Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This was a problem under Scully also. It appears to be due to the difference between a having a product guy as CEO and a more typical CEO. Scully and Cook listen to their marketing departments, which always slice and dice the market into fine segments yielding a confusing number of versions of the same product. Under Scully, there was a confusing lineup of Macs that were often little more than badge engineered versions of the same product: LC, Classic, Performa, Centris, and Quadra on sale simultaneously. Cook gives us iPhone 16, 16e, 16 Plus, 16 Pro, 16 Pro Max with 15 and 15 plus still available.

Targeting market segments with products for that segment is needed to build and keep market share. If you don't have low priced entry models, you miss out on a consumer segment that is relatively large with some who may move upmarket the next time they upgrade. In addition, broadening the customer base opens up the opportunity for more services revenue, which is a critical part of Apple's revenue. If you look at Apple's iPhone offerings, they have two main product lines, one for price conscious buyers (the 15's and 16e) with various features at different price points, and the top of the line split into a 2x2 matrix of size vs feature sets. That lets Apple see a customer to the model that best meets their use case and price point.

Segmentation doesn't mean you can't make good innovative products; it helps support a flagship model that may not sell in large numbers but is important by providing reliable, profitable revenue streams that support R&D efforts. It also means you don't get stuck in a bad spot in market cycles, for example having lower priced options can help during an economic downturn by offering value at a price consumers are willing to pay shaving them forgo purchases because the premium models are viewed as too expensive; and phones are a product whose replacement cycle is easily extended and thus discretionary spending.

Cook is not the overt product guy Jobs was, he also keeps a close eye on costs, but that doesn't mean he isn't also a product guy. I suspect that's why Job kept him at his side and eventually turned over the keys to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CWallace
The Mac’s are cold, stale and lifeless.

As a Mac user for decades, these are some of the best laptops and desktops I have ever used. Powerful. Stylish. All-day battery life for the laptops. Significant innovation in macOS. Pretty much never been happier.


Tim Cook should be replaced with Scott Forstall. Forstall was the closest thing Apple ever had to another Steve Jobs.

He was certainly as arrogant as Steve. Maybe that is why Steve passed him over in favor of Cook as he may have worried that without Steve's natural charisma, Scott would drive away a lot of Apple's talent and send them "back to the brink".


Saying that Tim Cook is a good CEO because he led Apple to huge record profits, is just as ludicrous as saying that Steve Ballmer was a good CEO because he let Microsoft to huge record profits (far more than Apple at the time). When it comes to innovation, Cook is as useless Ballmer.

I was a fan of Satya Nadella for some time, but his recent decisions to start razing whole sections of the company in the pursuit of freeing money to pour into AI has soured me on him a fair bit.
 
Ummm… what? Just focused on a specific title or… Jobs was the head of Apple from founding in 1976 until “ouster” in 1985.
 
Tim Apple is a good CEO for the shareholders (as in keeping high stock value and profits).

But/ and also a master of withholding features that people want, as to maintain a straight line up in 'product improvements'.

For example, just bloody give 120Hz monitors mate. But also if everything is 120Hz, why would you upgrade anything next year. Or make thick bois that have 3 days battery life, but also when is the battery gonan degrade enough for the consumer to think about buying a new phone, etc.
 


Tim Cook has now served as Apple's chief executive officer (CEO) for longer Steve Jobs' entire tenure, including the latter's time as interim CEO.
The fact that almost nobody knows is pretty telling. Tim Cook could have been brick in a wall to be honest, and it couldn't have done a worse job. What a life.
 
Tim Cook will stay around for as long as Donald Trump is president, I suspect. The people who criticise Tim Cook for not being the product person that Steve Jobs was don't seem to realise that we have long moved past that era of competing with hardware manufacturers like Samsung where megapixels and screen refresh rates still mattered. Today, Apple's main challenges come from world governments and political turmoil. I am not sure even Steve Jobs would have the finesse and political acumen to handle these matters, much less Scott Forstall.
 
Making trillion profits by removing quality manufacturing and materials. Dont forget the new MBP come with scratches and dents in the screen, Apple does not pay for high QC. Thats where the real profits come from.
Apple makes a trillion in profits???
 
A CEO is there to make profit and protect the financial interests of shareholders so you basically accept that Cook is a great CEO.
So are you saying that if it were the 2000s right now, you'd prefer to buy and use Windows instead of Mac OS X because Steve Ballmer had a much better ability than Steve Jobs to "make profit and protect the financial interests of shareholders"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Astrohunter
So are you saying that if it were the 2000s right now, you'd prefer to buy and use Windows instead of Mac OS X because Steve Ballmer had a much better ability than Steve Jobs to "make profit and protect the financial interests of shareholders"?
Is that what I said?
 
Is that what I said?
You said, "A CEO is there to make profit and protect the financial interests of shareholders so you basically accept that Cook is a great CEO."

So going by the logic of your statement, a good CEO is someone who prioritizes profits over innovative and user-friendly products. That is what Tim Cook has done for Apple in the 2010s and 2020s, and that is also what Steve Ballmer did for Microsoft in the 2000s. Therefore, by the logic of your statement, Ballmer was a better CEO than Steve Jobs because Ballmer made a lot more profits for Microsoft than Jobs did for Apple, and Ballmer also protected the finanical interests of shareholders a lot more that Jobs did.

