New Profile on Apple CEO Tim Cook Details Influence on Product Development, iWatch Plans

[pika2000]

It is obvious that Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs, but that's why Cook delegates things to those that may be in a better position to do some things that Jobs might have done. At the same time, it is clear that Apple is less restrictive than ever. Just look how often do you see iPhones and iPads on sale for less than the suggested Apple's prices around all the retailers. With Jobs, that would not happen.

One thing I'm afraid with Cook is his inability to say no on certain things, and to pay attention to certain details. On the larger scheme, imo Apple is still consistent, but there are details that are obvious. Eg. the case of the iPhone 5c, with the holes on the back, obstructing the Apple and iPhone logo. That is one of those details that just seems like an oversight Jobs would not have done.

And picking high-profiled people in marketing/administrative may not be wisest either. I rather see Apple picking up high-profiled software/hardware designers/engineers to bolster down their competency. Many of the previous execs are doing double duties now. I mean Ive is doing quite a lot now. What would Apple do if he decided to go out/retire? No amount of marketing/management people from high-end companies can replace that.

 

[Poisonivy326]

Ok I might as well be the first one to bring this into the convo: this is 2014. Why is the NYTimes article acting like this is the 1950's? It's pretty clear Tim Cook is gay. He's never denied it. Why does an in-depth article dance around this subject?

 

[wizard]

IMHO iWatch ( alone with Apple TV ) are now waaaay to long in development

What sort of experience do you have to come to this conclusion? I'm willing to bet none. More so do you know how long it has been in development?

 

[paradox00]

I back up my point with facts. Whereas this type of quote never answers the topics, only pleas, ignorance and bias...

If you're going to call someone out at least back it up. Else it's just hot air.

What facts? "There are thousands and thousands of Tim Cooks out there" was the most ignorant and false statement in this thread. #1 reason why the iPad was successful? Its price (which was half of what industry watchers expected). Guess who's supply chain management led to that?

Cook is no Jobs, but Jobs was no Cook either. Tim Cook could never start Apple, but he can certainly manage it with the talented team he has behind him, possibly better than Jobs. Your "Jobs would still be CEO if he were alive" quip is pointless. He'd be CEO out of respect, not necessarily current qualifications. Apple would be his to guide until he quit or Apple absolutely tanked, even if someone else could have done a better job.

I think people like you believe that complimenting Cook is disrespecting Jobs, but I can't think of anything more disrespectful than making ignorant and disrespectful comments toward the man Jobs personally selected and groomed as his replacement over many years. Jobs last important Apple related decision was his recommendation for the new CEO, and his most important creation was not a singular product, but rather Apple itself.

As an aside: If iOS7 is more "mainstream" with its layered (not just flat) design than iOS 6 with its skeuomorphic design, I'm okay with that because it's better.

 

[wizard]

I still prefer the new more open approach though. Things like extensiens and apps speaking to each other would probably not have happened under Jobs.

Apple has been laying the ground work for these features for some time now. IOS is rather innovative in this respect as they have implemented strong systems to keep the platform secure while giving apps more communicative capabilities.

The problem with innovation is that people honk it happens overnight. Those that actually innovate know that that seldom happens and even if it does it takes forever to get a shipping product. If you don't believe me you can find plenty of web sites already that go into the development of Swift.

As sad as it is, Apple had to follow Google and M$ to a certain extent, because Job's approach on the totally closed system would have backfired in the longer run.

You really don't understand what has been going on with iOS over the years! It was evolving under Jobs and has continued to evolve under Cook. Remember it took Apple years to get a truly stable SDK and it has been moving forward ever sense.

 

[paradox00]

Ok I might as well be the first one to bring this into the convo: this is 2014. Why is the NYTimes article acting like this is the 1950's? It's pretty clear Tim Cook is gay. He's never denied it. Why does an in-depth article dance around this subject?

Because it's not related to him managing Apple? I don't see people bending over backwards to say someone is heterosexual, so why should they have to say it for homosexual? True acceptance doesn't involve placing a person's sexuality on a pedestal.

 

[wizard]

On doing what's right...

'one shareholder — who later described himself as having free-market values — asked Mr. Cook whether Apple should avoid embracing environmental causes that lacked a clear profit motive.'

Ahh suits and shareholders. Profit and Greed or gtfo.

There is a significant difference between doing good for the environment and making trashy grabs for the Eco nuts out there. The use of solar electric is one example of supreme stupidity if you ask me. The impact on land use is just terrible and can be seen in the way Apple has wasted huge swaths of land around its data centers. Beyond that solar electric is so inefficient that there is little net positive impact on the environment.

A company should be responsible for its imprint on the world, no matter the size, sustainability counts. Keep going Tim. Great work.

