Tim Cook's Leadership Style Profiled After Two Years as Apple CEO

[GQB]

What the hell was decisive about writing a mealy mouthed apology letter and letting the disaster stagnate with no significant improvement as a massive black eye on Apple's core revenue product for a year now?

Decisive would have been pulling Apple Maps and letting users set their own application as he knew Apple's wasn't good enough.

Instead Apple continues to abuse it's monopoly control over iOS software distribution to prop up it's own failed product at the expense of customer's user experience.

Maps was skewered because of 'oversell, underdeliver' by Forstall. He paid the price, and yes, that's decisive.
Google gets away with precisely the same flaws in its Maps (which still exist, btw) because people expect less from a company that specializes in hobbyware.

And there is no such thing as having a 'monopoly' over one's own products.

 

[Razeus]

Havn't that thing already been launched? Been seing photos of it since like..... forever!! I like Google but I would definitely not buy such glasses. Not something I would wear out and about.

No. What you are seeing are beta testers and getting a feel for the market. Rumor has it, Google will go full on in 2014.

 

[Rogifan]

That's a gross oversimplification that does not get better with constant repetition. Read the entire article and not just the MR summary. You'll get the picture of someone who make decisions quickly, decisively, and instinctively.

Some us seem to forget conveniently that Apple is one of the largest companies in the world. It's a massive operation that can't be run as a cult of personality, if it ever was. The other thing to remember is that Tim Cook was running Apple de facto for at least a year before Steve died.

Apple is bigger now that it ever was under Steve. How would Steve have handled the intense competition from Android? What would he have done with regards to emerging markets? Truth is we have no idea.

 

[flottenheimer]

... I like to see how Apple responds to Google Glass, which launches in 2014. iWatch isn't going to cut it Tim...

Hopefully not with another pair of glasses. I know I should be careful about saying this, but I feel pretty convinced that Google Glass will never become a mainstream product. People in general really don't like wearing technology on their faces — or even glasses if they don't need to wear glasses.
It is a question of style and fashion. And just look at people wearing those bluetooth earpieces — not. cool.

But hey, we will have to wait and see.
I could be wrong. I could be right.

 

[JustMartin]

Nah, anyone who was working 100 hour weeks with a debilitating disease was not going to just walk way to start gardening.
My contention is that the company's trajectory has been set for some time, and would look just about the same with or without Steve.
The only difference would be that the trolls would instead just be saying 'Steve has lost it' instead of 'Apple has lost it'.

Steve's product wasn't any device, but Apple itself.
Anyone saying that Apple has lost it without Steve is essentially contradicting themselves. This WAS his intent.

That was kinda the point I was making. Having built Apple into something that could live and breathe without its creator, it's possible that he would have moved on to creating something else (not just go gardening). Whatever people think of current Microsoft and its founder, that was the kind of thing that Bill Gates did. Got the company to a particular stage and then got out and got involved in something else completely different. And throughout history there have been people saying Apple/Steve/Tom/Jony has lost it, simply because something they wanted didn't happen or didn't happen fast enough. E.g. the whole "I don't wear a watch, so any talk of an iWatch means that Apple have lost it."

 

[Razeus]

That's a gross oversimplification that does not get better with constant repetition. Read the entire article and not just the MR summary. You'll get the picture of someone who make decisions quickly, decisively, and instinctively.

Some us seem to forget conveniently that Apple is one of the largest companies in the world. It's a massive operation that can't be run as a cult of personality, if it ever was. The other thing to remember is that Tim Cook was running Apple de facto for at least a year before Steve died.

Oh, but were's the visionary product guy? He's dead you see. Now the company is in the hands of a numbers guy who's still rehashing products from his predecessor. Sure, we was running it a year before stuff died, but with Steve still guiding the pipeline with HIS stuff, not Tim's. Tim's got nothing for the market.

 

[GQB]

You'll eat this words soon. Therefore, I'll quote your post.

I'll take your bet. Glass itself will go the way of the Segway.
Wearables will happen, but will not take off until they are so unobtrusive that the wearer won't get beaten senseless for constantly reminding people that they're being robbed of their privacy.

 

[Razeus]

Not even Steve Jobs wanted him to be like him.

One thing I think I've noticed is that Tim Cook has a more "listening" side. This can be a strength and a weakness. Jobs was bold, he did things he thought was right (and he had a damn good sense of what was right), while Cook seems to be more inclined to try to offer what he thinks we think is right.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the much longed for easier access to various settings appears in iOS 7. I think that's a typical "Tim Cook thing". Yes, it makes the display busy, and maybe Jobs would have said "wtf are you doing - it's a mess now", but here it is, and many actually like it, while some others think it's kind of messy.

