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

[IJ Reilly]

I read the article several times now and all I took away from it really was "Where are the hits Apple?!? Where is the shiny new object to wow us all?!?" And then of course some cheap shots at Cook like calling him Ringo and Jobs Lennon. And then just outright falsehoods like Steve wouldn't have announced new software without new hardware, when that's exactly what Apple did at WWDC 2011.

I do agree with you that Apple is essentially the same company as it was under Steve, though I would argue it's a better company now. Mostly because of the organizational changes Cook made to get rid of silos and fiefdoms and having executives work together rather than competing against each other.

Sorry, I don't see it. Aside from the rather silly Beatles analogy (and who really cares about that?), some quotes from a couple of naysayers, and a recapitulation of the last two years of flat earnings growth (which is true), the balance of the article follows on from the headline "Tim Cook, Making Apple His Own." We learn about his biography, his management style, and his philosophy, none of which seems remotely negative to me, and a lot of which most people probably did not know. In fact I think it should shut up the naysayers here, who comment every day about innovation being totally dead at Apple, and accusing Cook of being nothing more than "a bean counter." Not that it will. It just should.

All that being said, I agree Apple is probably a better-run company today under Tim Cook. It may take a little more time, and Cook does have to deliver a hit, but in the end I hope that the old shibboleth that Apple can only be run by a charismatic leader will finally be put to rest.

----------

i didn't read a negative article. Quite the opposite. It was complementary to cook imho, unjustifiably so, as i stated in my first post on this thread. The article contrasted the two ceo's styles, yes, but not to the effect "cook doesn't have a clue," but more to the jobs favorite tool was the hammer and cook prefers a mallet. As i read it it positioned cook as having to work under the thumb of job's legacy and winning at it. But maybe that's my own bias.

Also didn't really read anything as strong as "apple has lost its hit factory status." of course that would be something a non-thinking person might say on mr but lazy for actual nyt writers. It doesn't take much intellectual horsepower to calculate the time between the ipod:ipod w/ video:iphone:ipad when jobs was ceo. Each of those products were years apart and that is just the non-atv ios line. I'm no cook cheerleader and he's made many goofs, but he's only been ceo 2.5 years so saying apple's best years are behind is a bridge too far for anyone do suggest.

QFT. I agree completely.

 

[Pan321]

IMHO, comparing people is silly. Saying Jobs was "one of a kind" and then expecting someone else to be like him is even more silly. Apparently, Cook is aware of his strengths and weaknesses. He is certainly better than Jobs in analysing the market in an unbiased fashion. Recent hires and acquisitions, as mentioned in the article, is a try towards feeding the company's hunger for creativity. Time will tell how all of this will work out but for the time being, Cook is a really good successor.

I think you are missing the point. I certainly don't expect a Jobs clone. I'm simply observing that the very qualities that mad Jobs so unique and so successful are NOT the qualities that TC seems to have.

Cook seems to be making all the decisions that you'd expect from a conventional big corporate CEO. He's pandering to certain things for PR purposes (the environmental/charitable stuff) ... he's trying to hire hipness and creativity rather than leading and carving a unique path.

This new product cycle feels like it might be the first time in decades that personally I will have no desire to buy anything.

I really don't want to wear a watch that tells me my bpm ..... i sincerely hope they have something up their sleeves on that or it will be yawnsville.

Sorry guys ... just being honest. I am an apple fanboy going back 25 years and I really want them to succeed but Tim's pandering isn't giving me any confidence ... I'd feel much better if the rumor was that he's leaving ALL the deisgn up to Ive. Tim involved with any product decisions seems insane. The guy feels like a bean counter. Please keep him away from the innovation discussion. Yikes

 

[Poisonivy326]

Uh, guys, check out the AI meltdown over this article:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/18...file-tim-cook-after-getting-shut-out-by-apple

 

[Pan321]

Sorry, I don't see it. Aside from the rather silly Beatles analogy (and who really cares about that?), some quotes from a couple of naysayers, and a recapitulation of the last two years of flat earnings growth (which is true), the balance of the article follows on from the headline "Tim Cook, Making Apple His Own." We learn about his biography, his management style, and his philosophy, none of which seems remotely negative to me, and a lot of which most people probably did not know. In fact I think it should shut up the naysayers here, who comment every day about innovation being totally dead at Apple, and accusing Cook of being nothing more than "a bean counter." Not that it will. It just should.

