I would love to watch his presidential press conferences! I actually reckon he has a gravitas mode too, and could do serious when necessary.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Report Outlines Potential Successors to Apple's CEO Tim Cook and Other Senior Executives
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would love to watch his presidential press conferences! I actually reckon he has a gravitas mode too, and could do serious when necessary.
Never liked Cook , he may helped Apple value to grow , which was going to anyways , but he seems a narrow minded person , who will never take the risk to innovate.
I want Craig to be the next CEO. He’s the most Apple-like exec there. He’s my spirit animal.
Tim Cook has done a wonderful job. Apple are one of the largest, most successful, most profitable companies in the world. Absolutely amazing ... if you’re a shareholder.
Personally though, I don’t much care how healthy the profit margin is or what the stock price looks like.
I was an Apple “fan” for many years. The first time I used an iPod, I’d never used an MP3 player like it. The build quality, the ease of use, the beauty of the product. Amazing. Same when I bought my first Mac - an iMac G4. I worked in a computer shop at the time and there was nothing else like it. The all-in-one design, the floating, adjustable screen, the semi-translucent white base. Even the “genie” effect when minimising a window wowed me.
As much as I still enjoy my Apple products, my jaw doesn’t drop in quite the same way as it used to. Other companies have long-since successfully adopted Apple’s design strategy so very little actually stands out now. It’s a much harder contest to win.
The biggest philosophical difference between the Apple of today and the Apple of 15 years ago seems to be in how they approach new products and features. They used to ask “how can we make this experience better for the user” but now they ask “what will users pay more for?”
Steve Jobs doesn’t always get a lot of credit for being a fantastic business person, which he undoubtedly was. But one always felt that the bottom-line figures were secondary to creating great products. In fact I do recall an interview in which he described his sales strategy as “If you create great products, people will buy them.” Tim Cook’s Apple seems to be subtlety different in that it only creates great products in order to increase revenue and profit.
Steve as a product guy and Cook as a business and logistics guy seemed to be a real dream team. And while Apple still does some amazing things, I personally don’t feel they have the same sprinkling of stardust they used to have. Whatever management changes happen in future, I do hope the product people have good representation in the leadership team.
Personally though, I don’t much care how healthy the profit margin is or what the stock price looks like.
I was an Apple “fan” for many years. The first time I used an iPod, I’d never used an MP3 player like it. The build quality, the ease of use, the beauty of the product. Amazing. Same when I bought my first Mac - an iMac G4. I worked in a computer shop at the time and there was nothing else like it. The all-in-one design, the floating, adjustable screen, the semi-translucent white base. Even the “genie” effect when minimising a window wowed me.
As much as I still enjoy my Apple products, my jaw doesn’t drop in quite the same way as it used to. Other companies have long-since successfully adopted Apple’s design strategy so very little actually stands out now. It’s a much harder contest to win.
The biggest philosophical difference between the Apple of today and the Apple of 15 years ago seems to be in how they approach new products and features. They used to ask “how can we make this experience better for the user” but now they ask “what will users pay more for?”
Steve Jobs doesn’t always get a lot of credit for being a fantastic business person, which he undoubtedly was. But one always felt that the bottom-line figures were secondary to creating great products. In fact I do recall an interview in which he described his sales strategy as “If you create great products, people will buy them.” Tim Cook’s Apple seems to be subtlety different in that it only creates great products in order to increase revenue and profit.
Steve as a product guy and Cook as a business and logistics guy seemed to be a real dream team. And while Apple still does some amazing things, I personally don’t feel they have the same sprinkling of stardust they used to have. Whatever management changes happen in future, I do hope the product people have good representation in the leadership team.
Acquiring Musk would have resulted in the Apple Car and the Apple Network - two major growth opportunities for Apple that Steve Jobs was interested in. Today's Apple seems less capable of delivering either of those than the Apple of last decade.
Instead we have Tesla's lineup of vehicles and SpaceX's Starlink.
I have no problem with Jeff Williams. Federighi took over quite bit after Forstall was out, so I thought he was very adaptive and resilient in handling all the operating systems across Apple's ecosystem. Especially finding a place where macOS and iOS can co-exist, rather than trying to merge and replace into one. He has a bit of charm about himself, similar to Tim as well, where I think he'd be the kind of leader Apple could use. Whether it happened, or didn't, he's been a key person that has helped Apple a lot post-Jobs.
We have to face reality: there won't be another Steve Jobs or anything that is him. Could someone come along and change (or challenge) things they way we see them? Of course. How Apple functions today, I can't see someone rising up who wouldn't try to "emulate" Steve's characteristics without the way he envisioned things in the world.
