John Ternus Again Profiled as Apple's Likely Next CEO

[AndiG]

But Cook does have the advantage of holding an MBA from one of the best universities in the US. Education counts.

Is an MBA really the decisive factor here? Jobs dropped out of college entirely, yet built Apple into the most valuable company in the world.

Jobs was a visionary product guy who famously clashed with Cook's sales-driven approach. As Jobs himself said: when sales and marketing people run companies, "the product people get run out of the decision-making forums. The companies forget how to make great products." Cook's excellence lies in supply chain management - he's arguably one of the best operations executives ever - but that's not the same as leading a company whose DNA is radical product innovation.

Here's the tragedy: Tim Cook is repeating the exact mistakes Jobs diagnosed when he returned to save Apple in 1997. Back then, Jobs blamed Apple for chasing fat profit margins instead of making great products and competing for market share. That pursuit of short-term profits over product excellence nearly killed the company - market share collapsed from 22% to 4%. Jobs fixed it by ruthlessly simplifying the product line and refocusing on making the best things, not the most profitable things.

Jobs wanted the iPhone to be as simple as possible. He wanted customers to walk into an Apple Store and buy "the iPhone" - not choose between a dozen variants with different features and capacities. When you bought one, you knew you owned the best.

His approach was ruthless focus: perfect the 80% of functionality that matters, make it simple and rock-solid, and scrap the rest. Look at the iPhone today - packed with features, increasingly bloated, and buggier than ever. Why? Because Tim and the marketing department need something new to announce every year, even when there's nothing meaningful to add. History rhymes.

 

[citysnaps]

Is an MBA really the decisive factor here? Jobs dropped out of college entirely, yet built Apple into the most valuable company in the world.

Jobs was a visionary product guy who famously clashed with Cook's sales-driven approach. As Jobs himself said: when sales and marketing people run companies, "the product people get run out of the decision-making forums. The companies forget how to make great products." Cook's excellence lies in supply chain management - he's arguably one of the best operations executives ever - but that's not the same as leading a company whose DNA is radical product innovation.

Here's the tragedy: Tim Cook is repeating the exact mistakes Jobs diagnosed when he returned to save Apple in 1997. Back then, Jobs blamed Apple for chasing fat profit margins instead of making great products and competing for market share. That pursuit of short-term profits over product excellence nearly killed the company - market share collapsed from 22% to 4%. Jobs fixed it by ruthlessly simplifying the product line and refocusing on making the best things, not the most profitable things.

Jobs wanted the iPhone to be as simple as possible. He wanted customers to walk into an Apple Store and buy "the iPhone" - not choose between a dozen variants with different features and capacities. When you bought one, you knew you owned the best.

His approach was ruthless focus: perfect the 80% of functionality that matters, make it simple and rock-solid, and scrap the rest. Look at the iPhone today - packed with features, increasingly bloated, and buggier than ever. Why? Because Tim and the marketing department need something new to announce every year, even when there's nothing meaningful to add. History rhymes.

The tragedy? With Apple now having 1+ Billion active/repeat/happy customers, propelling Apple to becoming one of the most successful consumer tech companies in the world?

Those 1+ Billion happy/repeat customers are the final arbiters of Apple's success. Not tech forum pundits.

 

[AndiG]

The tragedy? With Apple now having 1+ Billion active/repeat/happy customers, propelling Apple to becoming one of the most successful consumer tech companies in the world?

Those 1+ Billion happy/repeat customers are the final arbiters of Apple's success. Not tech forum pundits.

Without products, even those huge amount of customers will vanish quicker than you can imagine.
You see what happens with the crappy iOS26 right now - no one wants to install it.And for the Ai stuff Apple needs Google - otherwise ton of customers will jump. ship.

DMA and other regulations are killing Apples business models which relies to 100% on the iPhone and the AppStore which is a huge risk. So even if you believe that everything is just fine - it is not.

 

[I7guy]

Maybe, but Cook just does what they do, and does not innovate. For example Jobs reimagined the phone, Cook just tries to copy. Cook has not reimagined anything. So there is a difference and I probably could have said it better.

BTW, I have the term reimagined, but could not come up with anything else to express myself.

