Obviously, you don't know a lot about investment, either. Let's see... Jobs returned as CEO in 1998, died near the end of 2011...
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...6&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:AAPL&ntsp=0
Actually, no.
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
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...6&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:AAPL&ntsp=0
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.
From the time Jobs came back to his 2nd run as Apple CEO the only product that they released that "flopped" was Mobile Me, and he very verbally slammed the team responsible for it.
Jobs died soon after the iPad came out, so saying that it was his "life work" and that he didn't have more to contribute is an incredibly cheap pot shot.
Jobs had plans to revolutionize the education market, change the way we watch television, etc.
Frankly I don't think that there was a "problem" with the way something functioned at a usability level that Jobs didn't have a "solution" for.
The difference between Steve and others is that he would NOT compromise or be nice, or cave in to supply/logistics/marketing weenies. Steve insisted that the iPhone needed a high quality glass screen and sweet talked the CEO of corning into starting up a gorilla glass line JUST FOR THE IPHONE because a plastic screen would not be good enough. Can you see Cook doing that? No way in hell.
G4 Cube, iPod Hi-Fi, iTunes phone, Ping...
You seem to be forgetting a few (although in your defense, they are pretty forgettable).
Cook is probably not going to be the one convincing people of things like that. But someone will.
AAPL stock price when Cook became CEO (Aug 24): 376
AAPL Stock price today: 559 (48% increase)
AAPL stock price a year before Cook became CEO (Aug 24, 2010): 239.93
AAPL Stock price May 25, 2011: 336.78 (40% increase)
Of course though, AAPL is depressed right now because of the European situation... nothing to do with the company. It's been as high as 644 since Cook took over, a 71% increase.
You're more than welcome to point out to me another period where Apple's stock increased 71% in 8 months. Please be sure to provide dates and prices. You can find historical price information on Yahoo finance, but feel free to use your own, verifiable source.
Irrelevant.
(1) The statistical relevance of 8 months of highly volatile stock performance in comparison to 15 years of solid exponential growth is basically zip.
(2) None of what you talk about is even remotely possible without the prior 15 years of success in building up the product portfolio, product pipeline, marketing portfolio, and sales portfolio that as was done under Jobs' tenure.
I'm not saying that Cook didn't have a role in that, but I'm saying none of it is possible without Steve Jobs.
Name one product from Apple that was both a technological breakthrough and a sales breakthrough, that Steve Jobs didn't have a role in creating. I can only think of one: the original powerbook with its ergonomic design. There is not one other product that one can point to.
For all Steve Jobs did for you nincompoop Apple fanboys, you would think you'd show some appreciation for it and give the guy some credit. It's no wonder Steve Jobs didn't listen to his customers, because the vast majority of his customers are clearly idiots. Oh no the guy was successful and not always a nice guy. Irrelevant. Boohoo. Get over it.
Last edited:
We'll see what happens. IMO, Apple has been disappointing me for years. We've had the iPad and iPhone, but the computers have been less than exciting. I have not felt the need to upgrade either of my computers since I got my last gen black MB.
The only reason I would feel the need to upgrade now is if I can't run the next OS. Otherwise, the offerings in the computer department are stagnant- all aluminum, all the same look. In other words, boring. Mac OS makes small improvements here and there, but nothing super exciting. Apple needs to shake things up, in a very big way.
The only reason I would feel the need to upgrade now is if I can't run the next OS. Otherwise, the offerings in the computer department are stagnant- all aluminum, all the same look. In other words, boring. Mac OS makes small improvements here and there, but nothing super exciting. Apple needs to shake things up, in a very big way.
You're confusing stagnation with maturity. The PC industry as a whole is quite mature, whereas the mobile computer industry is in its enfancy and growing exponentially.
That is the difference between both markets.
You seem to be seriously emotionally invested in defending Steve and still have not provided any facts.
Your posts are just editorials with no facts to back up your claims.
It is not up to us to confirm your facts.
You must convince us that what you are stating is fact and not emotional blabber.
That's because the **** "just works" - and keeps working. It's not like Windows, where the business model is to convince people to buy an entirely new computer every three years, just to get another screwed up version of an operating system that would otherwise have to pay $100 - $200 for, and which has a lot of changes made to it but which is overall little better than the last OS version. Also, it's not like a pc, where your computer will start to run slower and slower year after year under the weight of bloated software and antivirus programs, some of which come pre-installed from the OEM, also accumulating over years a million little software updaters that get installed on your system by every single vendor so that your computer take ten minutes just to boot up and give you a functional cursor.