All that being said, I agree Apple is probably a better-run company today under Tim Cook. It may take a little more time, and Cook does have to deliver a hit, but in the end I hope that the old shibboleth that Apple can only be run by a charismatic leader will finally be put to rest.

----------



QFT. I agree completely.

Hey IJ - I'm willing to let things play out ... it's not like I have a choice or anything And then we'll see. I'm hoping my stock doubles and triples after all.

But perhaps we can dispense with the hyperbole on both sides of the pro-cook/anti-cook argument?

When you say Apple appears to be a better run company now under Cook than under Jobs ... how is that possible exactly? Jobs took them from near bankruptcy to the largest and most successful company in the history of the world ... inventing half a dozen brand new product categories in the process. I don't think i exaggerate there do I? But you think Cook is already doing BETTER than Jobs ....


Cook's strength always seemed to be in managing the supply chain ... managing inventory ... squeezing profitability. That's awesome ... and you can make the case from that that he is uniquely positioned to consolidate what Jobs built ... maximize profitability and efficiency. But Jobs genius was in innovation, creativity and creating a culture. Cook has none of that and is trying to go out and buy it.

To me it all depends on your view of what Apple needs right now. It is consolidating what Jobs built and maximizing it? Or is it continuing to create new categories of products and services?

Cook will be awesome at the one. He will have to try and buy the other .... Hmmmmm

 

[StyxMaker]

I'm sure Samsung's laywers used this same argument to justify blatantly copying Apple - that was just "evolving with the times", right?



But it's ok. I don't expect people spewing clearly unobjective idealised views based on company fanboysm to understand it. Regardless, it's a pity that Apple has stopped innovation in favor of basic iteration (and actual downgrades in examples such as iOS design).



The funny thing is, Steve Jobs wouldn't have allowed it.

Everyone thinks they are 'objective' and everyone else is not. Everyone should stop pretending that they were such good personal friends of Steve Jobs that they know what he would, or would not do in every situation. I'd be willing to bet that Tim Cook knew Steve Jobs far better than anyone on this forum and, if he chooses to do things differently than Steve would have, it's because of his better understanding of business.

----------

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?

Why, in a discussion of his job running Apple, should it be mentioned at all? It is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Pan321]

Why, in a discussion of his job running Apple, should it be mentioned at all? It is entirely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

agreed ... i could care less about his sexual orientation.

Regarding this comment:

if he chooses to do things differently than Steve would have, it's because of his better understanding of business.


This assertion is coming out all over and I don't know what it's based on? Jobs built a company from nothing to the largest and most successful company in the history of the world. Tim Cook seems to have a great understanding and affinity for efficiency ... managing complex supply chains and inventory.

But on what planet can you make the assertion that he understands business better than Jobs? Based on what conceivable metric?

Cook is a nuts and bolts guy. Jobs was a visionary. Companies are often built by visionaries and then managed successfully ... Ford, IBM, etc etc.

Maybe Apple needs a nuts and bolts guy now to simply manage? Personally I think creativity is still critical in their business and I doubt they can simply go out and buy it to supplement Cook's lack of it. If they could ... then EVERY company would do the same.

I don't have answers (nor am I supposed to have them) ... you can't clone a genius ... I'm just cheering from the sidelines and hoping for the best.

But I'm not encouraged by these PR articles trying to build up Cook.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Hey IJ - I'm willing to let things play out ... it's not like I have a choice or anything And then we'll see. I'm hoping my stock doubles and triples after all.

But perhaps we can dispense with the hyperbole on both sides of the pro-cook/anti-cook argument?

When you say Apple appears to be a better run company now under Cook than under Jobs ... how is that possible exactly? Jobs took them from near bankruptcy to the largest and most successful company in the history of the world ... inventing half a dozen brand new product categories in the process. I don't think i exaggerate there do I? But you think Cook is already doing BETTER than Jobs ....