You’re right. Other than AW, AirPods, apple silicon, ATV, Apple Pay, Apple Music etc. Tim Cook remade apple. But yeah no innovations under Tim.

 

[sleeptodream]

That quote is so useless, it makes it sound like my Mom is qualified to run Apple. All things being equal, sure, 'niceness' or 'hang-out-ability' are valuable traits. But they aren't in the top 15 of the list of qualifications of the job.

What is happening to journalism? Is there anything left that's immune to this "******tification" trend?

The quote was a criticism which agrees with your sentiment, read it to the end

 

[I7guy]

Without products, even those huge amount of customers will vanish quicker than you can imagine.

There is no vanishing as @citysnaps said nobody vanished. In fact quite the opposite.

You see what happens with the crappy iOS26 right now - no one wants to install it.And for the Ai stuff Apple needs Google - otherwise ton of customers will jump. ship.

Nobody jumped ship and those are unofficial numbers validated by forum critics.

DMA and other regulations are killing Apples business models which relies to 100% on the iPhone and the AppStore which is a huge risk.

Killing isn’t the correct word. Modifying is a better word.

So even if you believe that everything is just fine - it is not.

Nothing is perfect. It’s not fine nor is it terrible.

 

[rappr]

His approach was ruthless focus: perfect the 80% of functionality that matters, make it simple and rock-solid, and scrap the rest.

If that were true, Jobs never would have expanded the Mac beyond the four quadrant approach people love to bring up every so often.

I mean, why did he introduce the MacBook Air when the MacBook and MacBook Pro already existed?

 

[citysnaps]

Without products, even those huge amount of customers will vanish quicker than you can imagine.
You see what happens with the crappy iOS26 right now - no one wants to install it.And for the Ai stuff Apple needs Google - otherwise ton of customers will jump. ship.

DMA and other regulations are killing Apples business models which relies to 100% on the iPhone and the AppStore which is a huge risk. So even if you believe that everything is just fine - it is not.

I wonder if Cook knows customers will vanish should Apple not have products to sell their 1+ Billion active customers? Please write a letter to Tim Cook and advise him about that possibility.

As an aside...iOS 26 and iPadOS 26 work great on my iPhone and iPads.

 

[Dark_Omen]

You’re right. Other than AW, AirPods, apple silicon, ATV, Apple Pay, Apple Music etc. Tim Cook remade apple. But yeah no innovations under Tim.

Let's be honest here.

iOS and Mac OS are in need of a total re-build from the ground up.

Apple should have another team working on a ground-up rebuild of both alongside the team that works on yearly updates.

-The ridiculous number of bugs doesn't meet Apple's standards of quality.
-The liquid glass design is horrible.
-The inconsistencies in UX are horrible.
-Siri and its entire back end are horrible. Integration with ChatGPT has been done poorly.
-The built in iWork apps need an entire re-design.
-The mail app needs a refresh with better features that make it stand out.

The software team needs to do better.

 

[Admiral]

First thing I would do is move away from physical products and move toward services.

I would make it a LGBTQIA+, environmentalist, and human rights advocacy company.

I thought Apple already WAS those things! More?! Egad.

 

[Abazigal]

We will see.

I have my doubts that any new CEO at Apple will be able to effect much change right away given the scale at which the company operates at, and the need to deliver on quarterly earning targets. There is no doubt that Apple is running like an extremely efficient and well-oiled machine right now, with perhaps some kinks along the way.

Some low-hanging fruit:

1) John Ternus has an excellent opportunity to wipe away a lot of the bad blood between Apple and the EU with regards to the DMA. He may not want to, and the changes he would be required to institute may not be in the best interests of the company, but if he wanted to improve Apple's reputation right away, this would be the most obvious choice. Complying with the DMA is also a drain on Apple's time and resources, and maybe there comes a point when the opportunity cost is simply no longer worth it.

I am personally still not a fan of the DMA, and wish that Apple would push back more, but I am not running a 4-trillion company either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2) Repair developer relations. I am still of the opinion that a lot of the drama we are seeing is the work of a small number of very vocal developers (eg: Tim Sweeney, DHH, Spotify), but platforms like the Apple Watch, Vision Pro and apple tv are sorely lacking apps. Easing terms and backing off on the whole "Apple made you, so you owe us" mentality could go a long way towards making developers more amenable to supporting all the other non-iphone platforms.