Your computer has been working fine for how many years now and you think this is a bad thing?
Last edited:
Now that IS an interesting point. I have until now ignored the iPad because it simply doesn't suit my needs. I do have high hopes for touch screen and what it may be able to do in the future. However, at the moment, we make make things for the iPad, just not so much with the iPad.
No, I just expect more from Apple than the same old thing. It's great that their computers have long life spans.
A. Commercially successful products by Apple representing major technological advances, which occurred together with / under the leadership of Steve Jobs:
(1) Apple II (mostly by Wozniak but also with Steve Jobs).
(2) Macintosh.
(3) Mac OS.
(4) OS X.
(5) iMac.
(6) iPod.
(7) iTunes.
(8) iOS.
(9) iPhone.
(10) iPad.
B. Commercially successful products by Apple representing major technological advances, which did NOT happen together with / under the leadership of Steve Jobs:
(1) Powerbook 100 / 140 / 170.
... and this despite the fact that Jobs wasn't even with Apple from 1985 to 1998.
Add into this the multitude of commercial advances that were rolled into Apple products under his watch (first commercially successful products from any company with: a 3 1/2 inch floppy, a mouse, plug-and-play, USB, a click wheel, gorilla glass, multitouch, probably the first commercially successful use of the capacitative touchscreen, aluminum unibody.)
Aside from the Powerbook 100 / 140 / 170, what exactly did Apple do that was significant / historical for the entire 13 years that he wasn't there?
You're accusing others of emotional blather without facts to back their assertions up when you post garbage like this?
There are plenty of companies which will try to convince you to buy a replacement product by making drastic changes that don't really improve the product all that much (gimicks). In other words, changing things for the sake of changing things, just so people might want to go out and buy something.
Is Windows 7 really that much better than Windows Vista which is in turn really that much better than Windows XP? Is each of those upgrades worth the $100 or $200 that you might to pay to get it?
OS X is already better than all of them.
I do expect that they will make major changes to OS X, but they won't release anything until it's ready.
I do think that the MacBook Air is a significant new product category that they have brought to maturity in the last couple years (lightweight, sturdy, reasonable battery life, lower cost. That Jonathan Ive!)
I also expect that they will be making changes to the hardware, but again, you won't see or hear about it until it's ready (retina screens? better battery life? liquidmetal?).
Last edited:
Cook is as responsible as Jobs for Apple's success. Cook is responsible for the entire supply chain, higher margins and cornering the market on components so competitors can't compete on price. With both of them, Apple wouldn't be where it is.
And you have the nerve to call someone else delusional? I think it's not only foolish, but utterly stupid and misguided to say that the work on iPad is finished. Not even close. We haven't even began to scratch the surface yet. We are only on the THIRD iteration of this product and it's software. To say there no room for future innovation, simply because the groundwork had been layed, is too stupid for me to even convey in words.
If you know ANYTHING about Steve, then you'd remember something he liked to say. "If you do something that's great and it turns out well, don't dwell on it too long, just figure out what's next."
To assume that Steve was finished because of the iPad, after ALL the other things he's done. You don't know Steve very well. Neither do I, but I know enough about him to know that's he's never satisfied, always looking to improve and reimagine things.
I love how we're all on a first name basis with ole Steve in this thread. Like he showed up at your house and sat at the table every Thanksgiving without fail for the past 20 years.
...which I know isn't true, cuz lets face it, if any of you had Steve Jobs over to you house for even a single Thanksgiving, it'd end up with with you screaming "MY MOM'S TURKEY ISN'T ****, YOU BASTARD", breaking all your Apple products over your knee in front of his face, and swearing a life long vendetta against the guy.
...which I know isn't true, cuz lets face it, if any of you had Steve Jobs over to you house for even a single Thanksgiving, it'd end up with with you screaming "MY MOM'S TURKEY ISN'T ****, YOU BASTARD", breaking all your Apple products over your knee in front of his face, and swearing a life long vendetta against the guy.
Folks, crass and blunt as it may sound, Steve Jobs died. Someone had to take the reigns, and the last time I checked, SJ lacked a clone. I don't mean this in a mean fashion at all, I just mean that the tone that many seem to take towards Tim Cook is one that suggests a lack of willingness to accept change at all, even in the slightest form. The company has to move on, obviously.
