I think you're confusing Sony Pictures with their electronics when talking bankruptcy.
Sony still makes the best TV's, hands-down. You don't need to deny it just because you can't afford one.
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 you're confusing Sony Pictures with their electronics when talking bankruptcy.
Sony still makes the best TV's, hands-down. You don't need to deny it just because you can't afford one.
Well if Tim Cook wants to impress Apple customers he better get some new Macs in the market really soon. The Intel chip excuse is starting to get old by this point. 
I suspect that the company is now set up in such a way that Tim Cook is there to run the company and let the likes of Ive and Schiller focus on what they do best. I'm not sure that Ive would ever have been offered the CEO role, I certainly doubt he'd have ever wanted it and would be content to leave it to Cook.
There's no point in designing products that no-one can get their hands on. Jobs, Ive and co came up with some revolutionary products but it was the improvements to the supply chain that meant that Apple are able to get millions of products out at a launch and are where they are. You don't want to be known as a company who come up with great products but which can't get them to market.
I see Cook as the facilitator to the other parts of the team and he's more than willing to let Ive and co lead on product development. Apple's success is pure teamwork - each of the product design, software design and logistics groups needs each other to be a success. The problems start when the CEO stops seeing that.
It makes sense to have someone like Cook in charge. I'm sure he has some input into product design but equally sure that he trusts Ive implicitly and takes a back seat on design issues. If Apple start producing duds, then maybe that will change, but for now why change a winning formula?
While Jobs was the CEO, it's pretty clear that he focused on the product design issues and the thinking/innovating. That's what he did best. He left the rest of the role to Cook, because that stuff probably bored the hell out of him. Jobs recognised their weakness and brought in Cook to sort that aspect out. Even then, towards the end, I imagine others were doing much of the work as Jobs was just too ill to do everything.
So, as long as they still have people who understand and breathe Apple's DNA - such as Ive, I'm not sure there's any need to worry about the company's direction. The products waiting in the wings allow some breathing space for them to adapt to the new regime.
There's no point in designing products that no-one can get their hands on. Jobs, Ive and co came up with some revolutionary products but it was the improvements to the supply chain that meant that Apple are able to get millions of products out at a launch and are where they are. You don't want to be known as a company who come up with great products but which can't get them to market.
I see Cook as the facilitator to the other parts of the team and he's more than willing to let Ive and co lead on product development. Apple's success is pure teamwork - each of the product design, software design and logistics groups needs each other to be a success. The problems start when the CEO stops seeing that.
It makes sense to have someone like Cook in charge. I'm sure he has some input into product design but equally sure that he trusts Ive implicitly and takes a back seat on design issues. If Apple start producing duds, then maybe that will change, but for now why change a winning formula?
While Jobs was the CEO, it's pretty clear that he focused on the product design issues and the thinking/innovating. That's what he did best. He left the rest of the role to Cook, because that stuff probably bored the hell out of him. Jobs recognised their weakness and brought in Cook to sort that aspect out. Even then, towards the end, I imagine others were doing much of the work as Jobs was just too ill to do everything.
So, as long as they still have people who understand and breathe Apple's DNA - such as Ive, I'm not sure there's any need to worry about the company's direction. The products waiting in the wings allow some breathing space for them to adapt to the new regime.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. For the last few years before he died, Jobs was setting up the company to run without him. Folk seem to forget that Jobs hadn't been running the day to day stuff for years; that was Cook. Jobs didn't want to be bothered by the dull (but extremely important) operational stuff, and he didn't want Ive to be bothered by it either. And now Ive is doing what he and Jobs were doing before: beavering away to come up with the next product lines.
I'm astounded when I read posts that say, 'Jobs would have done this' or 'Jobs wouldn't have done that.'
Do these people honestly believe that Jobs advocated doing things 'one way'? That doesn't sound like Steve Jobs to me. It sounds more like Steve Balmer.