Sure, few would argue with that. Pollution is a problem even with heavy regulation and it would be nice to see companies do more or be more responsible. The problem is we have companies like Apple go off and pursue half baked solutions like solar electric. In the end there simply isn't enough land space on the planet to support solar electric systems; run the economy, give people space to live and support Wild America

 

[IJ Reilly]

This otherwise good article missed one, fairly significant point. All the talk about Apple having some kind of a mission under Cook beyond simply making money is out of context. Apple under Steve was all about moving the humanity needle, or "making a dent in the universe" as he put it. Everything Cook has said and done as CEO tells us that he's a PhD graduate of the University of Steve. The culture of Apple under Tim Cook has hardly changed at all -- not that the critics of Cook will ever believe it.

 

[wizard]

You mean apart from nature and mother Earth? You know, that thing underneath your feet!!! THAT is an incredibly obnoxious and ignorant post and veiwpoint.

it is no more ignorant than some of the posts we see from environmentalist on these forums that have no idea what they are talking about! If you are worried about the land under your feet (you should be), then you can't rationally support Apple and other adopters of these massive solar electric farms. Fundamentally they do more harm than good.

When man, yes MAN, seems hell bent killing off species and the planet, it's nice when big corporations put some cloat into taking responsibility for their roles and invest in new ways to reduce their impact on the planet.

That is my whole point with this bit of focalization against solar farms, the impact on land use is far worst than any good they do. This is especially sad in Apples case because their data centers them sleeves cover a lot of land area which would provide for plenty of space for solar collection. Nope, this isn't Apples way, instead the bulldoze many acres of land for a very questionable power source! There are many perspectives in the world, not everybody buys into the idea that Apple always does good environmentally. They do good at pleasing the likes of Green Peace but they aren't exactly the most ethical and rational of organizations.

 

[tdream]

No not really. You're just pontificating. By spewing your own clearly unobjective idealised views based on your cult hero which, sidenote, he's dead...been dead for 3yrs. How people haven't made their peace with this i don't know.

Apple has gone mainstream? If you don't evolve with the times as a company you will either stumble or die out. Don't believe me? ask RIM, Nokia, Palm etc. I'm reminded of people crying about the fact that Apple switched to Intel processors, seeing it as a 'mainstream' move and 'selling out'. Yet it is because of that decision to move to x86 that the Mac line continues to thrive today.

Jobs famously was against bringing iTunes and the store to Windows. iTunes for Windows is the reason Apple sold so many iPods and sells so many iDevices to-date. Jobs also was against a mini tablet, yet the mini is one of the reasons Apple rakes in billions today. Jobs didn't get everything right. *gasp* shocking i know.

Then you say Tim Cook copied Jobs's style which i just found comical. We're now down to clothes? really? But let me humour you. Lets ignore the fact that the casual style is a general culture at Apple thats not down to just two men. Last i checked Jobs largely wore crew/turtleneck sweaters, jeans and sneakers. Cook has worn shirts, blazers and even suits. But i suppose both wear glasses so Cook must've copied that.

Lets also not forget that Jobs picked Cook personally to succeed him. And if Jobs is as legendary as you claim then he surely wouldn't have made such a decision lightly.

Steve Jobs also touted the so-called checklists you're talking about. Every presentation talked about how green their stuff were. Oh and surprise surprise Jobs was also charitable albeit privately.

So you actually haven't refuted the main points. Oh and thanks for labelling me so quickly, the subtle jibes and insults. I'm glad objectivity lies in whatever the opposing argument is and it happens to be yours. I'm glad truth bearers are always correct and never wrong like you. We the people appreciate your help in reaching the correct conclusion....

Apple going mainstream and Apple evolving. Pure semantics. The interface was getting stale, everyone knows this, and where did Apple look for inspiration, everywhere else. It doesn't change the fact that Apple were tagging along to the new flat schema. Call it whatever you want. Apple fanatics are so harsh when any other company copies Apple but when Apple do it, it's called 'evolving'. Yeah right, give me a break. Someone else brought up the point and I agreed with it, but a lot of people here can't accept that. Objectivity indeed.

The comparison of Jobs vs Cook is still valid, but you haven't actually refuted my previous point either. Jobs would still be in charge if alive and Mr Cook would be supply manager. No question about that is there?

I'm not sure you can read correctly when fuming. Cool down first. I said he copied his style. It would be a bit too obvious if he was wearing exactly the same clothes.

The culture at Apple? Guess who created the culture and thinking at Apple?

The emphasis and promotion of the charitable activities is obviously a double edged marketing sword. Look how great we are. More cost effective publicity. Jobs did it the right way, in private. Don't toot your own horn about how 'good' you are.

... pontificating, spewing, unobjective idealised views, Cult hero, I think not, but thanks for the slandering though. Let's the rest of us know what kind of person you are.