While a great innovator and provider of inspiration, SJ wasn't infallible. There are a great many things that can be learned from his legacy and achievements,
of that there is no question. That being said....Tim Cook brings a lot to the table, and the fact that the man (or the reality that Apple has grown into a Monolith of a company) has caused / made a few changes, is not the end of the world. In a perfect world, we would mix the best parts of both of these guys together. Tim and Steve worked together for years...even if Tim isn't the inspirational mastermind that SJ was....he is certainly wise enough to see that and I believe will tackle it accordingly.
And...lets not forget...Apple as a company has obviously had its ups and downs over the years. It can literally afford to make a few mistakes (not that anyone desires it, but learning from mistakes creates future successes, as trite as it sounds.) Being that Apple has enough cash to weather more than a few storms, things will be ok. This is not the same situation in which SJ ended up back in control prior to a potential bankruptcy.
Once the final ideas of SJ have come and gone...there may be a lull of new, fresh, ideas...but in the long term it will be temporary. Also folks, take note....lets say SJ lived another 20 years...does anyone really think that every single idea Apple churned out would have been as successful as the last 10 years examples? In all probability no. They've achieved a level of continual success that is worth envy, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.
This is just a piece of a cycle.
----------
Folks, crass and blunt as it may sound, Steve Jobs died. Someone had to take the reigns, and the last time I checked, SJ lacked a clone. I don't mean this in a mean fashion at all, I just mean that the tone that many seem to take towards Tim Cook is one that suggests a lack of willingness to accept change at all, even in the slightest form. The company has to move on, obviously.
While a great innovator and provider of inspiration, SJ wasn't infallible. There are a great many things that can be learned from his legacy and achievements,
of that there is no question. That being said....Tim Cook brings a lot to the table, and the fact that the man (or the reality that Apple has grown into a Monolith of a company) has caused / made a few changes, is not the end of the world. In a perfect world, we would mix the best parts of both of these guys together. Tim and Steve worked together for years...even if Tim isn't the inspirational mastermind that SJ was....he is certainly wise enough to see that and I believe will tackle it accordingly.
And...lets not forget...Apple as a company has obviously had its ups and downs over the years. It can literally afford to make a few mistakes (not that anyone desires it, but learning from mistakes creates future successes, as trite as it sounds.) Being that Apple has enough cash to weather more than a few storms, things will be ok. This is not the same situation in which SJ ended up back in control prior to a potential bankruptcy.
Once the final ideas of SJ have come and gone...there may be a lull of new, fresh, ideas...but in the long term it will be temporary. Also folks, take note....lets say SJ lived another 20 years...does anyone really think that every single idea Apple churned out would have been as successful as the last 10 years examples? In all probability no. They've achieved a level of continual success that is worth envy, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.
This is just a piece of a cycle.
While a great innovator and provider of inspiration, SJ wasn't infallible. There are a great many things that can be learned from his legacy and achievements,
of that there is no question. That being said....Tim Cook brings a lot to the table, and the fact that the man (or the reality that Apple has grown into a Monolith of a company) has caused / made a few changes, is not the end of the world. In a perfect world, we would mix the best parts of both of these guys together. Tim and Steve worked together for years...even if Tim isn't the inspirational mastermind that SJ was....he is certainly wise enough to see that and I believe will tackle it accordingly.
And...lets not forget...Apple as a company has obviously had its ups and downs over the years. It can literally afford to make a few mistakes (not that anyone desires it, but learning from mistakes creates future successes, as trite as it sounds.) Being that Apple has enough cash to weather more than a few storms, things will be ok. This is not the same situation in which SJ ended up back in control prior to a potential bankruptcy.
Once the final ideas of SJ have come and gone...there may be a lull of new, fresh, ideas...but in the long term it will be temporary. Also folks, take note....lets say SJ lived another 20 years...does anyone really think that every single idea Apple churned out would have been as successful as the last 10 years examples? In all probability no. They've achieved a level of continual success that is worth envy, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.
This is just a piece of a cycle.
----------
Folks, crass and blunt as it may sound, Steve Jobs died. Someone had to take the reigns, and the last time I checked, SJ lacked a clone. I don't mean this in a mean fashion at all, I just mean that the tone that many seem to take towards Tim Cook is one that suggests a lack of willingness to accept change at all, even in the slightest form. The company has to move on, obviously.
While a great innovator and provider of inspiration, SJ wasn't infallible. There are a great many things that can be learned from his legacy and achievements,
of that there is no question. That being said....Tim Cook brings a lot to the table, and the fact that the man (or the reality that Apple has grown into a Monolith of a company) has caused / made a few changes, is not the end of the world. In a perfect world, we would mix the best parts of both of these guys together. Tim and Steve worked together for years...even if Tim isn't the inspirational mastermind that SJ was....he is certainly wise enough to see that and I believe will tackle it accordingly.