3) I do suspect that Tim Cook will still continue to stay around, probably to handle any political drama that comes at Apple's way. This frees John Ternus up to focus on solely running the company.

Some grand gestures that signal the sort of Apple he would like to run.

 

[Velli]

Then please tell me what is Cook's high tech strategy? Because I just don't see one.

To supply a high quality experience to a large amount of people when using tech products.

Under Cook, Apple never starts something unless someone else (for example, Google) has already done it.

Which products did Jobs release that wasn’t a version of something that already existed?

He failed to revolutionize TV, he failed at the car, he failed at VR, he is failing at AI, he failed at speakers, etc.

So please enlighten me!

Do you need me to list the amount of times Jobs failed at something? Including TV and speakers?

You’re not wrong, but it doesn’t inherently make Cook a failure that “needs” to be fired.

 

[Velli]

yes, he has a degree in industrial engineering

John Ternus has a major in mechanical engineering. I don’t see the problem.

 

[Velli]

Under John Ternus, Apple has for instance showed a renewed interest in listening to their Mac customers, which people seem to forget. They brought back MagSafe, HDMI etc in the MacBook Pro. Hardware in general, which is Ternus’ current responsibility, is killing it, especially compared to software. There’s no reason to think he can’t bring some of that leadership to software, improving it’s performance, just because he is not a “software guy”. My guess is he will bring a more customer centric approach to software.

 

[AndiG]

If that were true, Jobs never would have expanded the Mac beyond the four quadrant approach people love to bring up every so often.

I mean, why did he introduce the MacBook Air when the MacBook and MacBook Pro already existed?

You are ignoring history - when Jobs returned ro Apple he scrapped 70% of the products - there is nothing to discuss about.
“Instead of reducing everything equally, he eliminated 70% of Apple’s product line and focused all resources on the remaining 30%.”

There is the famous 2x2 product line Jobs created
https://unwrittenbusinessguide.com/how-a-simple-2x2-matrix-saved-the/

And it is not only me claiming that Apple completely lost track:
"Apple's Product Line Is a Mess"
https://medium.com/s/story/apples-product-line-is-a-mess-5a9a5730cafa

Basic Apple Guy - 2025 Product Tier List https://basicappleguy.com/basicappleblog/appleproducttierlist2025 Apple managed to make things confusing when it unexpectedly updated the Mac Studio with its most powerful chips. Is the M4 Max more powerful, or is it the M3 Ultra? The answer is… it depends.

And I could cite dozens articles more. What Tim has been doing is to sell Jobs products and he created a mess of different product versions to maximize profit.

-

What Jobs described more than 30 years ago is the exact situation Apple is facing right now - with the difference that the iPhone generated an insane amount of money. But no one at Apple today has a clue how to make the next product.
They are faking AI functionality no one at Apple has ever seen and later they have to admit that it never existed. Their software departments are a complete mess. Different people working on the same AI functionality - but no one succeeds.

Does really no one of the fanboys understand what was Jobs was talking about?

 

[chucker23n1]

You are ignoring history - when Jobs returned ro Apple he scrapped 70% of the products - there is nothing to discuss about.
“Instead of reducing everything equally, he eliminated 70% of Apple’s product line and focused all resources on the remaining 30%.”

There is the famous 2x2 product line Jobs created
https://unwrittenbusinessguide.com/how-a-simple-2x2-matrix-saved-the/

You're confusing "what did Steve think was the right measure when Apple had 1) a financial problem and 2) a brand recognition problem" with "what did Steve do later on when both were solved".

Steve showed that matrix in 1997, and the context of that is this slide:

So he was really addressing two problems at once:

• there were too many too-similar Macs
• there were other Apple product lines and projects that hadn't really caught on and were a distraction for the company

This was in 1997. Just four years later, he broke that 2x2 matrix:

• he introduced the Cube. Now, there were three different desktops, not two.
• he introduced the iPod.

By the time he died, there was also the iPhone, and the iPad.

