You think you had more to do with Apple’s success than Tim Cook, who has led the creation of $700B in shareholder value.
It's not like one person was responsible for Apple's success, aside from maybe Steve Jobs deserving quite a bit of credit for vision, etc.
But, what is the reason for Tim's success? Because he has a MBA? Those are a dime-a-dozen. Could it be that he has been an excellent manager of a success trajectory handed over to him? Maybe more that he has done a good job of not messing it up too much, rather than the primary cause?
Maybe, maybe not. But I think the point I (and others) are trying to make is that there is a huge difference between the success that comes from product excellence, and properly running a business so products are available on-time, in sufficient quantities, with proper pricing, marketing, etc.
One won't work without the other. They are complementary skills in business. I guess my (our) fear is that Tim has mostly the latter, and little of the former. If that's the case, then it is more a matter of how long Apple can run (even expertly run) on the 'capital' it started with when Tim took over.
Without turning back to the roots of what made Apple so great, the question is more how long they can make it. If they return to their roots (or, some would argue they haven't left them), then Tim is a wonderful figure to push them even higher.
In other words, it isn't so much Tim that is the problem, but whether Tim is in the correct position. He's a crucial figure, but should he be CEO?
Key word - "were"
Back when Apple was a way smaller company, they could lead a flock. They could afford to give this small group of die-hard fans what they wanted in terms of technological and aesthetic leadership, and in a sense, Apple had to, because you were its sustenance.
You are not the target market for Apple anymore.
...
In this new reality, that original core user and investor base.. those true believers.. they don’t matter anymore.
...
The current user base and investor loyalty is not based on conviction, or a personal identity-based affiliation. Rather, they are far more grounded in pragmatic self interest.
...
Instead of leading a flock, it now has to cater to an audience.
...
Has Apple “lost its way”? Apple will slowly transition into a much more traditional company, and its behaviour will start to match those of a traditional company’s behaviour. If you want to consider that as them “losing their way”, then yeah.
What you wrote was interesting, and I suppose I agree with most of it. Except, I'm not sure I agree with this just being the way things have to be, or it being positive.
While Apple had people like Guy Kawasaki, who employed an 'evangelist' form of marketing, it wouldn't have gotten anywhere with that approach if the products hadn't been stellar. They didn't just create a culture like Starbucks around some frivolous shared belief/culture. The products were actually revolutionary and life/work-flow-changing. That's why we became 'true believers.'
Interestingly, my 'other career' is in theology/Christian apologetics, so I'm pretty well qualified to speak to this metaphor you're developing here.
If Apple had just raised their 'flock' on a bunch of fluff with nothing underneath, then yeah, changing it wouldn't much matter. They are just moving to a different model. But, if that culture, evangelism, etc. were really based on 'the truth', ie. something of substance (which to 'us' it was), then if that core thing gets disturbed, all that is left is fluff, no matter how 'big-corporate' it becomes.
Where I think you're wrong is that it doesn't matter anymore. And, your statement about being based on "conviction, or a personal identity-based affiliation" vs "pragmatic self interest" is telling. First, it never was based on personal-identity affiliation. Those were the critiques from the outside. It was based on conviction, but on conviction of something we who experienced it found to be true. The products were better, the workflows improved. It saved us time and money, while also being a more pleasurable computing experience.
Following your religion or church metaphor, I can tell you what happens there with a shift you claim Apple is making. Such churches, essentially, die. You can't move from something that is true, which people believe and become evangelists for, to something based on 'pragmatic self interest' where the 'church/religion' now cater to the flock.
This is the cart before the horse thing I'm talking about, exactly. Or, like Henry Ford's 'people would have wanted a faster horse.'
What made Apple great, was exceptional, world/life-changing products. Products so good, they created a loyal customer base who actually became evangelists for the company, not because we cared so much if Apple did well, but because we wanted to see those products change the lives of others, as they did ours.
You can't dump that, and transition to trying to please fickle consumers with fashion products. Well, you can for a time, until you burn through the hard-earned brand reputation, and people start to realize it's just empty marketing, anymore. I hope Apple hasn't gone there, but that was the fear. I'm encouraged by some of the more recent moves, and I think Apple might be getting their mojo back.
If you think my tone is subversive, then you should probably see all the negativity and vitriol that have been hurled at products like the AirPods and Apple Watch when they were first released. How "Where's my Mac Pro?" somehow gets inserted into every Apple thread. How much Apple was lambasted for no longer being innovative the week after Samsung announced their folding phone (and we all know how that one turned out). And it all circles back to the notion that Apple has somehow lost its way simply because it is no longer putting out a certain product that a very vocal minority of users want (or think they want).
So no, I don't hate pro users, but I do detest what they have come to represent, just because they believe that Apple somehow "owes" them a mid-tier Mac Pro or whatever it is that they are asking for, and how their sense of entitlement invariably finds a way of spilling to the rest of the forums and making the whole environment that much more toxic and acerbic for it.
So I don't think this makes me subversive. I am simply pointing out an observation - that Apple has long outgrown its core users (if they can even be called that), and simply doesn't have the engineering resources or the financial incentive to give them what they want any more.
Well, the Internet is full of stupid-noise of all sorts. Non of we 'pro' or even prosumer users would agree on several of your points above. There is harsh criticism and over-enthusiastic praise for every Apple product/decision if you look around and cherry-pick.
As for users wanting the next pro machine and expecting it, that's not entitlement. Apple provided people like us with a toolset and workflow we depend on, and to suddenly change that and change focus (while not specifically telling us, that we've changed and 'get lost') isn't something any company should do.
And, if Apple has truly outgrown their core users, then it is over (eventually). Because Apple's core users were people with the insight to recognize a superior product and pay more for it. If that is gone, and people are now satisfied with fashion or the joy of sharing the white-ear-bud, then it is just a matter of time. Fashion trends change, sometimes rather quickly. (I don't think your read of the situation is accurate, I'm just saying *if* it were, then this would be the case.)
So no. If they want me to believe that they know the reason why Apple will fail, then at least demonstrate that they understand the reason why Apple grew, and how it came to grow to become as large as it is today.
Simple. If they change what made them successful too dramatically, they won't continue that success.
Note, this is much different than the 'they are doomed' mantra that has been running through the press and among tech-pundits since Apple became a company.
If you can't recognize the difference between press/tech-pundits with all their failed reasoning why Apple might fail, and former Apple-evangelists concerned about their future, I'm not quite sure where to go with you.
[doublepost=1560727715][/doublepost]
Funny thing how Apple is diversifying. It’s almost like Apple took the opinion of the internet posters that said that. /s
Well, I think this is part of what gives me hope. Some of the things Apple has done recently, could almost be pulled from the criticisms showered all over forums like these. It makes me think they are actually paying attention and have responded. That's a very positive thing.
The vision to produce live-changing products is still in question, I suppose. But, at least a continuation of the trajectory on existing product lines is a big help.
I think my main concern (at least shorter term), now, is if they have enough UI know-how left to keep the OSs and key software products from becoming ruined further. Because, even if they nail the hardware, it still takes the software to make it worthwhile. Their advantage, is that the rest of the industry is still even worse.
As for the diversification... that part kind of scares me. They are diversifying SO much, and into areas that seem to just be chasing after the trends. I guess they have the money to blow at this point, but I'd rather see them not just blow it.