And...lets not forget...Apple as a company has obviously had its ups and downs over the years. It can literally afford to make a few mistakes (not that anyone desires it, but learning from mistakes creates future successes, as trite as it sounds.) Being that Apple has enough cash to weather more than a few storms, things will be ok. This is not the same situation in which SJ ended up back in control prior to a potential bankruptcy.
Once the final ideas of SJ have come and gone...there may be a lull of new, fresh, ideas...but in the long term it will be temporary. Also folks, take note....lets say SJ lived another 20 years...does anyone really think that every single idea Apple churned out would have been as successful as the last 10 years examples? In all probability no. They've achieved a level of continual success that is worth envy, but it wouldn't have lasted forever.
This is just a piece of a cycle.
No doubt. Cook is reputed to be an operational genius.
However, if true, the observation that the company is becoming more like an " 'execution engine' driven by business-oriented managers with MBAs and less dependent on its design and technical expertise to lead the way" is probably not a great prognostic indicator for the long-term future of the company.
Whether that statement is accurate or not is another matter.
More problematic is the idea that Apple "fanboys" should be so ready to trash Steve Jobs's methods and business philosophy. It's not problematic in itself (what fanboys think is irrelevant); it's problematic if it suggests that could be many at Apple who have the same sentiment. Jobs is, after all, the person who hired Cook in the first place, and probably had a lot to do with helping to lay out operational strategy that was followed as well. Let's not forget, Jobs was the guy who obsessed over every detail of the creation of a state-of-the art manufacturing line for NeXT back in the day. If after Jobs returned, Apple closed down all their manufacturing and began micromanaging their Chinese contract manufacturers -- I suspect that's a strategy that was in large part chosen by Jobs also. He sure picked the right guy to do it.
I have no problem with people praising Cook for his operational role. I do have a problem with people issuing a pile of praise and acting like this is going to be greater still, just because of a little PR dressing (Foxconn factory tours, solar panels, matching donations, "openness"), when so far as what is known to the public, the long term management strategy is as yet undemonstrated.
Not worse mind you. Undemonstrated so far as what is known to the public.
Last edited:
... and with all this talk about hardware design and manufacturing, who is determining the direction of software at Apple currently?
Does Forstall have the ability, leeway and resources to push innovations forward under the new management structure? I don't see much talk about how Cook is able to innovate / manage in software development. If not, who do people like Forstall report to?
Software is after all, the first (probably most important) piston on which Apple runs, and largely determines the long term direction of its products. Don't forget, languishing software development was the Achilles heel of Apple the first time after Jobs left (Copeland anyone?).
People apparently are not impressed with Siri, if the article is to be believed. Is he pissed off about it?
Is Cook just a hardware wonk? Maybe analogous to the random guy who continually upgrades his computer with the latest / greatest highest MHz motherboards and graphics cards, but who runs a bunch of ****** useless software on it?
Worthwhile questions to ask, but we won't know the answer for some time. From the outside, it's hard to tell at this point. Like I said, not necessarily worse. But so far as what is known to the public, undemostrated.
Does Forstall have the ability, leeway and resources to push innovations forward under the new management structure? I don't see much talk about how Cook is able to innovate / manage in software development. If not, who do people like Forstall report to?
Software is after all, the first (probably most important) piston on which Apple runs, and largely determines the long term direction of its products. Don't forget, languishing software development was the Achilles heel of Apple the first time after Jobs left (Copeland anyone?).
People apparently are not impressed with Siri, if the article is to be believed. Is he pissed off about it?
Is Cook just a hardware wonk? Maybe analogous to the random guy who continually upgrades his computer with the latest / greatest highest MHz motherboards and graphics cards, but who runs a bunch of ****** useless software on it?
Worthwhile questions to ask, but we won't know the answer for some time. From the outside, it's hard to tell at this point. Like I said, not necessarily worse. But so far as what is known to the public, undemostrated.
I agree, funny people laud Jobs as a visionary but in the next breath denounce Cook. Can't people see that in the end Job's was wise enough to understand that as Apple grows it will need the skill set that Cook has?
The Apple that proudly announced the first iPod isn't the same Apple we have today. Job's himself said that "death is life's change agent" Apple goes forward, it will continue to evolve and yes to change, that is the nature of life.