No way, he is going to be there as a Chairman more money, more stocks, more voting rights and zero accountability. Don’t think TC is going to give up the pump position easily
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.
Gurman: Major Apple Leadership Shakeup Impending With John Ternus as Next CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t mind John I’d rather it be him or Craig no matter what Keep Eddie cue the **** away from CEO the sheer ego that resonated off him when he used to appear on stage was so bad you can tell he walks around the campus thinking he is Apple and without him Apple doesn’t exist lol 😂
Should have been Johny Ive, he is the closest visionary to Steve jobs.
The past iPhones were pretty meh, nothing to be amazed about.
The past iPhones were pretty meh, nothing to be amazed about.
They could also be spending a lot of the day on decent wifi, without max brightness, and probably without bluetooth devices. Cell connectivity in particular chews through battery, but any radio use, including bt, does too, especially in crowded spectrum areas where it has to “shout” more to work (in radio he who shouts loudest wins
). For a lot of us the spectrum congestion around us, especially cell, eats a huge amount of power over the day.Screen brightness is another battery killer, keep it lower and you’ll save a ton of battery
Also *what* you use matters. Social media apps tend to be pretty heavy and resource hogs, so do websites with lots of poorly optimized js and/or lots of ads. If you use facebook in particular, browser or app, it will absolutely destroy battery life.
My wife only burns through about 60% of her 13 minis battery over the course of a normal day, she’s always on wifi, her job has nothing else around to crowd spectrum, she doesnt use social media much, at least compared to me, and when she does it’s not facebook (as I mentioned the biggest battery killer) and she doesnt like her phone bright.
So it’s definitely possible to use very little battery while using a cell the normal amount, a lot depends on where, when, and what your prefs are.
Milk the Mac for all it’s worth and get busy on the next great thing?
People that “miss Steve Jobs” don’t understand that the Mac is likely still around because he’s not there doing to it what he did to the Apple II. The world has a large number of people that don’t like Apple because of decisions he drove.
Steve may indeed have pushed out the Mac for something better!
Absolutely not what the bean counter has been up to.
Tim just coasting on the old laurels, tricks and schemes has run its course.
Not likely. Only if he were able to see what another company developed first. Him seeing Xerox PARCs (Palo Alto Research Center) mouse driven graphical user interface computer in their lab lead to Apple's Macintosh.
He did introduce a dozen or so computer flops on his own.
Not looking forward to having to unpair my xPhone iX from CarPlay because Siri Mk4-ÆX will only work in Volkswagens due to their pure heritage.
It could well be that Tim Cook will be remembered in the future as the guy that successfully helped Apple transition into the modern Apple Silicone era. And I say that as software guy; great s/w needs great h/w to run on.
After that transition stabilizes, "it's all just zeroes and ones" again for a while. That is until progress on ternary, or, less likely (IMHO), quantum, or something else entirely starts to create demand for hardware redesign.
Personally I think handing the ball to a software guy is the right move right now. And that guy will certainly be keeping an eye on changing / evolving hardware demands.
After that transition stabilizes, "it's all just zeroes and ones" again for a while. That is until progress on ternary, or, less likely (IMHO), quantum, or something else entirely starts to create demand for hardware redesign.
Personally I think handing the ball to a software guy is the right move right now. And that guy will certainly be keeping an eye on changing / evolving hardware demands.
Gurman's article doesn't say that. It's just normal succession planning since the prior heir apparent is leaving. No indicators that Tim is going anywhere anytime soon.
I feel just like this. Love the idea of John Ternus as Next CEO, he has been the face of Apple's design turning around for the better, but not with what the "company" is wanting.
AI will kill and destroy life as people know it, has some very bad consequences attached to it, and I have no interest at all in any of that. Home automation is terrible because of the security and spying nightmare it is.
I just want Apple to build good computers and devices.
The software is where they need the most help. The OS needs to be able to be installed without the Internet once again and just needs the Apple Core Rot addressed and fixed. APFS needs proper data protection so bit rot doesn't seep in etc. The all new OS updates need to slow down to once every two years or more. And I could go on and on. But again, it is all software issues, other than the Mac Pro side of things.