----------

What facts? "There are thousands and thousands of Tim Cooks out there" was the most ignorant and false statement in this thread. #1 reason why the iPad was successful? Its price (which was half of what industry watchers expected). Guess who's supply chain management led to that?

Cook is no Jobs, but Jobs was no Cook either. Tim Cook could never start Apple, but he can certainly manage it with the talented team he has behind him, possibly better than Jobs. Your "Jobs would still be CEO if he were alive" quip is pointless. He'd be CEO out of respect, not necessarily current qualifications. Apple would be his to guide until he quit or Apple absolutely tanked, even if someone else could have done a better job.

I think people like you believe that complimenting Cook is disrespecting Jobs, but I can't think of anything more disrespectful than making ignorant and disrespectful comments toward the man Jobs personally selected and groomed as his replacement over many years. Jobs last important Apple related decision was his recommendation for the new CEO, and his most important creation was not a singular product, but rather Apple itself.

As an aside: If iOS7 is more "mainstream" with its layered (not just flat) design than iOS 6 with its skeuomorphic design, I'm okay with that because it's better.

Sounds a lot like the predominant thinking the last time Apple tanked.

I'm sorry to reiterate they are thousands of Tim Cooks out there. The size and position and future planning laid in place for Apple, almost anyone could have taken the job and Apple would still break those selling records, because of the existing momentum.

 

[apolloa]

it is no more ignorant than some of the posts we see from environmentalist on these forums that have no idea what they are talking about! If you are worried about the land under your feet (you should be), then you can't rationally support Apple and other adopters of these massive solar electric farms. Fundamentally they do more harm than good.

I work for a major corporation, and it backs and promotes fully the WWF, and mass tree planting schemes, I think it's great, it gives great coverage on the species dying out etc. But I can see your point about some environmentalists being too extreme, personally I think it would be nice if they just put solar panels on the roof of every house, they don't need bright sunlight to work, just daylight. But then you get the people complaining about how it looks, and the collapse of energy markets etc.

That is my whole point with this bit of focalization against solar farms, the impact on land use is far worst than any good they do. This is especially sad in Apples case because their data centers them sleeves cover a lot of land area which would provide for plenty of space for solar collection. Nope, this isn't Apples way, instead the bulldoze many acres of land for a very questionable power source! There are many perspectives in the world, not everybody buys into the idea that Apple always does good environmentally. They do good at pleasing the likes of Green Peace but they aren't exactly the most ethical and rational of organizations.

I wasn't thinking about their solar power, but they do seem to invest in new technologies in manufacturing to reduce impact. They also do simple things like using metal and glass, Samsung don't really use metal, but because you use those materials they are really recyclable. So that's millions on millions of iPods and iPhones and iPads and Mac computers with cases and glass that can be recycled easily.
I think setting up solar panels is great if it reduces the carbon waste being pumped into the atmosphere from a power station, or the nuclear waste from a nuclear station.

 

[imageWIS]

If he's such a good influence WHERE is the new mac mini ?!?

----------

I work for a major corporation, and it backs and promotes fully the WWF, and mass tree planting schemes, I think it's great, it gives great coverage on the species dying out etc. But I can see your point about some environmentalists being too extreme, personally I think it would be nice if they just put solar panels on the roof every house, they don't need bright sunlight to work, just daylight. But then you get the people complaining about how it looks, and the collapse of energy markets etc.

So? People complained about the collapse of the horse-drawn carriage market when cars came about. The world adapts.

 

[Dj64Mk7]

Ok I might as well be the first one to bring this into the convo: this is 2014. Why is the NYTimes article acting like this is the 1950's? It's pretty clear Tim Cook is gay. He's never denied it. Why does an in-depth article dance around this subject?

So it can be politicly correct, and because it doesn't matter in this case. We are, after all, talking about the CEO of Apple, and not some wealthy prostitute.

 

[iPadCary]

It's pretty clear Tim Cook is gay.
He's never denied it.
Why does an in-depth article dance around this subject?

Hear, hear!
For all intent & purposes, our beloved Apple is the biggest company in the world.
For it's CEO to proudly claim he's a gay-American would be a bold step in the right direction.
Providing an inspiration for millions as an alternative to vapid show business "celebrities".

Of course, I'm not in Tim's head, so I have no idea why he hasn't done this already.
But he should.

 

[goobot]

I still prefer the new more open approach though. Things like extensiens and apps speaking to each other would probably not have happened under Jobs.

As sad as it is, Apple had to follow Google and M$ to a certain extent, because Job's approach on the totally closed system would have backfired in the longer run.

Yes they would have, just like how multitasking happened under jobs. The only iOS advancement that wouldn't have happened under jobs is iOS 7's look.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Cook knows that he is no Steve Jobs, thats why he is hiring creative talent. Knowing what you can't do is just as important as knowing what you are good at. In that regard he is doing a great job so far.

