Tim Cook is the Jack Welch of Apple

[ThomasJL]

Does anyone here remember the exceptionally high quality of GE products before Jack Welch became CEO in 1981? If so, then it should come as no surprise that there are many parallels between him and Tim Cook.

Cook is to Apple what Welch was to GE: a CEO who didn’t care much about user experience and thus lowered product quality in order to maximize profits.

Welch had bevvies of uncritical supporters who think that record profits can only mean that the products must be high quality. Same with Cook.

Welch prioritized shareholders over customers. Welch was loved by shareholders for cutting corners on products in order to maximize profits. Same with Cook.

Welch didn’t hire enough people to fix poor product quality. Same with Cook, which is why macOS and iOS are so buggy and bloated.

Welch expanded GE into the financial space. Same with Cook, although to a smaller degree, with the partnership with Goldman Sachs. (Soulless MBAs like Cook idolize Goldman Sachs and consider it, along with the consulting firm McKinsey, to be the pinnacle of prestige.)

Welch was not a product person. He didn’t care about innovation. Instead, his main focus was on maximizing profits by giving customers as little as he could get away with. Same with Cook.

Welch embraced a culture of corporate greed. Same with Cook.

Welch was adored by many NPC journalists who fallaciously equated record profits with innovation. Same with Cook.

In terms of innovation and creation of among the highest-quality products in the industry, Welch was the worst thing to ever happen to his company. Same with Cook.

 

[KaliYoni]

Does anyone here remember the exceptionally high quality of GE products before Jack Welch became CEO in 1981?

Well, I don't buy many power turbines, aircraft engines, or locomotives...so no.

 

[Lioness~]

Tim have served the stockholders well - customers both yes and no, I think.

I've stopped giving attention to the company and keynotes and such during Cook's leadership - can't stand him personally.

Still like and need my Apple devices - but miss Joni's design.
But I truly understand the design-teams departure.

 

[TumbleDryer]

As much as I agree with the OP it is however his job to do that. i.e. make money for shareholders. If he didn't he'd be out. So as a consumer yes the Apple experience has markedly declined. If nothing changes, over time it will begin to show as people go elsewhere but Cook is not bothered because he will be long gone before the effect is noticeable to the bottom line. He will likely go down in history as a great success even though he was the one that started the long term rot for consumer experience/cost cutting.

I too stopped watching the keynotes a long time ago. It's all about marketing fluff these days instead of wow moments of technological or aesthetic brilliance.

 

[I7guy]

Like my Apple devices and believe Apple and apples customers and shareholders under Tims’ excellent leadership has profited immensely.

 

[TFrank2]

The Cook era has certainly been different and has had its ups/downs but I also can’t help but think it’s emblematic of a broader shift across corporate culture where prioritizing customers and users has been tempered by demands to appease shareholders first. Not saying that demand hasn’t always been there, but in the past it felt a bit more balanced.

 

[Abazigal]

In terms of innovation and creation of among the highest-quality products in the industry, Welch was the worst thing to ever happen to his company. Same with Cook.

I guess I am going to need you to elaborate on what you perceive as poor product quality for Apple, but I find it's pretty much your style to throw a very general motherhood statement out there, and then promptly keep quiet and never really follow up on your posts.

For example, you pay lip service to iOS and macOS being buggy, but nothing about the overall experience afforded by the product itself. That feels like a very superficial take, and I suppose this is very on point for you. You spend a lot of time saying very little ultimately.

For myself, I can only speak from experience that I have purchased far more Apple products under the Tim Cook era, and am still happily using them. If there is such a scenario as what you described, it isn't really impacting me, and it won't stop me from buying more Apple products (both now and in the future).

Here's some of my examples.

1) Apple Silicon - my M1 MBA from 2020 is still going strong today, 8gb ram and all.

2) iPad - still using my iPad to teach in the classroom. Features like peer airplay (the ability to mirror my iPad to the Apple TV directly without the need for wifi), Apple Pencil, smart keyboard, split-screen, PIP, focus mode, widgets....they all happened under Tim Cook. I will remind you that the first iPad released by Steve Jobs had only 256mb ram and supported only 2 software versions. My 2018 iPad Pro lasted all the way till 2024 before I bought the M4 iPad Pro, and it's still getting iOS 26.

