Dark_Omen
macrumors 65816
Calling the Vision Pro great is wild.
Tim didn't do anything innovative. The people underneath him did.
That's the difference between Tim and Steve.
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.
Tim Cook Reflects on His Legacy in Final Weeks as Apple CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tim didn't do anything innovative. The people underneath him did.
That's the difference between Tim and Steve.
erikkfi
macrumors 68000
If I say what I'm thinking I'll get one of those annoying messages about political posts in a non-political forum.
Looking forward to once again having a product person in charge of Apple after 15 years.
Tyler O'Bannon
macrumors 65816
“I made like a billion dollars and I think that’s fantastic.” -Tim Cook, to himself, probably
Yes, Liquid Glass, but that lipstick update to iOS is not Tim Cook’s fault. Neither are the 60+ items in your list his merits. He did not invent, conceive, or design any of them. , he delegated the 60-some efforts optimally in terms of growth, profits and shareholder satisfaction. But he was only the CEO. He would be nothing without the engineers and all the others never mentioned but instrumental in the conception and development of these innovations and improvements. Just like Apple would be nothing without those who create the software that sells the hardware.
Thanks to Tim Cook’s greediness, we lost the option to upgrade the internal SSD. I cannot despise him enough for that.
Abazigal
Contributor
The problem, I feel, is that it's no longer enough to just be a good product person in today's tech environment, where Apple's biggest threats are not the likes of Samsung or Google, but world governments and an increasingly fractured world.
But we will see.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68020
there are 2 reasons Cook/Ive removed user upgrades on macbook. The first is the Cook side of this. PROFIT. IF you remove the means of people upgrading their systems themselves, You drive PROFITS. 2. the Ive factor. After Steve was not there to reign in the "greatest designer eveaaaaa" he was free to ruin the products just making them thinner and thinner and thinner. That was Ive's shtick. Every year devices got thinner instead of BETTER. So in order to make things thinner, he removed things to make them better.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68020
As a mainly windows based user, I despise him for that as well because other brands did the same thing when they saw apple crank up profits.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Profits and looks. Seems like two very good reasons to take that course of action.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
What the point is of the above? True he was only the ceo and during his tenure an amazing amount of stuff came out of apple, coupled with amazing growth.
I have no idea of what you are saying because it’s a given Tim Cook didn’t code firmware and design emojis.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68020
Yep. screw the consumer. Who cares about those peons. MIRITE? so you would rather pay more for less i guess. Got it.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Jobs didn’t do anything innovative. The people underneath him did. That’s the similarity between Tim and Steve.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I have agency. If I feel I am being screwed by a product or company I can make some changes.
Also, whatever you like or don’t like about Apple isn’t going to change with Ternus, imo.
Steve Adams
macrumors 68020
I know it's not. I know we are all being screwed by most every company in every different metric. Not just apple. EVERYONE from groceries, gas, to other products. We are getting ripped 24/7. Don't make believe that Apple is some holy'er than thou company actually looking after it's customers. They are only in it for MONEY and PROFITS like every other major publicly traded mega corp. Why do you think they have quarterly earnings calls.
Apple is as greedy as they come my friend. Telling yourself otherwise does not make it true. Do I like my apple products? yes. Do I think they care about their customers one bit? Absolutely not. They give great customer service so you keep opening your wallet for them every year.
In 2008, Steve was still bringing out Intel’s CEO at MacWorld and even happily promoting new GPUs with Invidia.
And under Tim Cook, the MacBook Pros were updated in June 2012, February 2013, October 2013, July 2015, March and May 2015, October 2016, June 2017, July 2018, May 2019, November 2019, May 2020…
That’s on average once every nine months.
Even now we frequently get multiple updates to Mac computers in a year, look at 2023, where the MacBook Pros were updated twice, once in January and once in October.
Steve absolutely never railed against Intel in his Keynotes, he was only ever complimentary towards the company, after the transition announcement in June 2005.
In fact, apparently, even as late as 2010, Steve was having conversations with people at Intel about future iPhone and iPads, possibly including Intel chips, and even the first generation Apple TV used an Intel chip.