Cook's strength always seemed to be in managing the supply chain ... managing inventory ... squeezing profitability. That's awesome ... and you can make the case from that that he is uniquely positioned to consolidate what Jobs built ... maximize profitability and efficiency. But Jobs genius was in innovation, creativity and creating a culture. Cook has none of that and is trying to go out and buy it.

To me it all depends on your view of what Apple needs right now. It is consolidating what Jobs built and maximizing it? Or is it continuing to create new categories of products and services?

Cook will be awesome at the one. He will have to try and buy the other .... Hmmmmm

Nobody questions that Steve Jobs transformed Apple like no company had ever been transformed before. This story is unique, one for the history books. But it is history now, in the past. The downside to the way Apple was transformed was the emergence of a conventional wisdom that Apple cannot remain successful without a charismatic leader. This, I think, is total hooey, if for no other reason than nobody argues that any other company needs a charismatic leader to succeed. It's a double-standard, and worse yet because it substitutes a cult of personality for competence. The larger Apple becomes, the more running it successfully is about competence and the less it is about personality.

The truth is, even Steve wasn't all about being the creativity. He was more about recruiting and relying upon a creative team. Give full credit to Steve for creating Apple's corporate culture. Give full credit to Tim Cook for keeping it intact, and for holding this huge ship on a steady course. It's a whole lot more difficult than it looks.

 

[AdonisSMU]

First of all, it's anecdote. Antidote is something you give someone to counteract the effects of a poisonous substance.

I never said Jobs was always right. I also think it needs to be said that most of Jobs' publicized criticism of smaller tablets came within about 6 months of the original iPad's release. I'm sure Jobs didn't want to kill the goose that was laying scores of golden eggs. Also, in late 2010, the other big manufacturers (Samsung, etc) were just getting their tablets off the ground themselves. The few competitors that had gone to market had sold little compared to iPad and had yet to make a profound impact on the tablet market as a whole (Jobs was rarely one to let the market dictate his approach to products anyway, and Apple did just fine under his reign).

My bottom line is this: Regardless of whether Jobs was wrong about the viability of a smaller tablet - and I think most would argue that he was - I think it's far more realistic to suggest that Apple's decision to create a smaller tablet was reactive, and not an innovative gambit for which we should praise Cook.

The other guy's point is valid. You have to respond to the market. You can't just sit back and ignore the market. MSFT ignored the market and look where that got them. By the time Apple did release a mini tablet it was almost too late. You only get a few chances to be truly innovative. Most of the time you are keeping up with the market. Tim Cook is responsible for the 64bit chip being released under his watch and the M7 and TouchID being released under his watch.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I think you are missing the point. I certainly don't expect a Jobs clone. I'm simply observing that the very qualities that mad Jobs so unique and so successful are NOT the qualities that TC seems to have.

Cook seems to be making all the decisions that you'd expect from a conventional big corporate CEO. He's pandering to certain things for PR purposes (the environmental/charitable stuff) ... he's trying to hire hipness and creativity rather than leading and carving a unique path.

This new product cycle feels like it might be the first time in decades that personally I will have no desire to buy anything.

I really don't want to wear a watch that tells me my bpm ..... i sincerely hope they have something up their sleeves on that or it will be yawnsville.

Sorry guys ... just being honest. I am an apple fanboy going back 25 years and I really want them to succeed but Tim's pandering isn't giving me any confidence ... I'd feel much better if the rumor was that he's leaving ALL the deisgn up to Ive. Tim involved with any product decisions seems insane. The guy feels like a bean counter. Please keep him away from the innovation discussion. Yikes

Really? LOL! Do you really think Jobs would put a bean counter in charge of Apple as CEO? You must not think very highly of Jobs ability to see talent and take Apple to its next level of innovation.

----------

Nobody questions that Steve Jobs transformed Apple like no company had ever been transformed before. This story is unique, one for the history books. But it is history now, in the past. The downside to the way Apple was transformed was the emergence of a conventional wisdom that Apple cannot remain successful without a charismatic leader. This, I think, is total hooey, if for no other reason than nobody argues that any other company needs a charismatic leader to succeed. It's a double-standard, and worse yet because it substitutes a cult of personality for competence. The larger Apple becomes, the more running it successfully is about competence and the less it is about personality.

