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.