New Report Outlines Potential Successors to Apple's CEO Tim Cook and Other Senior Executives

[otternonsense]

Like creating additional shareholder value like Tim did? Innovative new products and new revenue streams. Yep, real tanking right there.

I don't buy my iPhone for the share value. If I spend upward €1000 for a phone I expect some real innovation, not a 3 year old design with a better camera.

In the 9 years Tim has been around, the most innovative new product lines have been the Watch and the AirPods, while a good many revenue streams are solutions to "problems" Apple has created (I'm looking at you, dongles) and the streaming services are yet to gain real international traction. The Mac family is a shadow of its former self. The iPad is a fantastic device still in the "so what is it really good for" grey zone. Software is buggier than ever. I know you love to defend them, but let's be real. Tim is only good news for the share price.
[automerge]1599832571[/automerge]

If you are afraid to buy stocks, that is your problem. Of course, most people here have Apple shares.

I'm not afraid, it's just not relevant to the products.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Talk of anyone with a marketing focused background taking the helm makes me queasy.

This is the same stupid crap we got when Apple got rid of Steve Jobs.

It's not surprising as the task was impossible, but Apple has utterly failed to produce the next Steve Jobs. It turns out that being the world's richest company makes it impossible to raise risk takers.

I think Apple needs to look outside the company to find a new Steve Jobs.

Musk used to be floated a lot as a possibility, but at this point, there's nothing he could be offered. Apple could have offered him endless funding and connections to China from ~2008-2015, but he's now acquired those things on his own.

 

[canned_tuna_og]

Let's not put a sales/marketing exec as CEO, k?

 

[gmarm]

And there you have it, Apple's main problem and the reason they have not been able to innovate after Steve.

Selecting the CEO on the basis of "an operations-focused executive like Cook rather than a product visionary like Jobs".

That said, there is currently no "Steve Jobs" kind of guy in the company. Or at least I don't know of any.

 

[Morgenland]

I do NOT believe AAPL's next CEO currently works for the company !

AAPL is & has been an Operations & Marketing success under Cook, no doubt.

However, they have NOT been a Technology Leader under Cook !

"Insight," which is an extremely rare talent / skill, has been the missing ingredient !

I strongly believe the AAPL Board will select someone else, from OUTSIDE the company, who has demonstrated "Insight" !

AAPL's last great Technology "surprise" was the register-rich A7 in the 5s.

That was Sept of 2013 !

Since High-Level R&D Schedules are set years in advance, Steve Jobs probably made that call.

Do you really have no imagination of what  plans to do with its new processors?

 

[Hazmat401]

Don’t forget the iPod socks to go along with it!

The Apple you seek is gone. No longer do they create insanely great products, but rather good safe iterations of existing products.

I harken back to G4 iMac days where they were fearless and seemingly insane with its design and approach.
They were rebels. Today they’re the world’s most valuable company. Everything is beholden to shareholders.

I’d love an Apple offshoot company tasked with developing really bold and innovative products without fear of failure. Yeah, I’m sure there’s a lab in Cupertino that does just that.

what else is there to make?

Apple Frying Pan

Apple Sneakers?

Apple Windows?

Truthfully the whole dang industry is stagnant on the innovation

The only thing to do is Focus on CPU and battery technology along with software development

I wish holographic projections will happen in the next decade or two

 

[Morgenland]

I don't buy my iPhone for the share value. If I spend upward €1000 for a phone I expect some real innovation, not a 3 year old design with a better camera.

In the 9 years Tim has been around, the most innovative new product lines have been the Watch and the AirPods, while a good many revenue streams are solutions to "problems" Apple has created (I'm looking at you, dongles) and the streaming services are yet to gain real international traction. The Mac family is a shadow of its former self. The iPad is a fantastic device still in the "so what is it really good for" grey zone. Software is buggier than ever. I know you love to defend them, but let's be real. Tim is only good news for the share price.
[automerge]1599832571[/automerge]


I'm not afraid, it's just not relevant to the products.

Nope. I earned more money with AAPL than I was able to reinvest into Apple hardware. Therefore: Your personal mismatch. Do not look for blame on others.