The truth is, even Steve wasn't all about being the creativity. He was more about recruiting and relying upon a creative team. Give full credit to Steve for creating Apple's corporate culture. Give full credit to Tim Cook for keeping it intact, and for holding this huge ship on a steady course. It's a whole lot more difficult than it looks.

Steve Jobs was also responsible for Apple's downfall ie at least partially responsible for MSFT. No one ever tells that part of the story. I don't know why people give Steve Jobs tech god status. Also the best releases really only came after Steve had been back for quite awhile....and when the iPad came out Tim Cook had been running the company as Steve was in and out of work sick. They really only trotted Steve out to sell the product to the masses towards the end whilst Tim Cook ran the day to day activities.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Steve Jobs was also responsible for Apple's downfall ie at least partially responsible for MSFT. No one ever tells that part of the story. I don't know why people give Steve Jobs tech god status. Also the best releases really only came after Steve had been back for quite awhile....and when the iPad came out Tim Cook had been running the company as Steve was in and out of work sick. They really only trotted Steve out to sell the product to the masses towards the end whilst Tim Cook ran the day to day activities.

The pre-Pixar Steve was a different person. Even at NeXT, his manias were in control. So it's a little ironic that once he achieved rock star status at Apple, he suddenly could do no wrong (even when he did). Now that he's gone, he's achieved something closer to beatitude.

Still, the thing that galls me the most is the argument we hear so often that Apple can only be run by a charismatic leader. No other company needs this to succeed, just Apple. It's just a restatement of the old, tired argument that Apple is doomed, that somehow their entire existence is some sort of freak of nature, and it's only a matter of time before their luck runs out. Even if they don't know it, even Apple fans make this argument when they say things like "that would have never happened if Steve were still alive," or "I miss Steve."

 

[manu chao]

Journalists can't help themselves making things sound more spectacular. Microsoft employees donating more than 1 billion Dollar since 1983 comes down to more than 32 million per year. Apple's employees donating 50 million in two years, is 25 million per year. Of course, you'd have to factor in inflation which lifts Microsoft's number but you might also scale things with number of employees and company revenue.

 

[Rogifan]

Wow Kara Swisher is really bothered by the NY Times tiptoeing around Tim Cook being gay. As far I'm concerned if he choses to keep his personal life private that's his choice.

 

[thekev]

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.

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

He was obviously looking at short-term profits. People like to say things, yet to me that represents a shallow analysis. It doesn't account for the PR aspect of sales, recruiting talent, and internal employee relations. In that sense he's just viewing it as a line item rather than genuinely trying to determine whether such expenses add value.

The pre-Pixar Steve was a different person. Even at NeXT, his manias were in control. So it's a little ironic that once he achieved rock star status at Apple, he suddenly could do no wrong (even when he did). Now that he's gone, he's achieved something closer to beatitude.

Still, the thing that galls me the most is the argument we hear so often that Apple can only be run by a charismatic leader. No other company needs this to succeed, just Apple. It's just a restatement of the old, tired argument that Apple is doomed, that somehow their entire existence is some sort of freak of nature, and it's only a matter of time before their luck runs out. Even if they don't know it, even Apple fans make this argument when they say things like "that would have never happened if Steve were still alive," or "I miss Steve."

What interests me about Pixar is the level of the technical achievements that have come out of their R&D department.

 

[ErikGrim]

Uh, guys, check out the AI meltdown over this article:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/18...file-tim-cook-after-getting-shut-out-by-apple

Jim Dalrymple agrees:

Another Apple hit-piece from the New York Times, but without anything to really say. Tim Cook and Apple are coming off one of the most successful WWDCs in its history, but the Times has decided to make **** up because Tim wouldn’t give them an interview. Apple is fighting to change entire industries, while the New York Times fights for relevancy—Apple is doing the better job.​

 

[Pan321]

Really? LOL! Do you really think Jobs would put a bean counter in charge of Apple as CEO? You must not think very highly of Jobs ability to see talent and take Apple to its next level of innovation.