Steve's perspectives were unique in a way that can't be emulated. Both in professional and in life. Same thing can be said about the late Satoru Iwata, you just can't reproduce those kind of personalities that make up their character.
Please understand, there are different types of leadership and vision, I would love to see what Williams could bring to this massive Apple machine. The same with Furukawa and Nintendo.
To quote the ASIA song, "One thing is sure, that time will tell, only time will tell, if you were wrong."
I'm not sure what your point is… (perhaps, correcting my vocabulary?) but for what it's worth, the idiom "boys club" is far more common than "mens club", outnumbering the latter 3-to-1 in Google search results. So though my word choice may seem technically incorrect to you in this situation, in actual fact it isn't.
And the hair! C'mon, it'll be best kept hair any president has ever had.
And maybe the remainder of Apple would just sink into oblivion. If anything Cook showed Apple can deliver. The worth of the company shows how others perceive Apple. The universe probably isn't wrong.
The 5S was a fantastic device, but I don't see how it was a risky bet. In fact, it was a very, very safe take.
I don't see the iphone 4 as being a risk either, nice piece of tech for it's time but a safe bet. Retina was all marketing.
How is he playing it safe?! got into TV, headphones, gaming, dumped Intel (freaking insane to think about before) on and on....we can argue whether good or bad moves but it's not playing it safe.
If you think Apple is boring now... just wait until Jeff Williams takes command of the entire company.
Every single item will be nickel and dimed. We will have an even larger variety of flavors of devices that already exist.
Anything "courageous" will be canned in favor of "safe".
It was "WWSJD?" under Tim Cook and will become "WWTCD?" under Jeff until the dude is bounced by the board.
The product launches will become even more robotic with him on stage.
Why in the heck wasn't Craig picked? Oh, because Apple has become the mint for billionaires.
Every single item will be nickel and dimed. We will have an even larger variety of flavors of devices that already exist.
Anything "courageous" will be canned in favor of "safe".
It was "WWSJD?" under Tim Cook and will become "WWTCD?" under Jeff until the dude is bounced by the board.
The product launches will become even more robotic with him on stage.
Why in the heck wasn't Craig picked? Oh, because Apple has become the mint for billionaires.
Dude. DUDE. There was nothing "safe" about the 4. It was a milestone of smartphone innovation and engineering. And even now it's been beaten mercilessly as the "you're holding it wrong" phone. And the retina? That was all execution. You know what's all marketing and hype? The "Liquid Retina" BS from a couple years ago, that's got even less PPI than the 2010 Retina, just a nicer contrast/gamut.
And please answer the question. What was risky about the 5S?
We've grown accustomed to this whole notion of only the CEO can be a visionary rather than having a visionary team with a CEO that facilitates things to make it happen.
Agreed.
But I feel like Apple missed an opportunity with the Watch (although it's the most successful watch on the planet), and will do something similar with the glasses.
Just take sleep tracking on the Watch for example.. it takes so many steps to set it up in the beginning just to be able to go to sleep! The Fitbit Charge doesn't need any kind of setup. It "just works".
As long as they get rid of Cue. 🤢
Federighi is the perfect choice, IMO.
Federighi is the perfect choice, IMO.
Yea, not to mention Federighi is actually fun and witty (even though he kinda overdoes it with weed jokes).
Cook's Apple is already pretty humourless to boot, and with this guy, it will have all the flair of a consultant powerpoint deck.
Apple needs another another man focused on operations appointed as COO, but the new CEO should be a man focused on innovation and visionary products, as Steve Jobs was. The best for this kind of role in my opinion would be Scott Forstall, the father of iPhone’s first human interface (do you remember how much it was beautiful?) and the father of Acqua Mac’s interface, before all became shades of gray.
Really? The iphone 4 "was a milestone of smartphone innovation and engineering". In your opinion it is and in my opinion it isn't. It was just another iteration of iphone. And, "retina" was innovation but "liquid retina" was marketing. Not in my opinion.
What wasn't risky about the 5s?
- dumping the skeuomorphic interface of 32 ios 6 for 64 bit ios 7
- all new 64 bit chipset with 32 bit emulation
- touch id (irrelevant Apple bought a company to kickstart it)
The 5s oozes innovation and risk.
- The iPhone 4 was a big risk with a big reward, especially in the context of available tech and resources in 2010. The world had never seen anything like it.
- The first version of the retina was game changing. Liquid Retina or rainbow piss or whatever the marketing team wants to call it 8 years later, is not.
- The iPhone 5s was the iPhone 5 with some very cool components and materials. It also comes in gold. That's it.
All of the above are not subject to opinion, yours or mine. They're facts, like it or not.