So no, your simplistic "Steve would never" take doesn't apply.

 

[MacBH928]

Ternus is great but this does give me pause. I'd also argue that the future of apple is in software and services. So I think Federighi is a better choice.

if you haven't noticed, apple software is going downhill

 

[AndiG]

You're confusing "what did Steve think was the right measure when Apple had 1) a financial problem and 2) a brand recognition problem" with "what did Steve do later on when both were solved".

Steve showed that matrix in 1997, and the context of that is this slide:

View attachment 2594653

So he was really addressing two problems at once:

• there were too many too-similar Macs
• there were other Apple product lines and projects that hadn't really caught on and were a distraction for the company

This was in 1997. Just four years later, he broke that 2x2 matrix:

• he introduced the Cube. Now, there were three different desktops, not two.
• he introduced the iPod.

By the time he died, there was also the iPhone, and the iPad.

So no, your simplistic "Steve would never" take doesn't apply.

Exactly - but how is your “there were too many too-similar Macs” different to the situation today? Nearly dozens of Macs. Macbook, Macbook Pro, Macbook Air with - M2 M3 M4 M5??? A Mac Mini, a Mac Studio and a soon to be discontinued Mac Pro - of course with different CPU/GPU offering?

The idea at Apple was to „get a Mac“ and your good to go. Using this scenario today would reduce to a Macbook/Macbook Pro and eventually an Air (whereas the Macbook has a Fan and the Air doesn‘t).

Same is true for the iPhone and iPod lineup - it is a mess.

Today you cannot go into an AppStore and buy „an iPhone“ - but this is the consumer experience Jobs wanted to achieve.

Same is true for the UI. I remember a WWDC class about UI design and they showed the cockpit of an airplane with a single red button „Fly“. Today, since the iPhone is the same every year, we‘re experience feature bombing. Features most of the people don‘t know about and only a small percentage is using.

While Google integrated AI into the Core of the OS and has an Apple like „circle to search“ functionality - the iPhone has to make a screenshot and then enters the UI hell with a huge amount of buttons, trying to find a functionality he wasn‘t even aware of.

But you‘re right "Steve would never" doesn‘t always apply. But Tim is following the classic approach of maximizing profit. This includes creating a ton of different product versions in different price ranges.

 

[rappr]

Exactly - but how is your “there were too many too-similar Macs” different to the situation today? Nearly dozens of Macs. Macbook, Macbook Pro, Macbook Air with - M2 M3 M4 M5??? A Mac Mini, a Mac Studio and a soon to be discontinued Mac Pro - of course with different CPU/GPU offering?

The idea at Apple was to „get a Mac“ and your good to go. Using this scenario today would reduce to a Macbook/Macbook Pro and eventually an Air (whereas the Macbook has a Fan and the Air doesn‘t).

Same is true for the iPhone and iPod lineup - it is a mess.

Today you cannot go into an AppStore and buy „an iPhone“ - but this is the consumer experience Jobs wanted to achieve.

Same is true for the UI. I remember a WWDC class about UI design and they showed the cockpit of an airplane with a single red button „Fly“. Today, since the iPhone is the same every year, we‘re experience feature bombing. Features most of the people don‘t know about and only a small percentage is using.

While Google integrated AI into the Core of the OS and has an Apple like „circle to search“ functionality - the iPhone has to make a screenshot and then enters the UI hell with a huge amount of buttons, trying to find a functionality he wasn‘t even aware of.

But you‘re right "Steve would never" doesn‘t always apply. But Tim is following the classic approach of maximizing profit. This includes creating a ton of different product versions in different price ranges.

I’d argue the best thing about the Tim Cook era is he brought more choice to Apple’s product lines. I know some hardcore fans think that choice is a bad thing, but the iPhone and iOS would simply not be competitive today if there were a single iPhone . One size generally does not fit all.

Apple has a responsibility to developers to keep growing the market for their apps. That includes making models to serve the low end like the 16e, and models for the high end like the Pro Max and the forthcoming iPhone Fold. And of course, models for those of us that don’t live on our phones 24/7 like the Air and regular iPhone.

 

[chucker23n1]

Exactly - but how is your “there were too many too-similar Macs” different to the situation today?