I think Jobs did the best he could do short of cloning himself. And I think there's something to be said for a fantastic manager that can consolidate what Jobs built. Perhaps that is all that can be done at the moment?

But so far Cook seems to be a rather conventional big company CEO. I'm willing to let the guy perform and see what happens (not that i have an option there).

But this NYT article is part of an Apple PR campaign to bolster Cook's image as something more than a bean counter. Clearly they think they have a problem ...

I fear the iwatch will turn out to be a watch that tells you your heart rate.

I hope I'm wrong and it's amazing.

 

[Shrink]

I hope I'm wrong and it's amazing.

Wait! I watched the WWDC and I was under the impression that everything Apple is amazing, magical, sensational, awesome and incredible.

You mean, there's some question about this?

 

[Pan321]

Nobody questions that Steve Jobs transformed Apple like no company had ever been transformed before. This story is unique, one for the history books. But it is history now, in the past. The downside to the way Apple was transformed was the emergence of a conventional wisdom that Apple cannot remain successful without a charismatic leader. This, I think, is total hooey, if for no other reason than nobody argues that any other company needs a charismatic leader to succeed. It's a double-standard, and worse yet because it substitutes a cult of personality for competence. The larger Apple becomes, the more running it successfully is about competence and the less it is about personality.

The truth is, even Steve wasn't all about being the creativity. He was more about recruiting and relying upon a creative team. Give full credit to Steve for creating Apple's corporate culture. Give full credit to Tim Cook for keeping it intact, and for holding this huge ship on a steady course. It's a whole lot more difficult than it looks.

The whole magic about relying on a creative team is picking the team in the first place LOL. Jobs plucked Jonny Ive out of a sea of millions of available creative people .. and dozens of other key folks over the years.

In regard to charisma .. i don't think that would make the top 5 attributes that counted in Jobs phenomenal success. In fact ... I'm not sure he was very charismatic? He gave great, meticulously rehearsed presentations but it was usually his products that had the charisma ...

He certainly had a presence ... but he was actually quite an odd character. Jobs had great ideas ... he was able to identify great ideas from others ... and he was brutally relentless in his pursuit of seeing them come to fruition in the way he wanted.

His genius was in refusing to allow those great ideas to get ground down and compromised and ruined in development.

Can anyone imagine Tim Cook pushing his people like Jobs did? I can't. I'm sure he's a much nicer person to work for though ... i just don't think that guy is going to fire anyone because they don't have an appreciation for type faces ...

 

[AdonisSMU]

The whole magic about relying on a creative team is picking the team in the first place LOL. Jobs plucked Jonny Ive out of a sea of millions of available creative people .. and dozens of other key folks over the years.

In regard to charisma .. i don't think that would make the top 5 attributes that counted in Jobs phenomenal success. In fact ... I'm not sure he was very charismatic? He gave great, meticulously rehearsed presentations but it was usually his products that had the charisma ...

He certainly had a presence ... but he was actually quite an odd character. Jobs had great ideas ... he was able to identify great ideas from others ... and he was brutally relentless in his pursuit of seeing them come to fruition in the way he wanted.

His genius was in refusing to allow those great ideas to get ground down and compromised and ruined in development.

Can anyone imagine Tim Cook pushing his people like Jobs did? I can't. I'm sure he's a much nicer person to work for though ... i just don't think that guy is going to fire anyone because they don't have an appreciation for type faces ...

That's the problem. We don't know what Tim is like behind the scenes. What we do know is that Steve was sick much of the time during the development of the iPads later versions of the iPhone. Tim also was the one who famously fired the guy responsible for the maps debacle. So I'd argue that he's very much in the vein in Steve Jobs. IMO he's a less charismatic SJ but more talented as it relates to technical execution and operations management. People think the CEO is doing it all. I'd argue that the CEO receives significant help from Operations particularly at a company like Apple. People think Steve just went around picking products. I'd argue that Tim was probably doing much of the stuff SJ was credited with having done post 2007. Moving to intel was probably a decision that Tim had a heavy hand in if for nothing else the ease of getting parts and software built for the mac at cheaper rates etc....