 

[I7guy]

I don't buy my iPhone for the share value. If I spend upward €1000 for a phone I expect some real innovation, not a 3 year old design with a better camera.

That's exactly what the iphone 4 was. A phone with a better screen and camera.

In the 9 years Tim has been around, the most innovative new product lines have been the Watch and the AirPods, while a good many revenue streams are solutions to "problems" Apple has created (I'm looking at you, dongles) and the streaming services are yet to gain real international traction. The Mac family is a shadow of its former self. The iPad is a fantastic device still in the "so what is it really good for" grey zone. Software is buggier than ever. I know you love to defend them, but let's be real. Tim is only good news for the share price.

We can get into the definition of innovation and see how one's definition differs from another. Part of the issue is definitional. If one things "dongles" is a revenue stream, vs let's say the app store, one is looking at a very narrow picture.

I know you love to criticize Apple, but let's be real...Tim has done good for Apple and has taken Steve's vision to the next level.

But yeah, innovation is definitely a personal biased definition.

 

[ddelmonte]

Not a lot of diversity.

 

[I7guy]

...
Musk used to be floated a lot as a possibility, but at this point, there's nothing he could be offered. Apple could have offered him endless funding and connections to China from ~2008-2015, but he's now acquired those things on his own.

Musk, imo, would be the fruition of the "apple is doomed" meme.

 

[dwaltwhit]

Because extreme attention to detail was a core principle in Apple's design and engineering process. Now it's more wishful thinking than brand execution. What happened with that passion towards perfection when they now sell e.g. pre-bent iPad Pro units or LCD phone displays with lower PPI than 10 years ago, and justify it as normal? Tim happened.

I think we have different understandings of that word.

From Merriam-Webster (fwiw)

Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

 

[Morgenland]

And there you have it, Apple's main problem and the reason they have not been able to innovate after Steve.

Selecting the CEO on the basis of "an operations-focused executive like Cook rather than a product visionary like Jobs".

That said, there is currently no "Steve Jobs" kind of guy in the company. Or at least I don't know of any.

Maybe you are right. But your thesis is highly speculative. All future products (for example the glasses) require a very complicated technical environment and a prepared market. If you were once involved in project management, you will still think of the iPhone with admiration today. Even in the phase of its pre-development it seemed that  does nothing. For an outsider like you and me.

 

[otternonsense]

That's exactly what the iphone 4 was. A phone with a better screen and camera.

You're short selling what they did in a very disingenuous way. The screen itself was unheard of in 2010. It was ahead of its time for a number of groundbreaking features, including the first Retina display, Apple’s first in-house designed smartphone processor, the first front camera on an iPhone and a five-megapixel back camera that took years for competitors to catch up to. And let's not forget that Apple was much, much smaller and bootstrapped than it is now. They could certainly achieve more with less.

We can get into the definition of innovation and see how one's definition differs from another. Part of the issue is definitional. If one things "dongles" is a revenue stream, vs let's say the app store, one is looking at a very narrow picture.

I know you love to criticize Apple, but let's be real...Tim has done good for Apple and has taken Steve's vision to the next level.

But yeah, innovation is definitely a personal biased definition.

I agree about a certain degree of subjectivity when it comes to innovation. Regardless, releasing the same phone 5 times or the same iMac for 8 years in a row with some under the hood improvements isn't exactly innovative stuff. It's barely even staying on par.

And yes, the dongles necessitated by the audio jack removal and the USB-C nonsense is a very real revenue stream.

 

[progx]

Am I the only one who was hoping for Craig Federighi?

 

[otternonsense]

I think we have different understandings of that word.

From Merriam-Webster (fwiw)

Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

Pedantic is associated with being over-the-top but certainly not as an insult. Someone e.g. examining UI under a loupe like Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall did, is most certainly pedantic. And given the quality of the output, good for them and us, I say. Here's also a screenshot for you.

 

[JKAussieSkater]

Not a lot of diversity.

I agree, I was hoping to see more than 2 women in this list of candidates, but instead we got none. Apple’s a real boys club isn’t it?

 

[Morgenland]

Am I the only one who was hoping for Craig Federighi?