He also went great lengths to try "fix" the Apple Maps debacle and I think he actually takes these problems quite personally, perhaps more so than Jobs. You know -- "you're holding it wrong".

Good or bad? I don't really know to be honest. If you listen, you rarely get these sparks of genius in the products, but you DO get what many people want. Sometimes the needs of the many don't correspond to the best directions to go to, but other times they do. Combined with a good team of visionaries at Apple, maybe the path will still be a decent one, but not the same path.

Tim HAS to be a listener because he has no visionary insight. It's even more obvious since he can't even talk through his own Keynotes like Steve did. He passes off the tasks to everyone else.

----------

I'll take your bet. Glass itself will go the way of the Segway.
Wearables will happen, but will not take off until they are so unobtrusive that the wearer won't get beaten senseless for constantly reminding people that they're being robbed of their privacy.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's funny/sad how people are expecting Cook to deliver revolutionary new products. How did Steve Jobs do after his return to Apple in 1997? Well, there was the iPod in 2001, iPhone is 2007 and iPad (although it was said to be "just a big iPhone) in 2010. That's three (or two if you exclude the iPad) revolutionary products in 13 years.

iMac? It was basically a refined continuation of the Macintosh. iBook, Powerbook? Laptops. Incredibly refined laptops, but still just laptops.

Apple has never been about brand-new revolutionary products, although they do release those on occasion. They are about constant refinement and iteration. How people keep on missing that all this time is beyond me.

Good points. With Cook, what people are responding to mainly is the difference in his personality as compared to Steve. We all know Steve Jobs was a rock star, the Sultan of Cool. As a corporate pitchman, none were better -- but that's only a small part of a CEO's portfolio. In the case of Apple, the CEO needs to competently handle the reins of a gargantuan operation, and this is a lot more important than his ability to stand on stage and make people swoon. How many corporations have ever had a salesman like Steve as their CEO? Even recent tech companies? Approximately none, but that doesn't prevent them from releasing successful products. So if Apple's entire fortunes swing on the CEO's personality, then Apple is in huge trouble. No other company has ever had to bear that burden, and neither should Apple. I think the entire proposition is silly and melts under close examination.

 

[That70sGAdawg]

There would not be a very successful iPad mini today if Steve got his way! I have confidence in Cook . Even if he is an Auburn grad....

 

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, but were's the visionary product guy? He's dead you see. Now the company is in the hands of a numbers guy who's still rehashing products from his predecessor. Sure, we was running it a year before stuff died, but with Steve still guiding the pipeline with HIS stuff, not Tim's. Tim's got nothing for the market.

Ah, so you have a direct pipeline right into Tim's head? What else do you see?

The "visionary" stuff has to come from the thousands of people who work at Apple -- now, just as it always did.

 

[Maagus]

Oh, but were's the visionary product guy? He's dead you see. Now the company is in the hands of a numbers guy who's still rehashing products from his predecessor. Sure, we was running it a year before stuff died, but with Steve still guiding the pipeline with HIS stuff, not Tim's. Tim's got nothing for the market.

Do you know that there would be e.g. no App Store if everything went according to Steve's vision?

 

[cmichaelb]

Something that happens every 3-6 years based on history. Why are people getting impatient after 2 years?
Do "analysts" really expect Apple to completely reinvent an industry on a yearly basis? We're running out of industries to overturn! We'll have TV, wearables, and then.... um..... kitchenware?

Look at this from another Angle - if we still had Steve, we'd still have Scott, and iOS7 would still have all sorts of fine-grained wood textures, felt, and rich corinthian leather.

No kidding. Jobs let iOS stall under Forstall and Apple lost it's edge in smart phones. As much as I can't stand the color pallet and icons of iOS 7 - it has much needed features that should have been in iOS two years ago. Cook has done well for the most part.

Bingo... my thoughts exactly.

Does not matter who followed Jobs.... it's a very tough act to follow.

Seriously. Who would they have gotten? It's an extremely tough act to follow and overall, he's done pretty well trying to climb out of Jobs shadow. In WWDC keynote, all of the execs seemed to be finally getting comfortable in this new era of Apple.

Steve was an off the cuff, qualitative, visionary. Tim is a by the book, quantitative, numbers guy.

You're going to get 2 different companies.

I like to see how Apple responds to Google Glass, which launches in 2014. iWatch isn't going to cut it Tim. That's a lame product idea.

