Tim Cook Reflects on His Legacy in Final Weeks as Apple CEO

[vantelimus]

Thanks to Cook, Apple became entirely reliant on China for production so that profit could be prioritized.

Apple isn't entirely reliant on China. But to the extent it is, that was dictated by globalization, geopolitics, superior overseas supply chain velocity, and a lack of US industrial engineering talent to support manufacturing at the scale Apple requires. Remember, outsourcing was instituted by Steve Jobs, who told Obama "those jobs aren't coming back". Tim Cook has actually moved some of the less complex manufacturing jobs to the Texas high-end-Mac assembly plant.

Let's be real here. There are no major global mass-market consumer PCs, smart phones, smart watches, or other consumer electronics manufactured in the US. Even the Mac plant in Texas is just final assembly. With all other major brands made outside the US, if Apple had not moved production overseas, Apple would have gone out of business. Complain about Apple's prices all you want, but they are set as much by what the market will bear as they are by Apple's desire for profit. The proof is that comparable Google and Samsung products are similarly priced. If Apple were to manufacture its products in the US, they would cost as much as 200% more than they do now. As much as you may want to buy "American", you wouldn't at those prices.

 

[I7guy]

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.

He actually didn’t. But instead of some generalized hyperbolic statements some examples would help.

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,

So Cook kept his eye on the product.

Apple became entirely reliant on China for production so that profit could be prioritized.

So that mass production of Apple products could be scaled as needed.

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.

Sure at that point Apple may have just folded.

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.

He pretty much steered Apple toward the common good. A lot of which can be seen starting in 2020.

 

[GregoryPeckEPA]

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 entire video is quite enlightening, but watch the last clip. That is the stock market and "valuation" in a nutshell. You could learn some things instead of spending your time writing snarky comments on an Apple BB.

Good day.

 

[citysnaps]

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.

And brought around 20 Apple products to market that flopped.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

The entire video is quite enlightening, but watch the last clip. That is the stock market and "valuation" in a nutshell. You could learn some things instead of spending your time writing snarky comments on an Apple BB.

Good day.

Yeah, I don't need to watch a video. I have an advanced degree in finance and do understand markets. I won't flex by telling from where (edited).

You don't know what you're talking about and the child in the video doesn't either. Or he's just trying to get clicks/views. The presentation appeals to people with little understanding about capital markets and does point out real scenarios in a watered down, simplified way.

He's basically describing daily behavior of free markets. Also, you don't have to agree with the valuation, but it is the valuation nonetheless. That's where you can short it and see if you're right. If you think it's too low, you can long. Congratulations, you just discovered investing.

Investors using real money decide what something is worth. It's not "vibes" or anything close to that in the long run. Cashflows matter. There have been careful studies that prove company profit is directly correlated to the price of the stock in the long run. Again, it doesn't matter what you think or what anyone thinks. There have been literal geniuses predicting and betting on stock declines/rises who have lost a fortune.

I can literally sell the stock for cold hard cash, so I assure you it's all very real. I can also assure you that if you don't invest, you will be poor unless you're independently wealthy, hit the lottery, or just make insane amounts of money from working.

People tend to oversimplify things they don't understand. That's why the guy in the video calls it "vibes" because for him, it doesn't make sense. Do you think he actually has any deep concept of how markets work, stocks trade, or really anything in economics? You think investors are all just morons bidding on stuff they don't understand and has no intrinsic value? If you say Bitcoin is based on vibes, I'm with you. Other real assets have real earnings and there is literally mathematics behind all of it. Of course investors account for a myriad of other factors, most of which people who haven't studied it in detail don't understand. Stocks can do anything in the short term, but they are very orderly in the longer (sometimes very long) term.

 

[FasterQuieter]

Plenty of great things happened under his watch, but I am much more excited about the hardware CEO.

 

[Rounder077]

His legacy is profits and quality diverging. It happens to a lot of mature companies — although it didn’t have to.

 

[freezelighter]

A person who ruined innovation should never come back.

 

[Neepman]

For his responsibility to shareholders, he made my retirement picture a whole lot more rosier i'll tell you that.

 

[I7guy]

For his responsibility to shareholders, he made my retirement picture a whole lot more rosier i'll tell you that.

Because Tim fulfilled his responsibilities towards customers. 👍

 

[Lampekap]

One word : Scrooge.
From the Christmas presents the employees no longer get to the subscription model of everything.