Jobs was about flexibility and adaptation. No, he didn't schmooze with politicians, or visit the higher-ups in China, or do a lot of PR, but Cook has to. Governments strapped for cash are now looking at Apple's cash reserves to make up the shortfall; Cook needs to make friends in high places, quickly. That's just being adaptable; that's just good business. Apple now dominates so much of the market place that they need to look elsewhere to continue to grow, so Cook visits car manufacturers to examine opportunities for future growth.
To be honest, I'd be more worried if Cook was doing things exactly the same way Jobs would have – allegedly – done them. A company like this needs someone at the top who can think for himself. If he can't, then when markets and circumstances change, he won't have the tools to deal with it.
Apple never has, and never will be, a one-man show. The mistake they made is not doing enough to explain that to people before Jobs passed away. Perhaps they should have made a bigger deal of the fact that Cook had been running Apple for about three years before Jobs died. Instead they worked very hard to conceal the fact that Jobs was sick. I think that was a mistake which they're paying for now.
Well, that's just it. Apple will produce duds. They did when Jobs was in charge. Then they scrap them and try something else. It's not really a formula change, and to be honest, it's not something that any successful company hasn't done before.
I think between Ive and Forstall, the future products are safe.
Which is why Jobs set up the Apple University (and perhaps that's where a few of these new MBAs are coming from).
Apple's real weakness, in my opinion, is bandwidth. For a lot of the stuff they want to do, I think they need their own high speed network. The mobile companies are whining about usage and the complexity of the devices they need to support. Apple needs to get away from them ... somehow.
Last edited:
I think there's a lot of ignorance about how a company like Apple operates. It's size now does not allow the old style management and the new model seems like the best way of maintaining the innovation while keeping a beady eye on investor value.
In actual fact, Jobs probably wasn't ever really a CEO in the normal sense - it seems he was too interested in the detail of the projects so even as the workaholic he was, would probably never have had time for the stuff that CEOs normally do. So Cook would have essentially run the company and had autonomy to a point. Sure, Jobs will have had the final say but I imagine towards the end, even then trusted Cook enough to let him do things his way.
As you say, Apple (and Jobs himself) were probably in denial about how serious things were and I guess didn't want to accept what was happening. In retrospect, it was a mistake but in the circumstances I guess it was inevitable.
Sure, Apple will change under Cook - it has to in order to stay at the top - but Given what happened before, I am sure that Jobs would not have left the company in Cook's hands if he wasn't 100% certain that he was the right CEO. Ive and the others will no doubt have thought the same thing.
Not to be misunderstood.....
Oh, make no mistake....prior to what I said before, I meant that in no way as trashing SJ, I hope it wasn't taken that way. I simply meant two things: to our misfortune the man is gone, and the company has to live....and also I'm looking at things as optimistically as possible. Also...9/10 times, passion in and of itself doesn't normally get things done...although is SJ's case it mostly did...with a pitfall here and there. He is the exception, not that rule...and I sincerely hope that Tim and company learn a thing or two from it. However that is the key: Charisma, sheer talent, and the ability to inspire the way SJ did (in such strong doses that it completely overruled his shortcomings) are not something that all of us possess, and we shouldn't expect the extraordinary of everyone. That being said.....it doesn't mean that these talents can't be studied and learned, it just means that not all of us have the ability to summon these talents and the outcomes of them at will.
I do agree that Tim's future is very much unproven, i'm simply trying to put some faith in the guy. After all, at the end of the day, we simply don't have a choice....and....while a different kind of intelligent....he's no mongoloid
I don't want to see this company become an execution engine either, god, not by any stretch....SJ's strengths and shortcomings, and the fact that they were very prevalent in the public eye are two KEY factors that identify Apple as one of the last true American companies that show this country's abilities and personality in one dose. The last thing I want to see happen is the death of this company's charisma. However, it won't take place overnight....but I do believe it will take place.
Edit: I see how the last part might read lol....I don't believe the company's charisma is dead at all...what I mean by "but I do believe it will take place" is that at some point, when it be Jony Ive or another designer of some sort, we will see another long line of innovation and products of pure design in mind.