Make Apple TV what it should be (a TV, Movie and Gaming Platform), and we'll keep you around.

Google Glass is not going to have huge sales in it's current iteration. It's a curiosity and experiment, no way it becomes a popular product. It's a proof of concept that maybe, someday, these features can be built into your eyeglasses.

A watch is subtle, it will have a much better chance of success- and fits Apples pattern, take an existing product category and refine it- just like tablets, phones, and mp3 players.

They have a gaming platform- it's called the iPhone. You carry your console in your pocket. All they have to do is when you airplay to an Apple tv, the iPhone becomes the controller and your tv the screen. Done. Goodbye Nintendo consoles.

 

[Klosefabrinio]

he's just an average CEO, or maybe i feel that because SJ was really awesome. we all know about the iphone 5S (and that, it has nothing special), if the iphone 6 isn't good enough, BoD should replace him.

btw, did anyone notice that Cook has only three fingers

 

[cmichaelb]

I'll take your bet. Glass itself will go the way of the Segway.
Wearables will happen, but will not take off until they are so unobtrusive that the wearer won't get beaten senseless for constantly reminding people that they're being robbed of their privacy.

Yes! Exactly.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple is bigger now that it ever was under Steve. How would Steve have handled the intense competition from Android? What would he have done with regards to emerging markets? Truth is we have no idea.

Very true. These are the kinds of strategic nuts and bolts decisions that face CEOs of large corporations. They can't do everything at once so they have to decide what their company can do, and do best. With Cook, I watch for signs that Apple remains focused, that they don't start going for the blunderbuss approach of trying everything and hoping that something succeeds (e.g., Microsoft, Google). So far, so good.

 

[cmichaelb]

Oh, but were's the visionary product guy? He's dead you see. Now the company is in the hands of a numbers guy who's still rehashing products from his predecessor. Sure, we was running it a year before stuff died, but with Steve still guiding the pipeline with HIS stuff, not Tim's. Tim's got nothing for the market.

What exactly did Apple introduce under Steve that didn't exist already?

MP3 player? Refinement of existing products already in the market.

Smart phone? Refinement of existing products already in the market.

Tablet? Refinement of existing products already in the market

Apple doesn't create the category, they let others experiment and make mistakes and learn from the others experiences.

Remember, Steve is the one who said there was no way in hell the iPod would EVER be compatible with windows. It was only after months and months of his team hounding him that he caved to shut them up. Read Isaacson's book.

He surrounding himself with good people that helped form those decisions.

 

[GQB]

Oh, but were's the visionary product guy? He's dead you see. Now the company is in the hands of a numbers guy who's still rehashing products from his predecessor. Sure, we was running it a year before stuff died, but with Steve still guiding the pipeline with HIS stuff, not Tim's. Tim's got nothing for the market.

Yes, Steve was the only person endowed with 'vision'.
I think we should all just off ourselves now. Its all over. Everything.

 

[BrockC]

I think Tim has done an incredible job at Apple. For everyone doubting him, lets be real, nobody on this planet could have ever filled Steve's shoes at the company.

 

[GQB]

I think Tim has done an incredible job at Apple. For everyone doubting him, lets be real, nobody on this planet could have ever filled Steve's shoes at the company.

I disagree.
Steve was the right person to build the ship.
Tim's the right one to captain it.
That's two completely different jobs. (No pun intended.)

 

[rmwebs]

Apple needs to ensure that they aren't a bubble that's going to burst. They need to cement themselves in the top of the business world.

Whatever happens they WILL burst. It's a case of when. It doesn't matter that they are 'Apple' - no company can keep coming out with killer products, at some point someone else will better them. It's just a case of making sure that doesn't happen any time soon.

 

[Blueflame1138]

I concur that Tim is doing an okay job. No one can follow Jobs by being just like Jobs. It would be ridiculous to try. For a start the "faithful" would see right through it.

Tim's first job was to steer Apple (and us) out of the trauma of losing Steve. He's done that with good grace and an elegant calm.

Next he's had to maintain Apples momentum, and to be honest, he wasn't helped with the debacle of the Maps issue in iOS 6. Forstall screwed up and paid the price.

It's been said earlier that people expect Apple to produce gobsmacking products on a regular basis. But, as has also been mentioned, you look at the number of years from iPod to iPhone to iPad. The three game changing devices that to all intents and purposes now define Apple in the public eye.

It takes time to come up with the "next big thing", and from what I can see it looks like Apple has two to look forward to. The wearable and the TV.