 

[cbns]

this to me is just the worst. trying to have their cake and eating it too.

you shouldn't get to to be capitalist overlords sucking up to trump with insane profits, basically zero repair-ability, having the "courage" to cause more e-waste with disposable batteries that could all easily been replaced if you were not hide behind "dust/water resistance" which is obviously much less useful than user-replaceables... AND pretend like you're some huge philanthropist with a legacy that has done good for the world.

yeah, he may have not been one of the worst, but he is far from his own depiction and its so uncouth of them to pretend otherwise

 

[tomtattoo]

Hey Tim..a last task for you:
make a call to Paypal and booking.com. Dark icon still missing.
Thank you!
*SCNR*

 

[GregoryPeckEPA]

you obviously have not heard about Microsoft. Many customers continue to buy because there is no competition or whatever competitor exists its just as bad as the prior. monopoly and oligopoly are a thing. Not saying Tim increased shareholders profits using this, but it does exist.

Capitalism hasn't been about "making a better product" for decades. The amount of leverage big corpos have, and the control over the supply chain means no one can compete any longer.

Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me) made that abundantly clear back in 2017 with Holy Chicken.

The realtors in Canada take about a 5% commission (it scales down after the first $100k) off the total sale. Someone about a decade ago tried to open a firm that only took 3%. The owner made it less than a year before being effectively run out of town. He faced threats, a collection of realtors that would purposely refused to do business with him and a litany of fines and other counter measures from local ByLaw. "Big Chicken" in the US operates the same as does most other established entities, putting a chokehold on their rackets.

Microsoft grows fat through licensing and other shady B to B deals that siphon billions from business. They also host massgrave right off their GitHub servers, which shows you how much they care about Windows licensing for personal use.

You could never compete in this day and age with the likes of Apple, who is frequently accused of using their supply chain dominance to hurt their competitors. As do others. Samsung is ruthless and even after a decade long legal fight where they gave a slew of their new employees who were fresh out of Samsung University cancer. They apologized after one father would not stop seeking justice after losing his daughter. In Korea, they are called "Chaebols".

Amazon controls a lot of the markets as they leverage their online store position to force price increases across all products, regardless of where they are sold. No one is fighting the good fight. It's just a free for all now. Laws seems powerless to control bad actors and almost built for them to operate with impunity.

There is no more competition. Not from small business. We are legitimately cooked.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

Capitalism hasn't been about "making a better product" for decades. The amount of leverage big corpos have, and the control over the supply chain means no one can compete any longer.

Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me) made that abundantly clear back in 2017 with Holy Chicken.

The realtors in Canada take about a 5% commission (it scales down after the first $100k) off the total sale. Someone about a decade ago tried to open a firm that only took 3%. The owner made it less than a year before being effectively run out of town. He faced threats, a collection of realtors that would purposely refused to do business with him and a litany of fines and other counter measures from local ByLaw. "Big Chicken" in the US operates the same as does most other established entities, putting a chokehold on their rackets.

Microsoft grows fat through licensing and other shady B to B deals that siphon billions from business. They also host massgrave right off their GitHub servers, which shows you how much they care about Windows licensing for personal use.

You could never compete in this day and age with the likes of Apple, who is frequently accused of using their supply chain dominance to hurt their competitors. As do others. Samsung is ruthless and even after a decade long legal fight where they gave a slew of their new employees who were fresh out of Samsung University cancer. They apologized after one father would not stop seeking justice after losing his daughter. In Korea, they are called "Chaebols".

Amazon controls a lot of the markets as they leverage their online store position to force price increases across all products, regardless of where they are sold. No one is fighting the good fight. It's just a free for all now. Laws seems powerless to control bad actors and almost built for them to operate with impunity.

There is no more competition. Not from small business. We are legitimately cooked.

You're wrong again here. Titans of the past didn't stay on top forever, despite pundits like you declaring competition over.

The only entity getting in the way of healthy competition are governments allowing special privilege, but that is a minor factor in capitalism. Titans will die.

But the idea that big companies like AAPL can't be competed against is wrong and been historically wrong and debunked time and time again by the record.

Capitalism is the only system that checks abuse of corporate power effectively. Apple proves their product is dominant enough at the moment that they can enjoy a dominant position. This position is NOT forever.

Don't believe me? Go look at the top 50 companies by Market Cap in 2000 and look at them today. Only Microsoft made the top 15 both years.

 

[Dark_Omen]

this to me is just the worst. trying to have their cake and eating it too.

you shouldn't get to to be capitalist overlords sucking up to trump with insane profits, basically zero repair-ability, having the "courage" to cause more e-waste with disposable batteries that could all easily been replaced if you were not hide behind "dust/water resistance" which is obviously much less useful than user-replaceables... AND pretend like you're some huge philanthropist with a legacy that has done good for the world.

yeah, he may have not been one of the worst, but he is far from his own depiction and its so uncouth of them to pretend otherwise

Dust and water resistance are much more valuable than being able to pull a battery out of a cheap plastic backing.