Federighi oversees the development of iOS, macOS, iPadOS and Apple's common operating system engineering teams. More systems will follow. He is brilliant. So I suspect that he is indispensable there.
[automerge]1599834097[/automerge]

I agree, I was hoping to see more than 2 women in this list of candidates, but instead we got none. Apple’s a real boys club isn’t it?

Boys? Really? Your father is a boy too?

 

[I7guy]

You're short selling what they did in a very disingenuous way.

Imo, you are doing the exact same thing.

The screen itself was unheard of in 2010. It was ahead of its time for a number of groundbreaking features, including the first Retina display, Apple’s first in-house designed smartphone processor, the first front camera on an iPhone and a five-megapixel back camera that took years for competitors to catch up to. And let's not forget that Apple was much, much smaller and bootstrapped than it is now. They could certainly achieve more with less.

The iphone 4 was a nice package, but this isn't what this entire thing is about. It's about how the company and the products are perceived from Steve Jobs to Tim Cook. Apple had a number of "firsts" under Tim...one of the fundamental firsts that threw the phone manufactures into a tizzy was the 64 bit processor and touch id on the 5s. Product features that redefined the smartphone industry.

I agree about a certain degree of subjectivity when it comes to innovation. Regardless, releasing the same phone 5 times or the same iMac for 8 years in a row with some under the hood improvements isn't exactly innovative stuff. It's barely even staying on par.

And yes, the dongles necessitated by the audio jack removal and the USB-C nonsense is a very real revenue stream.

So under Steve the same phone was released two times in a row, under Cook 5 times. This entire thing is about "3 times in a row?"

 

[otternonsense]

Imo, you are doing the exact same thing.

The iphone 4 was a nice package, but this isn't what this entire thing is about. It's about how the company and the products are perceived from Steve Jobs to Tim Cook. Apple had a number of "firsts" under Tim...one of the fundamental firsts that threw the phone manufactures into a tizzy was the 64 bit processor and touch id on the 5s. Product features that redefined the smartphone industry.

So under Steve the same phone was released two times in a row, under Cook 5 times. This entire thing is about "3 times in a row?"

The iPhone 4 was beyond perceptions of personality. It was a game changer. Let's not forget it was 10 years ago, right? On the other hand, the 64bit processor, Touch ID and Face ID are very cool components on ageing packages.

The entire thing is about their total reluctance to take risks with their products, now that they're wealthier and stronger than ever, and instead releasing the same thing over and over and over and OVER again, like Blackberry once did.

 

[otternonsense]

Nope. I earned more money with AAPL than I was able to reinvest into Apple hardware. Therefore: Your personal mismatch. Do not look for blame on others.

Good for you mate, still irrelevant whether it made the products themselves better.

 

[Websnapx2]

Apple doesn’t need another Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was the right man for his era, but Apple is long past that stage, and bringing in another firebrand leader now is simply going to cause more harm than good.

Instead, what Apple needs is someone who understands what makes Apple uniquely Apple. The answer to this is design. A thousand nos for every yes. That focus is important to making great products, and most importantly, that no one individual is essential or indispensable.

I firmly maintain that Tim Cook was the right person to lead Apple, and his decision to fire Scott Forstall early on confirms this decision. I feel that in the very least, any successor ideally also needs to have a background in supply chain management the same way Tim Cook does.

It’s going to be hard finding someone to fill Tim Cook’s shoes if and when that time does come, but I am sure Apple will survive.

Most reasonable take I've seen.

Apple went through a shift when the iPod/iPhone started selling +25 million units per quarter (which just happened to be the year Steve Jobs died). Designing amazing and imaginative products still needed to be the focus, but so did quality control and sourcing proper infrastructure to meet the impossible-to-predict demand. Because of the scale of Apple today in comparison to say 2005, truly understanding supply chain management is what helped propel Apple into what it is today. The design and the ecosystem (Mac+iphone/iPod+iTunes) got people interested, but the reliability and the ability to keep up with demand, get it into every market conceivable, and the ability to get (and secure in large numbers) high-quality parts, customized to spec, is how apple became what apple is today. Not JUST creative design.