There is zero requirement for an indentical clone as being. a necessary adjective in front of replacement. If the "Director of Dept X " gets a successor then that new person is "Direct of Dept X" ; a replacement. There are a different , unique person.
There is zero rational reason why one person leave the whole organization structure of the company has to be organized to make the organization fit the new person. Delegation of some duties might shift a bit.
If the change in CEO/Founder is driven primarily by external factors ( The business ecosystem changed. The company is radically larger , the competition is radically different, etc. ) then the 'personality' of the new CEO is not the root cause factor.
That is completely different from internal driven transition. People exit for various reasons ( retirement, better job somewhere else , get hit by a bus ). if have a large team/organization there are 'norms' set up in the organiztaion. It is misnomer to label that 'intertia' . Good leaders lead who they have , not who they wished they had.
Cults are "leadership" brittle , but that by and large because they were built to be brittle. Built more for the benefit of the leader than the organization as a collective. Running a cult is not good leadership.
Apple has a relatively good (at least compared to many cohorts ) Board of Directors. I doubt Cook would stay on the board after given up the board slot that the CEO gets. To make Cook Chairman Apple would have to reduce it outside board member percentage or needlessly increase board size to keep percentages the same. Neither one of those options materially helps Apple in any way. ( any more than Apple gave Jobs' wife a gratuitous seat on the board).
By time Cook retires he will already have a substantively large pile of shares. He wouldn't need to be in Chairman chair to be wealthy. Dollars-to-doughnuts he likely would get hired by several other boards ( who would pay him money/stocks ) in their companies. With less "conflict of interests" being detached from Apple, he would be a wider candidate (and it would be 'part time' work). A wider portfolio would be what he would need more at that point anyway.
Cook is a great businessman and networker but the credit for that goes to Federighi, Ternus and Srouji.
Steve Jobs deserves credit for it too because it was always their intention to transition from Motorola or Intel to their own ARM based chips. They couldn’t do it until they were sure they could surpass Intel and AMD on performance and energy.
Like Steve Jobs personally didn't a major portion of that Arm work all by himself. Jobs is in the same zone as Cook is in your first sentence above. There was a large team of folks below him that actually got the work done.
There is a pervasive human cognitive bias to try anthropomorphize groups into an single individual. The NFL Quarterback won the game all by himself. The reductionism of a whole 50+ person team to talking mainly about the team 'superstar'.
Hey Sri, design me a new Apple M-series processor.
Nobody said he did a major part of the work “by himself”. The vision however was completely his own and you should know he fought for Apple to have its own internal hardware.
In the original vision Jobs wanted all the hardware inside a Mac to be designed and controlled by Apple. Even after he left Apple in the mid-80s Apple continued to understand the importance of this and invested in ARM around 1989-1990.
At NeXT Jobs believes the Mach kernel and OpenSTEP/NeXTSTEP should be portable. It should be able to run on PowerPC, Intel (there was a build) and anything else that would come along in the future.
When macOS transitioned to Apple Silicon in 2020 you’ll remember in the presentation they said they had been working on it since the days when the iPad was first released.
Anyways Ternus is great for CEO. He’s deeply dedicated and faithful to the platform, he’s mature and at the same time he looks young and approachable. That’s rare in tech now.
Whoever it is, I just hope he or she is more publicly likeable and has more charisma than a potted plant, aka Tim Cook.
Oh yet another gospel of messianic St. Steve founded on the rock of revisionist history.
Apple has sold hardware at the aggregate level from the beginning. In the broadest sense , yes they have had "internal" hardware where there some was Apple contribution to the design. That doesn't mean they have made all of the major components .
You mean like the time Jobs dismissed using the Sony 3.5" drive for the Mac (too expensive) and the hardware team had to hide the Sony guy whenever Jobs came to visit the lab because that was the more prudent viable option. Finally, after Steve admitted that they didn't have a viable option for the Mac storage drive and that they needed to discuss what viable options they could do at that late in the product development cycle, the team reveals to Steve they never got rid of the Sony option at all and it is about ready. That purely Steve's vision of the Mac?