It's quite different. Apple has much more brand recognition now, and has the bandwidth — financially, and in headcount — to do more projects.

And it's much easier to explain what Mac to get. Probably the MacBook Air. If you want something higher-end, the MacBook Pro. There's possibly one desktop too many.

But that's nothing compared to the 1997 situation. Do you want the 6220CD? Or the 7210? How about the 4400? We also have the 20th Anniversary Mac for some reason! Oh, this store doesn't carry the 6220CD, but rather the 6210CD with different specs. Why? Screw you is why! How do you decide? Who knows!

Same is true for the iPhone and iPod lineup - it is a mess.

…it really isn't.

Today you cannot go into an AppStore and buy „an iPhone“

Yes you can? You get the 17. If you want to save some money, the 16E. If you want something fancier, the Pro or the Air. It's not that hard.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

John Ternus has a major in mechanical engineering. I don’t see the problem.

I’m arguing in favor of engineering degrees here so I don’t get your post

 

[citysnaps]

But you‘re right "Steve would never" doesn‘t always apply. But Tim is following the classic approach of maximizing profit. This includes creating a ton of different product versions in different price ranges.

Tim is giving Apple customers what they want. As evidenced by Apple's 1+ Billion active/repeat/happy customers who continue to purchase Apple products year after year. And propelling Apple to being one of the most successful consumer tech companies in the world. Profits come along for the ride.

And, as always, happy (and most importantly repeat) customers, are the final arbiters of a company's success. Not tech forum pundits.

 

[AndiG]

And it's much easier to explain what Mac to get. Probably the MacBook Air. If you want something higher-end, the MacBook Pro. There's possibly one desktop too many.

But that's nothing compared to the 1997 situation. Do you want the 6220CD? Or the 7210? How about the 4400? We also have the 20th Anniversary Mac for some reason! Oh, this store doesn't carry the 6220CD, but rather the 6210CD with different specs. Why? Screw you is why! How do you decide? Who knows!



…it really isn't.



Yes you can? You get the 17. If you want to save some money, the 16E. If you want something fancier, the Pro or the Air. It's not that hard.

It is quite funny ….

So you want to buy a Mac. A Macbook or an Macbook Air? Whats the difference? Well one has a fan, the other one doesn‘t (don‘t know if this is still true for the latest models). So the Macbook can run full power while Air has to throttle a little bit earlier. Oh and of course there is a price difference for two diferent vomputers withe same hardware.

Macbook pro has more ports - story told. But is M3 faster than M4 - wenn not really. The M3 Max can be faster than M4 pro - in the end this depends on the applications you want to run. And the decision is to be made once and for all since there is no upgrade path.

A pain for the everyday user (90% of the users want a Mac and not an Mx).

But long story short, you don‘t understand the simplicity of Apple products during the Jobs era - or you do understand but like the same product in 100 flavors.

 

[rappr]

So you want to buy a Mac. A Macbook or an Macbook Air? Whats the difference? Well one has a fan, the other one doesn‘t

For most of its existence, the MacBook Air had a fan. So the difference was really do you want a thinner, more expensive MacBook, or just a MacBook? Both were consumer level machines.

 

[AndiG]

Tim is giving Apple customers what they want. As evidenced by Apple's 1+ Billion active/repeat/happy customers who continue to purchase Apple products year after year. And propelling Apple to being one of the most successful consumer tech companies in the world. Profits come along for the ride.

And, as always, happy (and most importantly repeat) customers, are the final arbiters of a company's success. Not tech forum pundits.

Nearly no customers was happy with butterfly keyboards and touchbar. No one likes the removal of the Esc key. A huge part of the users would love to have a touchscreen or cellular connectivity.

All users would love to see an AW with 10 days of battery.

So - Tim is giving customers what they want? Not really …

Lots of users are trapped into Apples ecosystem, Windows is not really an option. Developers love Linux, but the ui wasn‘t in the state it is now - and a ton of applications are still missing.

For most of its existence, the MacBook Air had a fan. So the difference was really do you want a thinner, more expensive MacBook, or just a MacBook? Both were consumer level machines.

congrats - you did read my text 😅