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)![]()
and what has been released in the days post-Jobs ?? a re-hashed iPad2 ...
WWDC = Make or break for shareholders ( i.e something HUGE simply has to happen )
just my 2 cents ....
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.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.
Term of endearment
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.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.
I don't understand the negativity towards Tim. He's not Steve. Never was, and never will be. I'm glad he has started changing things up a little bit. He has done nothing to negatively impact the company so to complain about changes seem unwarranted.
Ah, we are witnessing Apple turning into Sony. Maybe another 3-5 years of good product innovations (that largely were things already in the pipe) and then we will see the long slide towards stagnation and eventually irrelevance.
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.
In all honesty, I'm sure people have more faith in Tim Cook than Late Steve Jobs. A company needs to be more open, more answerable for its actions to its users. Staying silent (always) is not the best way and hurts credibility over time. I'm not saying that people would stop buying Apple products; but they definitely feel that someone is being ignorant of their issues and problems. Its simply normal human behaviour and psychology.
Also, the idea of being more generous to the people @Apple and external is favourable for the greater good. We just don't live to create customers, great products and help fight epidemic or other issues we also live to sustain ourselves, our families and most importantly our kids which are the catalyst for future generations. In my opinion, Steve Jobs didn't particularly understand to what level a person needs to be generous to sustain his own personal and mental life.
I'm sure Tim Cook will go along way and introduce humanitarian principles @Apple and the external world.
Psh... Tim is going to bring something that Steve couldn't, Apple that is more friendly and open.
A company needs to be more open, more answerable for its actions to its users. Staying silent (always) is not the best way and hurts credibility over time.
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.
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 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.
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...![]()
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.
********.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.
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!).
Everything you stated is past tense & 35 years of innovation is a far stretch of speculation.********.
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.
Exactly.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.