I wish that more executives and companies followed this philosophy. If you can't do it, hire someone who can. There is absolutely no shame in that at all. I find it quite commendable.

 

[Poisonivy326]

The NYTimes does some heavy wink-wink nod-nod stuff though which makes me wonder why they just don't flat out say what everyone already knows, and what the CEO himself has never denied. It doesn't have to be an "Today I am a gay American" speech. But I find this kind of dancing around the subject to be annoying journalism. It reminds me of when Clyde Tolson was referred to as J. Edgar Hoover's "companion" and "right-hand man" and men were "confirmed bachelors." As I said, this isn't the 1950's anymore.

Reflecting his personal views, Mr. Cook is trying to broaden Apple’s brand, too, taking to Twitter and other public venues to express support for environmentalism and gay rights (and for Auburn University football).

He wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal in support of proposed federal legislation protecting gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

And:

He often quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy but doesn’t much talk about the origin of his political views. The speech he gave last December, in which Mr. Cook mentioned the cross-burning, started to give some hints. “Since these early days,” he said, “I have seen, and I have experienced, many other types of discrimination.” All of those, he continued, “were rooted in a fear of people that were different than the majority.” Apple declined to say what he meant by the reference to discrimination he experienced, but it did confirm the details of the cross-burning story.

 

[goobot]

The NYTimes does some heavy wink-wink nod-nod stuff though which makes me wonder why they just don't flat out say what everyone already knows, and what the CEO himself has never denied. It doesn't have to be an "Today I am a gay American" speech. But I find this kind of dancing around the subject to be annoying journalism. It reminds me of when Clyde Tolson was referred to as J. Edgar Hoover's "companion" and "right-hand man" and men were "confirmed bachelors." As I said, this isn't the 1950's anymore.





And:

So because he surports things like gay rights that must mean he is gay?

 

[iPadCary]

So because he surports things like gay rights that must mean he is gay?

Tim's advocacy of LBGST rights isn't the "tell" of his being gay.
Why don't I let Tim say it: Tim Cook Speech. He's not talking about being left-handed ....
It's well known, but, annoyingly, skirted & tip-toed around in the mainstream media.

"Why is publicly stating your sexuality such a big deal?" one might ask.
99% of the time, it wouldn't be.
But it's what that statement, especially coming from Tim, represents that's the big deal.

Unfortunately, moreso unbelievably, there are those that actually think
that Tim's coming out would somehow damage Apple in some way.
To those dummies, I say this: go crawl back under your rock.

 

[Poisonivy326]

So because he surports things like gay rights that must mean he is gay?

Honey I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn if you think Tim Cook's sexuality is a mystery or a secret. This isn't like some closeted Washington "family values" politician being secretly gay. Cook's sexuality is well-known among the LBGT community, it's well-known in the tech world, it's well known period. That's why I find the NYTimes "in depth" profile annoying -- it dances gingerly around the topic but clearly wants to drop hints along the way.

And ITA that Tim Cook coming out would make a great statement for the LGBT community.

 

[iPadCary]

And ITA that Tim Cook coming out would make a great statement for the LGBT community.

My point entirely. +1000.

 

[goobot]

Honey I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn if you think Tim Cook's sexuality is a mystery or a secret. This isn't like some closeted Washington "family values" politician being secretly gay. Cook's sexuality is well-known among the LBGT community, it's well-known in the tech world, it's well known period. That's why I find the NYTimes "in depth" profile annoying -- it dances gingerly around the topic but clearly wants to drop hints along the way.

And ITA that Tim Cook coming out would make a great statement for the LGBT community.

Except all of the points you made in the post I quoted were only based off the fact he supports gay rights. A gay porno can come out with Tim in it and my post is still right.

 

[iPadCary]

A gay porno can come out with Tim in it and my post is still right.

Lemmee guess: Ronkonkoma, right?

 

[Mike MA]

Even under Steve's leadership there were times where we didn't see any introduction of a big "one more thing". Between 2001 (iPod) and 2007 (iPhone) we also saw a massive R&D period with no mayor introductions at all.

Tim still has a lot of time left, no matter what role he plays - and that's for sure not to be a replacement of Steve Jobs.

 

[Poisonivy326]

Except all of the points you made in the post I quoted were only based off the fact he supports gay rights. A gay porno can come out with Tim in it and my post is still right.

He said he was "discriminated against" when he was younger because he wasn't in the "majority." That's a pretty heavy hint.

As I said, you know all those lovely "It Gets Better" videos that so many people made, including Apple employees? I just think it would be wonderful if Tim Cook made an "it gets better" video. Of course it's his life and his choice, but the fact that news media still dances around this very-not-secret topic is annoying.