a good short term strategy to boost margins and profits, but it is a long-term failing strategy. Here's hoping that Apple will keep some of the changes they've made, such as being more open, being supportive of employees, more efficient, etc., but go back to the correct practice of design & engineering setting the direction of the products.
And there were no apple products launched under Steve's watch that had issues?
You are delusional and need to step back and refocus your myopic view of the world.
Steve's life goal was achieved with the iPad.
He was pretty much done with any type of innovating.
When apple popularity & revenue slowly declines, they will blame Cook but the reality is even if Steve was around, the end result would be the same. Apple's rein is over. It happens when you get to the top. The only direction is down.
It's time for another company, new or old to be the innovators for personal consumer electronics.
********.
Easily falsified: it's already widely reported that there are several years of innovations that Jobs left behind at Apple when he died.
Face it, without Jobs, Apple:
a. Would never have existed in the first place.
b. Would have gone bankrupt or would have gone nowhere over the last 14 years.
These are nearly incontrovertible facts.
To say that his track record of 35 years of consistent innovation would have come to a halt just because of a stupid iPad, rather than because of his cancer that killed him, is just too stupid for words.
Credibility with who, exactly?
The investors who control the company and invest in it? So far, at least, it seems Cook's credibility with them far exceeds Jobs's.
The mass of consumers who buy Apple products in the millions and neither know, nor care who the CEO of the company is and didn't care when it was Jobs either? Again, no evidence he personally needs any.
The tiny (thousands) number of fanboys and enthusiasts who post on boards like this one (including me, I hasten to add). WE DON'T MATTER. Not even a tiny little bit. If we did, Windows would have a 10% market share.
Everything you stated is past tense & 35 years of innovation is a far stretch of speculation.
The innovation he may have left is nowhere close to what he did in the last decade. Even the best have to fall. It seems some find this hard to believe or swallow.
----------
Exactly.
I don't buy products based on who's the CEO or "innovator."
I buy products that meet my needs regardless who makes them.
Being loyal to a brand should be based on product reliablity & usage, not who owns/runs the company.