Steve was at the Job of providing value to Apple customers.
Tim is about Cooking Profit for himself and Apple.
Do you Agree ?
Tim is about Cooking Profit for himself and Apple.
Do you Agree ?
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.
Steve vs. Tim
- Thread starter Sensible Apple fan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apple steve jobs time cook
- Sort by reaction score
No.
Steve was a product genius who made loads of mistakes, but put Apple on the road to high cost/high profit systems.
Tim is a supply chain genius, who knows how to make extremely complex operations work, and keeps Apple on the road of high cost/high profit systems.
Look at the history of Apple's products and pricing, and you'll find that the only time their profit margins were slim was after Steve was ousted and before he returned.
Steve was a product genius who made loads of mistakes, but put Apple on the road to high cost/high profit systems.
Tim is a supply chain genius, who knows how to make extremely complex operations work, and keeps Apple on the road of high cost/high profit systems.
Look at the history of Apple's products and pricing, and you'll find that the only time their profit margins were slim was after Steve was ousted and before he returned.
Bingo.
Steve would come up with some crazy ideas. Some worked. Some didn't. But he was constantly thinking of what else could be done that was intentionally against the grain. The downside to this is that these (for lack of a better term) experimental devices cost a lot of money but they sold so his gamble worked.
Tim in a lot of ways is similar to Henry Ford and the assembly line. He knows how to keep those expensive, experimental devices flowing off of the floor and into stores. Tim is not a design guy but he surrounds himself with people who are so he has the best of both worlds right now.
If Steve Jobs had been the only one in charge of Apple, it would likely be dead. Tim Cook not only kept the company going, but has pushed it way past any point that would have been expected.
Steve Jobs was a visionary. Without him, Apple could have been Hewlett-Packard or Dell.
Steve Jobs was a visionary. Without him, Apple could have been Hewlett-Packard or Dell.
Yes.
Tim Cook tries to provide as little as possible to customers as he can get away with. Basically, he gives as little as he can to the point where a large number of people are still willing to buy. For example, he is constantly taking hardware away from successive generations of iPhones. No headphone jack, then no headphones, then no Touch ID (which could easily have been provided in addition to Face ID), then no phone charger, then the previous year's iPhone's CPU on the current non-Pro models, etc. Cook saves Apple money by doing all of that, but he doesn't lower prices. He doesn't even keep prices the same, which would be bad enough. Instead, he has the shamelessness to actually raise prices whenever he removes hardware and give customers less.
Cook is a miser. People should call him Tightwad Tim.
Last edited:
No.
Steve made much more money for himself than Tim has and actively fought giving IPO stock to rank and file employees at both Apple and Pixar. Steve thought his products were a gift to the world, and part of that thinking was that not everyone deserved his gifts.
Tim has made Apple products available to far more people than Steve ever did.
The way I see it, Steve is Churchill, while Tim is Eisenhower. Different people are needed at different points in a company's history. Steve was right for his era, but I doubt he would fare as well today when the biggest challenges to Apple are political in nature, not technological.
No.
I don't agree.
Steve Jobs was a visionary, and a gifted one, who designed gorgeous high-end (and expensive) niche products, for a small, cutting edge, tech company.
Persuading people that they wanted (and needed) these gorgeous products was also a part of his genius, and, in designing some of his products (iPods, iPhones, not just computers) he changed - transformed, revolutionised - entire industries (and, some would argue, - such as in the music industry - perhaps, not always for the better).
Tim Cook is running a massive (and extraordinarily profitable) business, where cutting edge design (not to mention the computing arm) are luxuries that the company indulges, but no longer prioritises, (and can afford to allow run at a loss) let alone consider these as the reason that the company exists.
Profit (and sales) are what matter nowadays, not stunning, (and revolutionary) tech design, where an extraordinary fusion of form and function transform entire sections of the economy and society.
I don't agree.
Steve Jobs was a visionary, and a gifted one, who designed gorgeous high-end (and expensive) niche products, for a small, cutting edge, tech company.
Persuading people that they wanted (and needed) these gorgeous products was also a part of his genius, and, in designing some of his products (iPods, iPhones, not just computers) he changed - transformed, revolutionised - entire industries (and, some would argue, - such as in the music industry - perhaps, not always for the better).