3) iPhone 13 pro max - for a company who's focused on profits, Apple sure does support their products for a fairly long period of time (way longer than Android so far). I could get the 17 pro max, but point being that my current phone is still going strong.

4) Apple Watch and AirPods are the only smartwatches and wireless headphones I have used since I first purchased them in 2016. So Apple makes money from selling great products that people want to buy. Oh the iniquity of it all.

5) It's a shame that my 5k iMac is no longer supported, but it was an excellent computer that tided me through the pandemic period (when I stayed at home and had to conduct online lessons). While my colleague's work laptops were all burning themselves out thanks to Zoom (they were these thin windows tablet PCs that could not properly handle the heat generated), my iMac (and M1 MBA) handled everything without breaking a sweat.

At the end of the day, Apple is able to reap the benefits of owning and controlling their own ecosystem, because they were the only company willing to invest in having an ecosystem in the first place. That's what many people don't seem to get - the experience doesn't consist so much of any one product, but all of them working seamlessly with one another. That's the real innovation that Tim Cook brought to Apple - building up a powerful ecosystem and establishing a formidable moat around Apple that continues to pay dividends even today.

My advice to you and to many other people constantly criticising Apple - learn to better explain Apple's success, not explain it away.

 

[dumastudetto]

That's the real innovation that Tim Cook brought to Apple - building up a powerful ecosystem and establishing a formidable moat around Apple that continues to pay dividends even today.

He carried on the winning formula from Steve Jobs who pioneered the approach and drove through the strategy, despite often battling investors who wanted Apple to reach into other ecosystems to make more money. When Tim Cook took control, the argument was essentially already won.

Would Tim have given investors the same advice as Steve did when they tried to dictate corporate strategy? I doubt it. Indeed, one of the first really big decisions Tim took as CEO was institute the dividends and share buyback programs that Steve long opposed despite pressure from big investors.

 

[maflynn]

He carried on the winning formula from Steve Jobs who pioneered the approach

Drive or coasted?

I think the knock on Cook has always been that he didn't have the vision of Jobs, or the drive to innovate and that criticism is deserved.

Don't get me wrong, Apple has innovated under Cook's leadership but its been different. The biggest hit was Apple Silicon but even that has Job's fingerprints all over it, given that he was running Apple when they started with the A series chips.

Apple was the zeitgeist for years, but it no longer sets the tone, its no longer the cool company where cool kids flock to show off their products. While they're still widely popular but now its different, they're no different then any other big tech firm - more interested in investor value then consumers

When was the last time we saw something really cool from apple like this?

 

[dumastudetto]

Drive or coasted?

I think the knock on Cook has always been that he didn't have the vision of Jobs, or the drive to innovate and that criticism is deserved.

Don't get me wrong, Apple has innovated under Cook's leadership but its been different. The biggest hit was Apple Silicon but even that has Job's fingerprints all over it, given that he was running Apple when they started with the A series chips.

Apple was the zeitgeist for years, but it no longer sets the tone, its no longer the cool company where cool kids flock to show off their products. While they're still widely popular but now its different, they're no different then any other big tech firm - more interested in investor value then consumers

When was the last time we saw something really cool from apple like this?
View attachment 2591539

I think if Steve Jobs really wanted to cement his legacy, then Tim Cook was a genius pick as the next CEO. You can't argue with the numbers Cook has delivered, but the things Jobs really brought to the table don't seem to exist within Apple anymore. They can't even be bothered to take risks with live events when announcing new products.

Services have really flourished under Tim Cook. Both in terms of revenue, but also extensiveness, reliability and capability. The domain email hosting within a 99 cent iCloud+ subscription is insane value with advanced features like DKIM and DMARC.

We shouldn't forget Apple Watch launched a few years after Jobs death. No doubt Jobs had plenty of input in early product development, but ultimately they got execution right under Cook after the first gen struggled to find purpose.

 

[maflynn]

We shouldn't forget Apple Watch launched a few years after Jobs death.

While the apple watch is quite successful, its not in the same league as products that Apple produced under Jobs, but I do give Cook credit where credit is due.

