- Steve understood that continued innovation and risk-taking was key to Apple’s success which we haven’t seen much of under Tim.
- The board doesn’t always go with an insider, and the options you mentioned sound unfit. Just goes to show what a crappy job Tim has done grooming his next successor.
all those successors have the same ability to continue bringing in the money. That’s what the board wants.
Also I don’t think most people understand what the word “innovation” actually means.
An innovation isn’t always something huge and earth shattering like the original iPhone.
The original Apple Watch was innovative. It took the watches that existed on the market, which all sucked or just weren’t wily used, and turned it into a household product.
AirPods were innovative, they took Bluetooth headsets, which were complicated, annoying, and unpopular, and made them easy to use, sleek and everywhere.
Apples unparalleled advancements in custom silicon are innovative.
Innovations can also be absolute failures, the trashcan MacPro was innovative. It was a flop, it wasn’t sustainable, but it was innovative.
So to say just because Tim’s Apple hasn’t come out with that device that’s gonna cannibalize the iPhone yet, they aren’t being innovative isn’t really true.
Also, if your definition of innovative is entering a new product category and absolutely reinventing it, what company has done that in the last 10 years?
What product category needs to be reinvented?
Folding phones aren’t it