 

[IJ Reilly]

What interests me about Pixar is the level of the technical achievements that have come out of their R&D department.

I suppose. What interests me about Pixar is this is the time when Steve decided to trust the people he hired to be creative, and when he discovered that he could learn from others. It took being kicked out of Apple and the crushing defeat at NeXT to learn these lessons, but that was his preparation for returning to Apple in a successful leadership role.

----------

The whole magic about relying on a creative team is picking the team in the first place LOL. Jobs plucked Jonny Ive out of a sea of millions of available creative people .. and dozens of other key folks over the years.

In regard to charisma .. i don't think that would make the top 5 attributes that counted in Jobs phenomenal success. In fact ... I'm not sure he was very charismatic? He gave great, meticulously rehearsed presentations but it was usually his products that had the charisma ...

He certainly had a presence ... but he was actually quite an odd character. Jobs had great ideas ... he was able to identify great ideas from others ... and he was brutally relentless in his pursuit of seeing them come to fruition in the way he wanted.

His genius was in refusing to allow those great ideas to get ground down and compromised and ruined in development.

Can anyone imagine Tim Cook pushing his people like Jobs did? I can't. I'm sure he's a much nicer person to work for though ... i just don't think that guy is going to fire anyone because they don't have an appreciation for type faces ...

One skill that Jobs had throughout his career consistently is salesmanship. It was a direct function of his total commitment to whatever he believed at any given time (though he could be totally committed to just the opposite the next day).

From everything I've heard, Cook is every bit as driven as Jobs was, but more consistent, and far less mercurial. We can debate about how it got that way, but Apple is a huge company now, and huge companies prosper under a steady hand.

 

[Pan321]

That's the problem. We don't know what Tim is like behind the scenes. What we do know is that Steve was sick much of the time during the development of the iPads later versions of the iPhone. Tim also was the one who famously fired the guy responsible for the maps debacle. So I'd argue that he's very much in the vein in Steve Jobs. IMO he's a less charismatic SJ but more talented as it relates to technical execution and operations management. People think the CEO is doing it all. I'd argue that the CEO receives significant help from Operations particularly at a company like Apple. People think Steve just went around picking products. I'd argue that Tim was probably doing much of the stuff SJ was credited with having done post 2007. Moving to intel was probably a decision that Tim had a heavy hand in if for nothing else the ease of getting parts and software built for the mac at cheaper rates etc....

It all depends on what you think is the most critical aspect of Apple's succes. Is it phenomenal operational efficiency ... amazing supply chain management? Or is it incredible, revolutionary products?

Of course, without Job's revolutionary products Cook would have nothing to manage.

Jobs entire life was focused on creating, perfecting, selling and marketing revolutionary products. One after the other. Cook's background is in supply chain management ... inventory control ... basic business functions. No doubt he is awesome at that. But I don't think there is a single aspect of Cook's resume, education, work experience, or natural proclivity that points towards sales and marketing expertise ... let alone innovative product design.

There were dozens of highly successful, sophisticated, deep pocket companies with very talented managers in the mobile phone business before Apple got in. A lot of them probably run by very sharp people like Tim Cook.

The catalyst that changed the industry was Jobs. It was not the dozens of really sharp managers that all those other companies had in spades.

What counts for innovation at Samsung was copying the iphone and then making a bigger one. LOL.

Just another indication of some worrisome things ... Jobs was famous for his personal relationship with advertising agency creatives. He kept that process very close and very personal. Cook is hiring a 1,000 freaking people to mange their brand and their creative.

That is the decision making of someone who fundamentally misunderstands how creativity works ...

Jobs wanted to pull music and photography into Apple's business becuase he loved those two things. He didn't go out and do market research. And if he did the research probably would have said that no one wants music on their phone ... just like everyone loved their querty keyboard.

Anyone think Tim Cook loves music? You think that guy feels passionately about photography? Can you see Tim Cook taking a class on fonts and typography in college because he found it fascinating? Can you imagine a Tim Cook looking at a tiny/unknown "pixar" and deciding to invest in that?

I can't.