Tim Cook is running a massive (and extraordinarily profitable) business, where cutting edge design (not to mention the computing arm) are luxuries that the company indulges, but no longer prioritises, (and can afford to allow run at a loss) let alone consider these as the reason that the company exists.
Profit (and sales) are what matter nowadays, not stunning, (and revolutionary) tech design, where an extraordinary fusion of form and function transform entire sections of the economy and society.
Well said, and very well expressed, both of you, and not just because I am in complete agreement with you both.
You really need both as it takes a team to succeed.
If you vote with your heart the vote will always go to Steve.
If you vote with your heart the vote will always go to Steve.
Pff here we go again with the beancounter vs. the saint trope. News flash: Steve was no saint, and he was in business to make money. He needed Tim for Apple to grow; he hired him for that explicit reason, and Tim is good at it.
Apple is a huge company with many, many managers, and they all contribute to the business. It is not Tim sitting alone in his office.
Exactly… the perfect description… thank you for it. 👍
It's also worth noting that Tim Cook was basically doing Steve's job as CEO when the latter returned. It's probably thanks to Tim Cook's genius with managing their supply chain that Apple could even make enough units of their products to sell.
I mean, let's put it this way - what's the point of having the best-designed product in the world if you can't make enough copies to sell?
I mean, let's put it this way - what's the point of having the best-designed product in the world if you can't make enough copies to sell?
When Steve Jobs was temporarily away for medical reasons and Cook was filling in, Jobs was still making the big decisions and the company was still under his structure.
Cook did an excellent job with supply chain management, so that's where he should have stayed. There is huge difference between being excellent at supply chain management and being a visionary who guides others to create innovative products. Those are two very separate skillsets.
At the very least, after Cook became CEO shortly prior to Jobs's death, Cook could've kept the same structure that Apple had in place. The most Jobs-like visionary Apple had at the time was Scott Forstall, who masterminded the Mac OS X interface, the iPod interface, and the iPhone interface (thus the iPad interface, too).
Forstall really cared about customers' user experience. He paid so much attention to detail on the skeuomorphic graphics, that he kept a jeweler's loupe on his desk in order to magnify and see each pixel was perfect on icons, etc.
Cook fired Forstall precisely because Forstall was like Jobs: a visionary who guides others to create innovative products, but has an abrasive personality. Like Jobs, while Forstall's personality is not good, he is by far a net-positive for consumers.
Cook is too mediocre to realize that. Cook has an MBA degree, and lives up to the stereotype that "MBA" stands for "mediocre but arrogant".
After Forstall, perhaps Jony Ive was the other most valuable visionary and innovator at Apple. Even Forstall fans like myself would probably agree that it would be highly stupid to put Forstall in charge of industrial design, and that's because he lacks that skillset. While no one ever made the highly stupid mistake of putting Forstall in charge of industrial design, Cook made an even more highly stupid mistake: putting Ive in charge of user interface design, because Ive lacks that skillset.
Just look at how flat design makes everything look bland, uninspired, boring, and the same. Apple copied flat design from Microsoft. Yes, under Steve Jobs, Microsoft copied Apple; but under Tim Cook, Apple copied Microsoft.
Cook is far more skilled than Jobs at making more money for Apple and its shareholders. I will never deny that. But you have to ask yourself what you prefer: An Apple that makes the most innovative and user-friendly products but not astronomically high amounts of money for the company and its shareholders, or an Apple that makes comparatively mediocre products while making astronomically high amounts of money for itself and its shareholders?
I understand why people who own Apple stock would say Cook is doing a great job, but it makes no sense why many people on this forum who are only users of Apple products and don't own Apple stock also say Cook is doing a great job.