Oh, make no mistake....prior to what I said before, I meant that in no way as trashing SJ, I hope it wasn't taken that way. I simply meant two things: to our misfortune the man is gone, and the company has to live....and also I'm looking at things as optimistically as possible. Also...9/10 times, passion in and of itself doesn't normally get things done...although is SJ's case it mostly did...with a pitfall here and there. He is the exception, not that rule...and I sincerely hope that Tim and company learn a thing or two from it. However that is the key: Charisma, sheer talent, and the ability to inspire the way SJ did (in such strong doses that it completely overruled his shortcomings) are not something that all of us possess, and we shouldn't expect the extraordinary of everyone. That being said.....it doesn't mean that these talents can't be studied and learned, it just means that not all of us have the ability to summon these talents and the outcomes of them at will.
I do agree that Tim's future is very much unproven, i'm simply trying to put some faith in the guy. After all, at the end of the day, we simply don't have a choice....and....while a different kind of intelligent....he's no mongoloid
I don't want to see this company become an execution engine either, god, not by any stretch....SJ's strengths and shortcomings, and the fact that they were very prevalent in the public eye are two KEY factors that identify Apple as one of the last true American companies that show this country's abilities and personality in one dose. The last thing I want to see happen is the death of this company's charisma. However, it won't take place overnight....but I do believe it will take place.
Edit: I see how the last part might read lol....I don't believe the company's charisma is dead at all...what I mean by "but I do believe it will take place" is that at some point, when it be Jony Ive or another designer of some sort, we will see another long line of innovation and products of pure design in mind.
Last edited:
A commercial product is an act of compromise. Something's gotta give for it to come out at the right time. Typically, logistics rules the decision as we're trying to get things "done". A few "crazy" people push those rational boundaries and bring something that shouldn't be possible by having their people suffer through unreasonable seemingly impossible tasks.
Without a strong leader like Steve Jobs, simply the temptation of taking more reasonable way is too high.
I doubt those managers are "just there"; I've been in my share of meetings to understand how meetings work. The fact that those peoples are invited to the meeting speaks volume of the change in culture.
Depends really on the dynamics of the other attendees and which meetings they attend. There are enough strong characters at Apple to prevail. The logistics guys and managers may just be there with a watching brief and to report back to others on decisions. Remember that Jobs was hardly attending meetings or even in the campus during the rival years. Probably doing much of his work remotely. I can't see him wasting precious numbered days sitting in meetings.
Apple didn't do a great job of launching the early iPhone models yet did a great job launching the new iPad. Ive and co will still have plenty of say and we haven't had much chance to see the impact of the changes at the top.
I think it's far too early to pass any judgement.
"The entire profile is an interesting look at how Apple is changing under Tim Cook, also highlighting his own evolution in becoming the face of Apple and how he differs from Steve Jobs, from his quiet nature to his willingness to listen to investors to sitting down to eat with random employees in the Apple cafeteria."
Managers who are humble enough to do this simple thing (sitting with random employees) inspire followers in their employees rather than people who suffer because they need the money.
As long as we never hear Tim Cook saying to some employees "Why the fsck doesn't it do that???!", He's ok in my book.
Managers who are humble enough to do this simple thing (sitting with random employees) inspire followers in their employees rather than people who suffer because they need the money.
As long as we never hear Tim Cook saying to some employees "Why the fsck doesn't it do that???!", He's ok in my book.
I like and respect Cook.
Although it's not been that long, I've read and witnessed enough to develop of a level of trust and enthusiasm for his work.
As they say, only time will tell. In this case I think time will reveal just how professional, determined, focused, and results oriented he is.
I believe this is one very good change for Apple.
Although it's not been that long, I've read and witnessed enough to develop of a level of trust and enthusiasm for his work.
As they say, only time will tell. In this case I think time will reveal just how professional, determined, focused, and results oriented he is.
I believe this is one very good change for Apple.