Nevermind that Jef Raskin created the Mac Project and Jobs took it over. Jobs didn't even come up with the name "Macintosh". That complete vision, right? *cough*. ( Or one of those folks who believe that Musk founded Tesla? Not. ) .
Jobs 'vision" was more in slecting the correct team to do the product than in the required necessary details to do the project itself. Hiring folks who would ignore him if he was going down a deeply flawed rabbit hole was more important than being supreme vision dictator.
Steve isn't there but it is still purely completely just his vision. Yeah ... right. Acorn founded the Arm initiative. Apple came in and provided some money (not 'vision') to get it off the ground.
The created at Carnegie Mellon Mach kernel ? Steve's vision? Richard Rashid and Avie Tevanian have no "Steve Jobs" in their names. Steve Jobs hired Tevanian to work at NeXT but Steve didn't give him the portability vision for Mach.
Mach used a mutatted BSD Unix to bootstrap itself into a viable 'microkernel'. NeXT needed a Unix to be a viable university research workstation. There is no 'vision' there; it is was a common known basic requirement. (e.g., Project Athena found at MIT in 1983 (before the Mac launch, basically was Unix workstations with X Windows in a university setting). Being primarily BSD licensed Mach didn't get into expensive (for a limited fund start up) AT&T System V entanglements. Apollo , Sun and a couple of other research workstation contemporaries were all on the same Unix baseline approach in 1983-1985 timeframe.
The object-oriented framework structure for NeXTStep library layer was grounded in Objective C which also had totally exterior to Steve Jobs foundation. NeXt licensed Objective-C.
DisplayPostscript ... again started off at Adobe and became a NeXT joint venture... Jobs the core visionary at the beginning solely driving it? Nope.
Initially NeXTSTEP was not portable. It was Motorola 68000 based (started at 68030 ). Mach was ported to other hardware platforms by other companies in 1985-90 timeframe by other entities before NeXT did. (IBM RT, Dev VAX , etc. )
NeXT thought about doing a Motorola 88000 but it didn't work out. Didn't do PowerPC (***). They did Intel, Sparc (Sun) , and PRISM (Apollo/HP). The big push to OpenStep was principally driven by when the NeXT hardware not getting substantive traction. Before NeXT founding there already were workstation vendors ( Apollo. 1980 Sun 1982 ). DEC shifted major focus into the area about when NeXT got founded. So the space was not uncrowded. Lots of folks had seen the Xero Alto ( and Lisa and a few other follow ons at that point.).
And yet before the iPad and iPhone launched Jobs went to Intel and asked if they could make to chips for these products. Intel somewhat dismissed the iPhone but pitched an x86 something for the iPad. (Otellini is same goofball CEO that greenllit the Larrabee x86 GPU. The guy used 'x86' hammer on everything in sight. ). iPad project reportedly started before the iPhone did and yet the iPhone shipped first. Your assertion is that nobody on the iPad project knew the device was substantially underpowered but Steve. the only one with vision to see it? Probably not with any remotely competent team tasked with the job.
Blackberry already had a very successful Smartphone business with an Arm driven SoC. So it wasn't visionary at all to select an Arm solution for iPhone. Extremely unlikely that everyone else inside of Apple was cheerleading for a non Arm solution it is was solely Jobs who bravely choose the Arm path all by himself. In fact, the iPhone started off with a almost purely Samsung SoC.
The iPad didn't ship until Apple got to the A4 processor. If the iPad had been a problematic product then the transition to the Mac would have been greatly delayed. Yes Apple bought PA Semi in 2009 , but buying talent with money doesn't make you a 'visionary'. ( no more than VC's are not visionaries for the companies they invest in.)
Jobs have some impact on the path, but the completely solitary originator of the idea? Not.
P.S.
*** can hand wave that PowerPC was an effective substitute for Motorola 88000 , but more so the option Motorola chose to contribute to instead (PowerPC help to finish killing off the 88000) .
Last edited:
The ironic thing is that Steve Jobs was famously not a technologist himself. In fact, for a design-led company like Apple, technology is the enemy. Yet everyone here is celebrating him like he will be the second coming of Steve Jobs or something. 😆