Then why did Steve Jobs handpick him as his successor? That's a question I've always wondered. Why didn't he use all of that vision he has to see that maybe Tim Cook wasn't a good choice?
THAT is a million dollar question. Maybe he realized that with the insane growth Apple was undergoing, someone like Tim was needed more, at the moment, than vision. Maybe that was to come from elsewhere? Maybe he couldn't find the exact right person, especially with his failing health/strength? Maybe he didn't realize so many key people would quit/be fired? Maybe he underestimated his strengths (people often don't recognize the value of things that come easy to them)? Maybe he though there was enough of his 'DNA' in Apple to do well under someone who could keep the gears turning? Maybe he didn't realize Tim could so easily be pulled off-course with power and fame?
I just don't know... but it's quickly becoming apparent, IMO, that Tim - as good of choice as he maybe seemed - doesn't have what it takes.
Fire Forstall is a huge mistake, yea... Jony still have a lot of idea I guess, but he need a guide or partner like SJ to lead him to... apparently Tim cook is not a kind guy to do such as things. ... and still... a lot of good VP left apple since tim took over the place. like Bob Mansfield, Ron Johnson, and maybe we miss Avie too....
Yea, Apple has lost a lot of great people, or got rid of them. It's my understand that there are very few of the core NeXT and Unix gurus left either.
It's called foundation. No one will notice extra few floors when you already have a hundred. How about you do some research about what Apple did or didn't in 5 years.
That's not the problem. They've actually screwed up the foundation.
... it reinforced the idea in my mind that you just can't get that level of passion for a company's success when you're not the founder of it.
I'm sure that makes a difference, but I don't think it's impossible. I've worked darn hard for several things over my career that weren't my own (probably far too much, considering what I often didn't get back). But, for sure, when it's your own baby, you go that extra mile.
Apple really was a labor of love for Steve, and clearly just a profit making vehicle for the folks at the helm during the "dark years" when Jobs was kicked out. With him gone now, it just feels like the company is floundering a bit. They have the advantage of being "on top" with plenty of cash reserves and a loyal existing customer base ...
I think the current Apple has been scrambling a lot to find the formula for continued success by giving key existing people in the company the right tasks to do. And the truth is? They're generally only "specialists" in certain areas, and not big-picture visionaries.
...
Jobs may have been a PITA to work with, but I think he was the "missing ingredient" in the sense he'd beat up on people on BOTH sides of that fence, until everyone came to the best acceptable compromise they could make with the technology of the moment.
Apple's key to success was laser focus on user experience. That drove their attention to design, marketing, and even packaging. Sure, profit margins were key too, but IMO, that was a result, not the goal. Without the UX, they couldn't have ever demanded the high profit margins, and they'd have never had we loyal customers!
The problem with the current Apple, is that they've forgotten UX as the key, and as ironic as it is, are now chasing fashion and Wall Street (the former, they were always accused of, to the chagrin of we Apple loyalists who knew better, and the latter, the thing Steve stayed in control of, and played like a harp).
Yes, part of the problem is that Apple is now a huge company with divisions and the communication problems that come with that. And, that is going to be a challenge. But, I'm seeing something far worse, as I noted above, than typical corporate growth issues.
And yes, I think maybe Jobs ability to say no to the right things, might be more important than what he came up with.
The goal should be creating value for shareholders and consumers, not churning out new product lines. ... Now I have my fare share of gripes with Apple software recently, but it's amazing how myopic and unimpressed some people are. Put things into perspective and remember there's a long-game, people!
Creating value, yes, and that IS a long-term game. My fear is that Apple is now playing the short-term game... chasing Wall Street and fashion, profits and spreadsheets, instead of excellence.
Actually I don't think she fits right in the Apple cult... she doesn't want people line up on the product launch day, come on burberry lady, thats a cult we are enjoying in... and BTW where is the kids section goes?
I haven't followed her efforts closely, so I can't really comment on that. But, I was a bit surprised by her hire, as it seems to play into this new Apple focus on 'fashion' which, IMO, is a mistake. I worry that people at Apple might actually believe the often derogatory myth put out by the anti-Apple folks that people were buying Apple because of fashion status. We long-time loyalists know that's bunk, but it seems to be the direction they are actually moving Apple. That seems to be their new target customer base. That's a recipe for disaster.
There were *EXACTLY* this kind of comments in 2007, just before the iPhone.
People like you have absolutely no idea about how Apple operates, despite all the historic evidence.
Some of us have been around long enough to recognize a fundamental shift from then. Now, some folks also recognize it and think it's a good shift. Fair enough. But, I disagree that it's good. It seems maybe you don't recognize that shift?