Last edited:
Steve promoted Tim to be interim-CEO during his leave of absence knowing that he's not a product person. But again Apple's huge success is thanks to Tim.
appleinsider.com
Steve Jobs criticized Tim Cook for not being a 'product person' | AppleInsider
Biographer Walter Isaacson knew Ive was reducing his role, and also says his book 'softened' complaints that Steve Jobs had about Tim Cook not being a product guy'.
appleinsider.com
Well said Thomas👍. Most of the fans are with Apple due to the legacy Steve created. Tim can sell what Steve made, but not for long… most of the Apple lovers now have android as there secondary phone. The way Apple tells the customer 8Gb RAM is ~ 16 Gb on windows doesn’t reveal that 5.5 Gb is used by the OS leaving 2.5 Gb or less for the user, which fills up quickly. As a result, swap usage increases and SSD degrades faster. So the more you use, the faster u need to replace your Mac. Most of the components are serial matched and soldered to the board making repairs costly and sometimes equal to a new unit. The processor bandwidth is lower on M3 pro processor compared to M1 Pro or M2 pro.
The batteries are meager on a pro device, may it be iPad or iPhone. Apple wakes up to full fledged AI after Samsung take the center stage even after having neural engine for long. And the list is long …
Nokia came up with a lot of design changes on the outside, but died due to lack of innovation in the products… I feel Apple is next if not NXT
Not being able to read the minds of millions of people, I can't agree or disagree with this statement, but I will say it seems a bit of a bizarre notion.
Steve has been dead for years now, and most of us no longer have Apple products from his era even in use. That said, I actually do (several), but they were all creative ideas from others, and designed by Ive. Steve's genius was in taking ideas others had - the original WIMPS from Xerox for example - and perfecting them into actual products. In Jonny Ive, he had the perfect design perfectionist, and Apple's most iconic products came out of it.
By comparison, Cook is a boring office suit. He's not a 'product guy' and never will be, but it is arguably the departure of Ive that has been Apple's biggest loss in creativity. even then, his legacy will be to have feature-crippled macOS and hardware products by simplifying them to the point of near-absurdity. Steve's legacy is 'computing as an appliance' which had led to devices and systems which are sealed up and near unserviceable, certainly non-upgradable - and a Quick Look around even just macrumors will tell you that this is far from popular. Cook didn't do this, it was part of the philosophy of the first Mac in 1984, and has been largely true of almost every product since Steve's return in 97.
The dismissive nature of comments about Cook are quite laughable. He's paid huge amounts of money - far too much because nobody is worth that, and shouldn't be thought to be - to run a huge global tech company. By comparison, what exactly have you done?
I loved every part of the Steve, Joni and Forstall era, and all keynotes was superfun to prepare for. The big ones was like Tech Christmas Eve’s.
Thank you Steve and all others who was part of my tech childhood and made it magical.
Today: I stopped watching Apple's presentations many years ago, with some exceptions when I was really out to buy something that I heard would come.
But good tech media report evertrhing in advance today, thankfully, so I can to avoid getting the fake face of the Apple CEO in front of my eyes.
I was obviously not alone with that feeling, as the company stopped the tradition, while people leaving Apple continuosly.
I will continue buy my Apple products though, as long as they serve its purpose for me. My brother was a PC guy who tried to get me into the PC world. Although I am certain that PC’s are better and more user friendly today I still like my Apple products - so no Tim will not let me hate what I fell in love with during Steve/Joni era.
Thank you Steve and all others who was part of my tech childhood and made it magical.
Today: I stopped watching Apple's presentations many years ago, with some exceptions when I was really out to buy something that I heard would come.
But good tech media report evertrhing in advance today, thankfully, so I can to avoid getting the fake face of the Apple CEO in front of my eyes.
I was obviously not alone with that feeling, as the company stopped the tradition, while people leaving Apple continuosly.
I will continue buy my Apple products though, as long as they serve its purpose for me. My brother was a PC guy who tried to get me into the PC world. Although I am certain that PC’s are better and more user friendly today I still like my Apple products - so no Tim will not let me hate what I fell in love with during Steve/Joni era.
It's the entire business that has changed, not just Apple's leadership. No systems producer can hope to survive on the same model of design and engineering that existed even just 10 years ago, because there isn't a 'next big thing' in hardware to leap onto. Even Apple Silicon was just a different way to do the same thing.
You can reasonably say that today, just about everyone on the planet that wants or needs a computer has one, and that most users don't have a need for the power and sophistication that drove industry-wide development in the past. Instead, we see a lot more consolidation, wider build-out of 'ecosystems', the hardening of services into subscription models, and the infilling of features in software and operating systems to increase traction in the marketplace.