I see a really talented numbers and operations guy. So the question becomes ... can Apple "hire out" the innovation and creativity? And if it's that easy why doesn't every company do it? Why does it so often require a once in a generation genius at the top?

 

[Naimfan]

Ultimately, Apple needed the skills of both.

Without Jobs, Apple does not have three products with historic significance (original Mac, iPod, iPhone).

Without Cook, it is inconceivable that Apple would be as big and efficient as it is today.

The two complemented each other; and it seems clear that Cook recognizes the need for vision, which I also think he recognizes is not his strong suit. So he has taken a pragmatic approach, bringing in people and aligning the organization as best he can to nurture the vision aspect that Jobs brought.

 

[Rogifan]

It all depends on what you think is the most critical aspect of Apple's succes. Is it phenomenal operational efficiency ... amazing supply chain management? Or is it incredible, revolutionary products?

Of course, without Job's revolutionary products Cook would have nothing to manage.

Jobs entire life was focused on creating, perfecting, selling and marketing revolutionary products. One after the other. Cook's background is in supply chain management ... inventory control ... basic business functions. No doubt he is awesome at that. But I don't think there is a single aspect of Cook's resume, education, work experience, or natural proclivity that points towards sales and marketing expertise ... let alone innovative product design.

There were dozens of highly successful, sophisticated, deep pocket companies with very talented managers in the mobile phone business before Apple got in. A lot of them probably run by very sharp people like Tim Cook.

The catalyst that changed the industry was Jobs. It was not the dozens of really sharp managers that all those other companies had in spades.

What counts for innovation at Samsung was copying the iphone and then making a bigger one. LOL.

Just another indication of some worrisome things ... Jobs was famous for his personal relationship with advertising agency creatives. He kept that process very close and very personal. Cook is hiring a 1,000 freaking people to mange their brand and their creative.

That is the decision making of someone who fundamentally misunderstands how creativity works ...

Jobs wanted to pull music and photography into Apple's business becuase he loved those two things. He didn't go out and do market research. And if he did the research probably would have said that no one wants music on their phone ... just like everyone loved their querty keyboard.

Anyone think Tim Cook loves music? You think that guy feels passionately about photography? Can you see Tim Cook taking a class on fonts and typography in college because he found it fascinating? Can you imagine a Tim Cook looking at a tiny/unknown "pixar" and deciding to invest in that?

I can't.

I see a really talented numbers and operations guy. So the question becomes ... can Apple "hire out" the innovation and creativity? And if it's that easy why doesn't every company do it? Why does it so often require a once in a generation genius at the top?

And yet Apple hasn't lost anyone in the executive ranks except Scott Forstall, who was fired. If long timers like Jony, Eddy and Phil didn't have confidence in Tim or Apple they would have left by now. They all have more money than they know what to do with and I doubt would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere.

 

[Pan321]

And yet Apple hasn't lost anyone in the executive ranks except Scott Forstall, who was fired. If long timers like Jony, Eddy and Phil didn't have confidence in Tim or Apple they would have left by now. They all have more money than they know what to do with and I doubt would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere.

I have confidence Cook will deliver amazing financial results. And as an investor (albeit tiny )... that's worth a lot ...

But I'm just slowly coming to the realization that I don't want a watch that shows me my heartrate and sweat levels .... even if Kobe is wearing one in apple commercials.

And I love the size of my current phone yet apple is following samsung into giant platforms.

I simply find myself no longer excited by anything apple is doing ... and that is the first time that has happened in a LONG time ...

----------

I suppose. What interests me about Pixar is this is the time when Steve decided to trust the people he hired to be creative, and when he discovered that he could learn from others. It took being kicked out of Apple and the crushing defeat at NeXT to learn these lessons, but that was his preparation for returning to Apple in a successful leadership role.

----------



One skill that Jobs had throughout his career consistently is salesmanship. It was a direct function of his total commitment to whatever he believed at any given time (though he could be totally committed to just the opposite the next day).

From everything I've heard, Cook is every bit as driven as Jobs was, but more consistent, and far less mercurial. We can debate about how it got that way, but Apple is a huge company now, and huge companies prosper under a steady hand.

"more consistent, and far less mercurial"

Exactly. He's an accountant.