For me, I'd say M series chips are biggest innovation, but as I mentioned it has roots in the A series SoC.

From any and all metrics, Cooks has been a wildly successful CEO, but no one can deny that Apple of 2026 is a lot different then Apple of 2011

 

[chmania]

A CEO won’t remain in their position for long if they don’t pay attention to the bottom line. It doesn’t matter what the name of the CEO is, as long as they deliver profits for the shareholders. Moreover, the CEO is not there for the welfare of the consumers, but for the shareholders.

 

[maflynn]

Moreover, the CEO is not there for the welfare of the consumers, but for the shareholders.

I can't find the quote, but Steve Job's position was that by not paying dividiends, he would shape the long term growth of apple, which in turn will increase the value of apple stock.

The problem with companies in 2025, is that they've been making decisions based on how it will be received by shareholders, even if it has questionable value long term or more more importantly a negative effect on the consumer.

I think if companies have a consumer first perspective, growth and investor value will follow. If they have a shareholder perspective then everything is driven by quarterly results.

A great example of this is Paradox software and Cities:skylines 2. The developer was forced to release the game, by Paradox, because they needed a positive win for the quarter - which they achieved, but then people did returns, and the game has had such a negative reputation because it was unplayable when first released.

The game player metacritic score for the game is still embarrassing low - all because they pushed the reelase of the game for their quarterly financial results..

 

[chmania]

I think if companies have a consumer first perspective, growth and investor value will follow. If they have a shareholder perspective then everything is driven by quarterly results.

Certainly, they do present a consumer-first perspective, but in reality, it’s about the consumer's wallet. It doesn’t matter if the consumer can afford the goods; all that the company board (and the CEO) is interested in is taking that money from their wallet. And that’s the main topic at any board meeting.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

A great example of this is Paradox software and Cities:skylines 2.

I love the random dig at CSII. I'm pretty salty about it too. Have you seen Nova Roma? It looks like it might sort of scratch the same itch, and it runs on macOS.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Apple today is DRAMATICALLY different than the Apple of 2005. Let's just take a look at the past 20 years. In 2005, Apple had basically computers and the iPod. And total revenue, in 2005, was $13.9B; in 2025, $416B. Managing the supply chains, product distribution, and development lead times for a company of the current size is massively different than what it was in 2005. In 2005, the products were the myriad of iPod devices, Macs and a small iTunes. Today you have iPhones, Macs, Watches, AirPods, Vision Pro and the entire Apple One suite (Music, TV, Arcade, News, iCloud). The Apple One revenue is about $100B, which is 6x larger than Apple's entire revenue in 2005.
Complain as much as you want about how Apple is not "exciting" anymore. But with a company as large as Apple currently is, too many eyes are on Apple for Apple to actually surprise us anymore. Even on this website, specs and expectations for the iPhone 18 were being discussed before the iPhone 17 was even up for sale. Apple did not have this level of attention in 2005. And SJs "one more thing" was actually possible.
Overall, I tend to agree that Apple does not have the same level of magic that it had in 2005. But too many things have changed since then.

 

[maflynn]

I love the random dig at CSII. I'm pretty salty about it too. Have you seen Nova Roma? It looks like it might sort of scratch the same itch, and it runs on macOS.

LOL, thanks. I've seen Nova Roma, but I haven't tried it yet. I may take a look.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

LOL, thanks. I've seen Nova Roma, but I haven't tried it yet. I may take a look.

There's a demo that was pretty good. It scratched the itch, although I'm worried the later game will become too micro-manage-y like Kingdoms. I prefer macro level play to micro or city painters.

 

[Abazigal]

Would Tim have given investors the same advice as Steve did when they tried to dictate corporate strategy? I doubt it. Indeed, one of the first really big decisions Tim took as CEO was institute the dividends and share buyback programs that Steve long opposed despite pressure from big investors.

I don’t really see what’s wrong with stock buybacks (for Apple at least). Truth is Apple is making more money than they know what to do with, and it makes sense to return it to shareholders rather than just have all that cash sitting there doing nothing or worse, being flushed down the toilet through frivolous acquisitions.

