You forgot to type "in my humble opinion" before your well considered and balanced post.
Steve Jobs was a founder and leader of the company. He ran it in a very extreme way which suited his style, and was able to squeeze out some very good products during his time. All businesses have ups and downs, businesses are like civilisations and empires, they may rise, but all fall. Apple will fall at some point. Who is to say that Steve jobs would have overseen the release of any more game changers (if you consider the watch useless, for example, you must have very high expectations). It could have just as well gone the other way of his extreme views blinding him to market movements such that apple may have been on a downfall now (because, despite what you say, based on any logical or rational measure, they certainly aren't under Tim Cook).
As for broader issues, people in power do have a certain responsibility toward the greater good. In many ways very famous people have more power than politicians to change the world, or our day to day lives. Tech CEOs are a new kind of celebrity. Apple is immensely powerful. What a sad world where people would advocate the kind of selfish management of the company that Steve jobs championed, over something a little more human that Tim Cook is trying to achieve.
It is up to the leader of the day how they choose to lead. Of course Tim Cook runs things differently to his predecessor - and that's about all you established in your post. For him to try to lead in a way he didn't believe in would be a sure way to fail. And remember, Steve Jobs himself put Cook in place.
Do you think he would be surprised how the company is being run?