If you look at Tim's appearance at All Things D this year, what he said about Google Glass makes a lot of sense. People wear glasses because they have to, not because they want to.
I wear contacts pretty much all of the time because I'd rather not wear glasses. My brother had his eyes laser corrected because he didn't want to wear contacts or glasses anymore.
Google Glass is a gimmick at the moment. It may find uses in the medical, rescue, emergency services and military markets, but I don't think it's ready for the general populace yet.

The iWatch, it seems to me, is a device that could enjoy mass market penetration for one very major reason. You won't look like berk wearing one! Google Glass on the other hand...

Steve said that he's cracked the problem with the TV. We have no idea what he meant by this and looking at the other tech companies, neither do they. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Steve told Apple. They know how, and I'm pretty sure they're throwing a great deal of talent at it.

Tim's next task is to shepherd these two innovations into the world. After the mess up with Maps I'm hoping the mantra will be, "We ship it when it's ready and it's awesome. Not when Scott says so!"

 

[rmwebs]

Oh, but were's the visionary product guy? He's dead you see. Now the company is in the hands of a numbers guy who's still rehashing products from his predecessor. Sure, we was running it a year before stuff died, but with Steve still guiding the pipeline with HIS stuff, not Tim's. Tim's got nothing for the market.

You do realise that even if Steve was still there, nothing new would have been released yet.

Look at the release gap between iPod, iPhone and iPad. Claiming that he's got nothing because he's not released a killer product is completely stupid given that we're not at the point of a new device yet.

Judge him once we get past the new product release stage - until then the armchair opinion can't really be anything other than 'wait and see'.

 

[Evangelion]

The iMac was pretty revolutionary at the time.

Not really. It was a refinement of an idea Apple released in 1984.

An easy to use 1 piece computer for 1k. Ditto with the iBook. Back when competing laptops were 2-3k.

"A laptop, just cheaper" is not revolutionary. It's just a cheap laptop. See: netbooks.

Among all this the iPod, iPod nano, iPhone, iPod touch, AppleTV, iPad, Mac mini, Xserve, and many revolutionary refinements of the iMac.

Of those, only iPod and iPhone are revolutionary. Rest are just refinements of existing products and ideas. AppleTV? Nifty, but not really revolutionary. Xserve? A rack-mountable server, hardly "revolutionary".

It may not have all been revolutionary, but there was a constant flow of new products, attempts, releases, and refinements.

And that has not happened now? New MacBooks, retina MacBook, Mac Pro new iMac, new iPhone... What do you expect, really?

Even the CUBE was amazing, but overpriced. He righted the ship. Set a new course for hardware, new products, new operating system(s), and software.

I have zero interest in diminishing Steves accomplishments. He was one if the greatest CEOs of the last 100 years. I'm just disputing the idea that under Jobs, Apple was cranking of one revolutionary product after another. They weren't. They refined and iterated.

He was still taking risks right before he died with FCP X.

Same could be said about iOS 7, so what's your point? And FCP is tiny in important to Apple, when compared to iOS. So Cook is taking even bigger risk, right?

Tims in now and we've had extreme hardware delays with the iMac. (Isn't supply chain his specialty?)

Maybe he should have played it safe and just bump the specs? But then you would whine about "lack of innovation"... Hey what about the time when Apple released new PowerMacs, and realized they can't ship they CPUs in volume, and they lowered the clock-speed? Happened under Jobs... 3GHz G5 Powermac? G4 with its anemic bus? Jobs had his misses and delays as well.

a major screwup with Maps

Another manufactured crisis. For most part there was no problem.

[quite]lengthy delays on the MacPro (jobs was probably killing it)[/quote]

There wasn't much to upgrade to. Mac pros are tied to Intels Xeon-roadmap, and Intel takes their time with Xeon. And hey, at least Cook is keeping the product around, Jobs was (according to you) willing to let the product slide in to oblivion.

and ios7 which to me is nothing special, just and ugly facelift and a few evolutionary features that other os's have had for 3 years (like fingerprint sensor).

whereas the iOS-versions released under Jobs were all oozing pure innovation? Every new version of iOS (and OS X) were totally new and different from their predecessor. Maybe Cook should have just kept in doing what Jobs was doing, huh? Release the same old iOS, with few new features.

 

[oliversl]

Firing the head of your most successfully operating system does not seems clever.
In WWDC 2013 Apple Executives acted like trolls with envy when referring the Steve Jobs/Scott Forstall approved GUI design.