Relations between Apple and Intel only started to break down after the 2015 and 2016 MacBook’s, this has been well documented, Steve had absolutely nothing to do with that.
And as I said, Apple didn’t even ship their first in-house CPU until 2012, and their first in-house GPU until 2017. The A4 and A5 chips were Samsung CPUs and power VR GPUs, not even close to the completely Apple designed CPU and Apple designed GPU that is in the M series.
Please stop creating myths.
What a ridiculous statement. This goes for almost every CEO ever.
It’s like you don’t even know anything about the Steve Wozniak Jobs relationship, famously Jobs was significantly less experienced, less efficient, less capable, and less useful when it came to the actual building, programming, coding, creating parts of running Apple.
He did the selling, the yelling, the deal making. Meanwhile, it was Waz, and eventually his team of employees, who would do the actual building, coding, creating, designing.
And this goes all the way until the very end of Steve’s time at Apple, the iPod literally used software from outside of Apple, a design created by Johnny Ive, the clickwheel idea was brought in by Phil Schiller, and Tony ran the entire operation. And this was all based off of a mini hard drive introduced by Toshiba earlier that year.
Other than distant oversight, the only instruction Steve really gave the iPod team was, have it ready for the holidays.
Of course it is well known that Steve was more hands-on with the new products than Tim was, but it doesn’t really matter.
Simplifying it down to Steve created and Tim didn’t is just ridiculous, it really takes away from just how much of the products that we use don’t come from the CEOs, but instead come from engineers and those working in much smaller positions.
Dark_Omen
macrumors 65816
It's very real. It's so real, the owners decided it and the shares can be sold at market price.
The cashflows of SpaceX and AAPL aren't even comparable. Apple has serious cashflow.
Money makes the world go round. The default state is poverty and misery. The current system has done more for the ordinary man than any system in history. Cope.
You're describing the government. Private enterprise solves problems and no money has to be handed over to companies without you being willing to hand it over. Try that with your govt.
I'm not worried about what you think about my bank account.
The iPhone was a collaboration across the entire company, with the software being mostly designed by Scott Forstall and a team of over 100 software engineers. The design was obviously Johnny, and the hardware was led by Tony Fadell. The multi-touch display came from a company that Apple acquired.
The iPad was similar to the iPhone, but guess who joined the team? Oh yeah, a man you might’ve heard of, his name? John Ternus.
The MacBook Air required a custom version of the Intel core 2 Duo chip, you can absolutely assume that Steve Jobs wasn’t sitting there trying to figure out how to miniaturize an Intel CPU. That was not his place.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
What you call greedy has a solid intersection of value, price and functionality to me.
Does Apple care about their customers one bit? Heck yeah. You don’t please your customers and they don’t buy your products.
That doesn’t mean everything Apple does will please 100% of its customers 200% of the time. Apple products aren’t inexpensive (cheap; greedy and overpriced are subjective) compared to some of the competitors. That all is part of the value and price evaluation.
Dark_Omen
macrumors 65816
You do realize Steve was a visionary and Tim isn’t? Those products were a result of Steve’s vision and decision-making. The hiring, the approvals, the vision, and the presentation. Very involved in tech stuff and in each presentation.
Tim on the other hand — he pretends to know about tech but is a supply chain guy turned into a glorified CFO using the CEO name.
They’re two very different types of leaders.
OferJ
macrumors member
Compared to those other utter sociopaths, he wasn't quiet as sociopathic. Not a very high bar to clear. He still prioritized shareholders and short-term gain over product. Jobs famously said "If you keep your eye on the profit, you're going to skimp on the product. But if you focus on making really great products, then the profits will follow." Thanks to Cook, Apple became entirely reliant on China for production so that profit could be prioritized. Jobs would never have created a fake gold trophy for a wanna-be dictator nor would he have contributed millions to that same wanna-be dictator. So yes, Cook isn't the sociopath that those other tech CEOs are, but that doesn't make him someone who acted for the common good.