Is that correct?
 
You said, "A CEO is there to make profit and protect the financial interests of shareholders so you basically accept that Cook is a great CEO."

So going by the logic of your statement, a good CEO is someone who prioritizes profits over innovative and user-friendly products. That is what Tim Cook has done for Apple in the 2010s and 2020s, and that is also what Steve Ballmer did for Microsoft in the 2000s. Therefore, by the logic of your statement, Ballmer was a better CEO than Steve Jobs because Ballmer made a lot more profits for Microsoft than Jobs did for Apple, and Ballmer also protected the finanical interestes of shareholders a lot more that Jobs did.

Is that correct?
Yes but that’s not what your first statement said. Your first statement said that my buying choice is based on whether or not I think a company has a good CEO which is incorrect. For example I think Michael O’Leary is a good CEO but I don’t fly Ryanair.

In fact it’s an issue with these types of thread: everyone seems to believe Apple should be doing what they want Apple to do but Apple is there to make a profit and it seems to be extremely good at that.
 
you know the reason Apple still does so well? we are stupid. we buy stuff because we are loyal to the brand. but why? there is almost nothing left of the original ethos of Apple.

you either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain.

this is so true of Apple.

everything is overpriced.

they are years behind some of their competitors, especially in the phone biz.

I think Tim might have been quoted in the last few days saying Apple are hardly ever first to anything - says it all for me.

I need to break from the ecosystem - it should be easier to take content you bought with you when you leave Apple. sounds like a potential class action in the future.
 
You said, "A CEO is there to make profit and protect the financial interests of shareholders so you basically accept that Cook is a great CEO."

So going by the logic of your statement, a good CEO is someone who prioritizes profits over innovative and user-friendly products. That is what Tim Cook has done for Apple in the 2010s and 2020s, and that is also what Steve Ballmer did for Microsoft in the 2000s. Therefore, by the logic of your statement, Ballmer was a better CEO than Steve Jobs because Ballmer made a lot more profits for Microsoft than Jobs did for Apple, and Ballmer also protected the finanical interests of shareholders a lot more that Jobs did.

Is that correct?
There's a lot of spin. That Apple keeps making profits is because Apple provides services that billions use and keep on repeating to use (Peter Drucker 101). Profits come from products and services that people purchase. In that regard, Cook is a great CEO. While the posters here at MacRumors have their individual opinions it doesn't change anything about Tim Cook and under his stewardship grew Apple tremendously.
 
you know the reason Apple still does so well? we are stupid. we buy stuff because we are loyal to the brand. but why? there is almost nothing left of the original ethos of Apple.

you either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain.

this is so true of Apple.

everything is overpriced.

they are years behind some of their competitors, especially in the phone biz.

I think Tim might have been quoted in the last few days saying Apple are hardly ever first to anything - says it all for me.

I need to break from the ecosystem - it should be easier to take content you bought with you when you leave Apple. sounds like a potential class action in the future.
"We" are not stupid. "We" have the right to buy whatever products and services we want to purchase for our own reasons. If I thought a company was one the downhill spiral with overpriced products, years behind the competition, and I was sick of waiting for Apple to implement features that competition implements first, I would be first in line and start with get a new phone where I thought the manufacturer was none of what I am griping about.
 
Steve Jobs bring back Apple from nearly dead money making purpose company to a shinning innovating company. Tim brings Apple from a shinning innovating company back to a money making purpose company. Tim's success is only because of building on top of the foundation of Steve Jobs.
 
Steve had the mind, the drive, and the gravitas that would make Tim wake up screaming at night because he wished he had that.

Apple was brought back from the brink because of Steve. The stock price is as high as it is now because of Tim. Perhaps Tim should handle the business side as CFO and someone like Forrestal or Ive should be CTO—making them essentially co-CEOs.

I remember when the buzz around the iPhone launch was at its peak…the prototype was discovered when it was left at a bar. Steve was spotted at his kid’s sporting event testing a prototype in a bulky case. Steve would drive changes constantly—mostly for the better. He’d find bugs in the early morning and wake teams up to fix them. He knew that this was a make or break product for the company. I don’t see that type of work ethic from Tim—he’s too busy kissing orange ass at the White House, or bending the knee in China these days.

Steve would drill new product MWSF presentations until they were perfect (although live demos always had issues). Steve had that power over crowds at MWSF that even more lackluster product launches were still exciting. Tim’s sanitized and ho hum launches now aren’t much to crow over—mostly because Tim has over promised and under delivered too many times now (cough)Air Power(cough).

Everything that Steve brought to market: laptops, desktops, portables, etc. are all still in production with nothing new to show. No innovative products have happened since, unless you take Apple Silicon into account—and that was probably developed to save money from having to depend on another vendor. Tim has done nothing new on the iPhone or iPad because all you can do is tweak parts of it—a better screen, processor, etc. The only innovation for the iPhone now is software and they can’t even get that right now. Siri is a joke. Apple “Intelligence” is anything but intelligent.

The CEO of a company like Apple needs to have deep roots in tech, software and product development. I don’t think that Tim ever had that.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lioness~
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.