Get cell phone insurance through your phone carrier. Battery replacements are free and someone takes the phone apart for you. Simple.

 

[Lioness~]

If it wasn't for Johny Srouji and the hardware team that made the Apple Silicon, I'd probably left Apple.
Crook was not good for customers, but some other folks at Apple was, and still are.

Hope Apple will sell a phone I want again. Not so today.
But as long my iPhone mini with new battery, serves me, I'm good.

 

[Steves Padawan]

greed destroyed unique company - think different is past now

 

[Lioness~]

greed destroyed unique company - think different is past now

It has not been official - but Think Greed - have been Apple very clealy for awhile!
Not destroyed totally for me, as I still buy some products from them.
Hope Ternus will do better.

 

[ThomasJL]

Apple CEO Tim Cook once said that what Steve Jobs stood for, in a word, was "innovation."

What Tim Cook stood for, in a word, was “stagnation.”

 

[AAPLbuyback]

What Tim Cook stood for, in a word, was “stagnation.”

Found that guy that thinks phones should fly him to the moon.

 

[ThomasJL]

Found that guy that thinks phones should fly him to the moon.

…Says the guy that has a username supporting Apple’s stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks prioritize short-term stock price inflation and executive bonuses over research and development and innovation.

Tim Cook ran the largest share repurchase program in corporate history, committing over $850 billion of Apple’s money to buy back its own stock and retiring more than 44% of the company's outstanding shares.

Steve Jobs famously refused to do stock buybacks or pay dividends, preferring to keep cash reserves. But soon after Jobs died, Cook started doing stock buybacks in 2012.

Cook spent Apple’s cash to artificially boost earnings per share (EPS) rather than investing in innovation. Not investing in innovation leads to stagnation, just like I said in the post of mine that you made fun of.

Cook received bonuses tied to stock performance or EPS, creating a conflict of interest to inflate share prices. That useless man is filled to the brim with corporate greed.

By constantly reducing the overall share count, Cook’s massive buybacks helped drive up Apple’s EPS and provided massive returns for long-term investors like Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Cook cares far more about billionaire shareholders like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger than he does about Apple’s customers. Jobs was the opposite. That’s why Jobs’s legacy was innovation, while Cook’s legacy was stagnation.

 

[vantelimus]

…Says the guy that has a username supporting Apple’s stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks prioritize short-term stock price inflation and executive bonuses over research and development and innovation.

Tim Cook ran the largest share repurchase program in corporate history, committing over $850 billion of Apple’s money to buy back its own stock and retiring more than 44% of the company's outstanding shares.

Steve Jobs famously refused to do stock buybacks or pay dividends, preferring to keep cash reserves. But soon after Jobs died, Cook started doing stock buybacks in 2012.

Cook spent Apple’s cash to artificially boost earnings per share (EPS) rather than investing in innovation. Not investing in innovation leads to stagnation, just like I said in the post of mine that you made fun of.

Cook received bonuses tied to stock performance or EPS, creating a conflict of interest to inflate share prices. That useless man is filled to the brim with corporate greed.

By constantly reducing the overall share count, Cook’s massive buybacks helped drive up Apple’s EPS and provided massive returns for long-term investors like Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Cook cares far more about billionaire shareholders like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger than he does about Apple’s customers. Jobs was the opposite. That’s why Jobs’s legacy was innovation, while Cook’s legacy was stagnation.

Over the course of his tenure, Cook has returned over $850+ billion to investors who preferred to cash out their stock than continue to ride the Apple train. That didn't artificially boost EPS. It isn't market fiction. It really did boost EPS. It wasn't just a short term boost. The number of shares in the divisor of the EPS calculation were actually reduced for the long term. And it didn't just benefit billionaires. It benefited anyone who held onto their shares.

Just because a company is able to amass a large cash reserve doesn't mean that they can profitably use it. That's not the way capital works. Money doesn't innovate through magic. Projects have to be invested in. Executives have to make risk-vs-reward judgment calls. If they have an excess dollar to invest and can't find a project that meets their criteria, the responsible thing to do is to return it to the people who own that dollar, the shareholders. That can be done through dividends or by raising the price of the stock through buybacks. Many investors, small and large, prefer to receive their profit through increases in the stock price so that they can time when they realize the gain.