When your big news story is the choice of colors you can pick from, not a leap in power and capability of new systems, the product has clearly matured into something far more stable - and far less interesting.
Likewise, when it comes to leadership of a business such as Apple's, there has to be a move away from innovation-driven creativity, and towards a sustainable pace of product maturation. The sad fact is that Steve would have run out of steam too, and we'd all be saying that he's getting old and tired.
This also raises the question - how exactly is Apple able to generate supernormal profits if its products are comparatively mediocre in comparison? Who exactly is buying them?
Rather, the simplest answer is often the correct one. Apple uses its control over hardware, software and services to create a unique experience that consumers are willing to pay a premium for. Their prices mean that Apple will never have the majority market share in any market (see windows vs Mac, iPhone vs android, iPad vs android tablets etc), but it also means that Apple is able to capture the lucrative, high-end segment of the market who are willing and able to pay for nice things.
This part has not changed under Tim Cook.
I can't really say I am spending more on Apple products either. I used to upgrade my iPhone every 2 years, and I now expect to use my current 13 pro max for 4 years at least. My iPad pro is 5 years old. My MBA is over 3 years. My Apple Watch is over 4 years. My 5k iMac is past the 6 year mark. They all did cost more upfront, but have since paid for themselves in the form of greater productivity and fewer problems overall.
For example, in 2016, I purchased the 9.7" iPad Pro, Apple Pencil, AirPods and Apple Watch. I wouldn't have bought any of them if they were just mediocre. Instead, each and every one of them added something valuable and unique to my life.
So I have to disagree with you right here and now. Apple makes great products which users are willing to spend on, and this is why they continue to be as profitable as they are. Scale is a byproduct of a properly functioning business model. If they are making more money, it just means that Apple is capable of monetizing premium experiences much more effectively and efficiently than anyone else, and I see no shame in this.
Sure, but I don't care about the leadership or their business either anymore.
I just buy a product from Apple as long as I like it, that's it.
I usually don't get to know the organization behind every company that I buy a product from.
Apple have been added to those now, nothing more nothing less. I don't care, I'm not interested of their organization anymore.
I just buy products that I like, as long as I like them.
Not saying you should care or there's anything wrong with that you don't. In fact it's quite odd that people seem to because its only a commodity our service after all. I merely posted that perspective in the context of the discussion in this thread that personalizes what is in fact an industry-wide process of maturation.
We'd have far less silliness here if more people took the same view that you do.
People still miss Steve, and grieving takes its own ways and time. This is not only about grieving a person but a company and the vision Steve and Apple stood for aswell.
If we don't have a vision in our personal lives, it might be more difficult. I do, and that didn't die with Steve.
But I am really grateful for what I could see of myself in him, as well as how the products he envisioned have benefited my life and my vision. They still do, but just as products that is useful for my vision and life.
Tim is not somebody you get inspired of, he just represent the soullessness and greed that is far to common in the world.
Cook has changed the company completely. From a users point of view, Apple products are vastly different from the Jobs era. No longer user upgradable, all soldered parts and glued shut. No diversification options that Jobs included. Just a range of fixed products with limited facilities and no upgradability or anything. You have to comply, that is all. Terrible.
Inspired? No, that's certainly true. Personally, I don't much like him, and he's certainly no great figurehead. He is though a consummate professional.
If you look at the product Steve Jobs was most remembered for, the creation of the Mac, you'll find that in 1984, there were no user serviceable parts inside, no upgrade options and the case was fixed with very unusual bolts, two of which needed a tool that only Apple had.
'Computing as an appliance, where the user bought it, booted it, used it, and never tinkered inside was Steve's plan, and Apple pretty much stuck to that all the time he was with the company. Even when he had returned, the machines which could be tinkered with such as the Aluminum PowerBooks, the G4 iMac, G4 Mac mini, and the early Intel iMacs prior to his death, were all either sealed shut, or were difficult and complicated to disassemble.
Steve did not do 'diversification' at all. Which was, in my view, one of his great strengths. He knew exactly what he wanted the user to have, and that is exactly what they got, whether he was right or wrong.
It doesn't do him justice to remember only the bits we want him to be known for.