I feel that you also cannot really compare what Apple does today with that they did in the past. In the past, Apple was a company that living on the edge, metaphorically couch surfing. Its existence buoyed by a small population of die-hard fans that looked to it for technology and aesthetic leadership. It had a flock. That was its sustenance.

The current user base and investor loyalty is far more grounded in pragmatic self interest. For this user base, it’s a combination of their understanding of Apple products as “good products” and “cool products”, their understanding of the Apple brand as a trustworthy, fashionable, quality and desirable brand. For investors, it’s the typical investor mix - some mix of growth-oriented investment and revenue-oriented (i.e. dividend-oriented) investment.

You either continue to deliver for shareholders, or they start looking somewhere else. The problem is that that original core user and investor base.. those true believers... they don’t matter anymore. They got to enjoy the ride from the start, but now their secluded island has been inundated by a population of visitors that outnumbers them by a couple of orders of magnitude.

This new population sets the tone for what kind of company Apple will be, because they have the power in this new relationship.

Has Apple “lost its way”? Apple is slowly transitioning into a much more traditional company, and its behaviour will start to match those of a traditional company’s behaviour. If you want to consider that as them “losing their way”, then yeah.

I wouldn’t call it “losing their way”, though. Circumstances changed, and the company changed, and that’s just the way she goes.

I saw the writing on the wall a long time ago,

 

[TumbleDryer]

Apple today is DRAMATICALLY different than the Apple of 2005. Let's just take a look at the past 20 years. In 2005, Apple had basically computers and the iPod. And total revenue, in 2005, was $13.9B; in 2025, $416B. Managing the supply chains, product distribution, and development lead times for a company of the current size is massively different than what it was in 2005. In 2005, the products were the myriad of iPod devices, Macs and a small iTunes. Today you have iPhones, Macs, Watches, AirPods, Vision Pro and the entire Apple One suite (Music, TV, Arcade, News, iCloud). The Apple One revenue is about $100B, which is 6x larger than Apple's entire revenue in 2005.
Complain as much as you want about how Apple is not "exciting" anymore. But with a company as large as Apple currently is, too many eyes are on Apple for Apple to actually surprise us anymore. Even on this website, specs and expectations for the iPhone 18 were being discussed before the iPhone 17 was even up for sale. Apple did not have this level of attention in 2005. And SJs "one more thing" was actually possible.
Overall, I tend to agree that Apple does not have the same level of magic that it had in 2005. But too many things have changed since then.

I think all eyes are on Apple today because we are still waiting for that next big thing 'we never knew we needed'. Apple have however stopped being the innovative leader and simply follow current trends instead of setting them like before.

 

[PlayUltimate]

I think all eyes are on Apple today because we are still waiting for that next big thing 'we never knew we needed'. Apple have however stopped being the innovative leader and simply follow current trends instead of setting them like before.

Name one thing that Apple created that did not exist before. They have, almost always, taken existing tech and just made it better and more seamless.

 

[rappr]

People keep saying Tim Cook cares more about shareholders than customers without providing examples.

 

[chmania]

People keep saying Tim Cook cares more about shareholders than customers without providing examples.

Well, if he didn’t care about shareholders, he wouldn’t have remained CEO for this long. The best recipe for failure is trying to satisfy everyone.

 

[TumbleDryer]

Name one thing that Apple created that did not exist before. They have, almost always, taken existing tech and just made it better and more seamless.

That's why I used inverted commas. The innovation im referring to is about making things better but doing it so well it then carves out a new niche. First full touch screen phone for example. Everything before it was clunky with plastic buttons. Nearly all phones since the iPhone have followed the iPhone approach. Same with iPod and all in one personal computers. They're not doing that anymore. Samsung adds a bigger camera, Apple adds a bigger camera. Why not figure out a way to get rid of the hideous camera bump and stop saying the iPhone Air is super thin when its not?

 

[chmania]

First full touch screen phone for example.

Well, the first full touchscreen phone was the IBM Simon Personal Communicator, introduced in 1992 and released in 1994. It pioneered the concept by integrating a mobile phone with PDA features such as email, a calendar, and a stylus-driven screen, paving the way for modern smartphones.

The first iPhone was introduced in January 9th, 2007.

Innovation...