You sound as if you believe money disappears when a buyback is done. That isn't what happens. A buyback simply transfers the excess cash to shareholders who decide to cash out. All $850+ billion was transferred from Apple's balance sheet to those who sold. It didn't disappear from the economy. It was used to buy other financial instruments, start new businesses, buy goods and services, pay down debts, etc. Even that money which was stored in a bank returns to circulation through personal and commercial loans and investments.

Leaving aside the part of your argument that is based on an overly simple view of capital, I suppose you could reasonably argue that Apple hasn't spent enough on innovation. But how much more should they have spent? All $850+ billion? Cook did increase R&D spending from $2.4billion under Jobs to ~$43billion over the last 12 months. That's about an 18x. What non-commodity consumer electronics and services could they have spent all that money on that would have a justifiable ROI?

Hypothetically, if Apple were able to sustain an absurdly generous 30% ROI on that $850+ billion, it would give them an annual profit boost of ~$255 billion. The current PE ratio for Apple is ~35.6. That would make their market cap approximately 35.6x($135billion+$255billion)=$13,884billion. Now, swear on a stack of holy books that were Apple's current market cap ~$13.9 trillion, you wouldn't be complaining about the MBA CEO who only cares about increasing shareholder value.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

…Says the guy that has a username supporting Apple’s stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks prioritize short-term stock price inflation and executive bonuses over research and development and innovation.

Tim Cook ran the largest share repurchase program in corporate history, committing over $850 billion of Apple’s money to buy back its own stock and retiring more than 44% of the company's outstanding shares.

Steve Jobs famously refused to do stock buybacks or pay dividends, preferring to keep cash reserves. But soon after Jobs died, Cook started doing stock buybacks in 2012.

Cook spent Apple’s cash to artificially boost earnings per share (EPS) rather than investing in innovation. Not investing in innovation leads to stagnation, just like I said in the post of mine that you made fun of.

Cook received bonuses tied to stock performance or EPS, creating a conflict of interest to inflate share prices. That useless man is filled to the brim with corporate greed.

By constantly reducing the overall share count, Cook’s massive buybacks helped drive up Apple’s EPS and provided massive returns for long-term investors like Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Cook cares far more about billionaire shareholders like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger than he does about Apple’s customers. Jobs was the opposite. That’s why Jobs’s legacy was innovation, while Cook’s legacy was stagnation.

Yeah, we want the buybacks. The board approved them and we elect the board. Apple's buybacks have been probably the most successful of all time. And it hasn't been short term. It's literally been over 14 years and closing in on a trillion dollars.

You must not understand buybacks because they are permanent. The shares are retired and the EPS boost is also permanent, unless they issue new shares at a higher rate. Cook doesn't care about Munger (RIP) and Buffett any differently than any other shareholder. Buffett was late to buy Apple and sold 75% of it on Cook's watch, and lost quite a bit of money selling way too early.

Apple spent almost $50B on R&D in FY2026. This isn't insignificant and you don't decide what they should be spending. Spending $100B doesn't necessarily improve results. We let management decide how much money they need to run the business and the rest can be used in capital return.

Notice no one talks about the negatives of buybacks if you have bad management and a bad company. Ask Nike.

Apple made so much money, they had plenty for innovation (which is why the company is $5T, cope) and buying back massive amounts of shares. It was entirely prudent and has been one of the best decisions, ever. All shareholders have benefited. Jobs never had a company making $100B in profit annually. When numbers get big, you have to manage capital.

Tim Cook should be paid based on stock performance. His #1 job is to increase shareholder value because it aligns with all other goals. You don't get this big without giving people want they want.

"Corporate greed" is a political term with little meaning. Greed is what runs the world, including people vying for political power. Greed it was feeds you, clothes you, and gives you everything you have. Someone else has to want better for themselves which makes you better off. Value creation is fundamental because without creators, there is nothing. No one has to hand money over to Apple unless they want the products, enjoy the products, and want to continue to use them. Try that with big government when they want their taxes paid.

Cook created $4.5T in shareholder value and the owners of the company overwhelmingly supported his leadership, pay structure, and vision. Customers also re-inforced this.

You also have no evidence for "stagnation." The stock didn't stagnate. That's the purpose of business. The products, the silicon, services, etc have all been innovative. You just don't like it. Doesn't matter what you think, tbh. The market disagrees.

It's funny that non-owners think they should have a say in how a business is managed.

 

[MacBH928]

What you are suggesting is customers buy Apple because there is no competition?

I do not buy that customers buy Apple because they are the least worse and there is no competition.

not in apple case specifically but you generalized