If the next CEO is not a supply chain guy, his second needs to be. As a designer, I really do want apple to reclaim the industrial wow-factor their greatest products had in context to the industry at the time. It is just very difficult to do that to scale right now, that matches the market's demand, while keeping quality universally high so as not to destroy the brand. Apple used to have a trick for that — every new product (iPod, iTunes, iCloud, Apple Watch, HomePod, Messages, to name a few) required, for a certain period at least, you be already in the Apple ecosystem and that artificially kept the initial potential market low so they could take some risks. Now that everyone has an iPhone that doesn't work anymore.

What I would not want is a scenario where creativity is the main focus (say, if Johnny Ive was still there and in the running) and we end up making futuristic-looking products at low yield with spotty quality. Because you know someone like Samsung will just look at that concept, and re-execute it properly to scale (they are really good at it too). If someone like Tim Cook doesn't take over for him, then someone like his needs to be attached at the hip to whoever is the creative that does become CEO. It's someone like Tim Cook that stops (and has the authority to stop) something like AirPower charging mat from coming out.

 

[I7guy]

The iPhone 4 was beyond perceptions of personality. It was a game changer.

Imo, the 5s was more of a game changer.

Let's not forget it was 10 years ago, right? On the other hand, the 64bit processor, Touch ID and Face ID are very cool components on ageing packages.

Touch id started a revolution in biometric authentication.

The entire thing is about their total reluctance to take risks with their products, now that they're wealthier and stronger than ever, and instead releasing the same thing over and over and over and OVER again, like Blackberry once did.

5s wasn't a risk?

 

[44267547]

Am I the only one who was hoping for Craig Federighi?

Why? Sure, he’s charismatic and intelligent, but I don’t see him being in a CEO position. I’ve always believed that Jeff Williams would be the successor to Tim Cook, and I think it takes somebody that isn’t necessarily just about being an ‘engineer’, but understanding Apples core history on how the company operates in every possible facet financially and tactfully. If you look at Apple over the course of the last 10 years, they changed a lot as a company with products, services offered, and they continue with their growth under Tim Cook through very challenging times, I think that says a lot about Apple as a company.

What impresses me about Tim Cook, isn’t necessarily so he’s just a ‘good CEO‘ for Apple, but his consistency never being jolted against the constant media lashes, when he’s kept Apple successful on a consistent basis. That says something about his laser sharp focus and deep Understanding of the company.

 

[Rogifan]

This is the same stupid crap we got when Apple got rid of Steve Jobs.

It's not surprising as the task was impossible, but Apple has utterly failed to produce the next Steve Jobs. It turns out that being the world's richest company makes it impossible to raise risk takers.

I think Apple needs to look outside the company to find a new Steve Jobs.

Musk used to be floated a lot as a possibility, but at this point, there's nothing he could be offered. Apple could have offered him endless funding and connections to China from ~2008-2015, but he's now acquired those things on his own.

And there you have it, Apple's main problem and the reason they have not been able to innovate after Steve.

Selecting the CEO on the basis of "an operations-focused executive like Cook rather than a product visionary like Jobs".

That said, there is currently no "Steve Jobs" kind of guy in the company. Or at least I don't know of any.

Replacing Cook with someone the board thought was Steve Jobs like would be a disaster. There was only one Steve Jobs and he isn’t replaceable.

The way I look at it is the CEO doesn’t need to be the visionary. He/she needs to be the one to allow everyone else to flourish, make sure the company is executing and be the face to Wall Street. For all we know there are lots of VPs and lower level employees at Apple focused on making great products. There is zero evidence Tim Cook is stopping them from doing that. If you look back at the Steve Jobs era there was plenty of iteration on existing products. It’s not like every year he was wowing the world with some new gadget the world couldn’t live without. The difference between then and now is Steve was a master showman. He could get up on stage and make anything seem like the coolest thing ever, even if it wasn’t. The current exces can’t do that but so what. Apple doesn’t need another PT Barnum in Elon Musk.

 

[ksec]

I guess the transition will start soon where Williams becomes the CEO and Tim Cook will continue to sit on the board. And then hopefully Tim Cook can continue to work ( along with Williams ) on further succession plans.

Both of them are old. As a matter of interest I am wondering if Apple have the oldest CEO and executive team in Silicon Valley.