as someone involved with Apple at the outset, and who liaised with Steve, Chuck Gheschke and Tim Berners-Lee you really do have it so wrong. Steve saved Apple, no doubt about it. Tim is a marketeer not an innovator, but you can't knock his marketing skills, but for me the essence of Apple was and still is Steve. Before that Apple computers were not really that usable as productive devices and certainly not for home business users or even DTP.
Steve recognised there needed to be more usability, and his altercation with Apple, which Apple came to rue, left him to develop NeXT where credit should also go to Chuck Geschke a non Apple guy who saw the market needed a WYSIWYG potential that previously was not being served, even with a GUI.
Chuck produced a program that received little attention from many, but certainly provoked interest from Steve, as that program was PostScript and by introducing vectored graphics with a true WYSIWYG potential Steve decided to incorporate display postscript into his NeXT OS and his computer, where although his computer wasn't deemed a marketing success, the whole system is in my opinion one of the most definitive moments in Apple's history.
Apple realised the error of their ways and had to pay Steve around $429,000,000 to get him and his creation back to Apple, and where NeXT OS went on to be apple's operating system, and even with improvements, the basis of OS today.
It really is mis stating history to suggest Apple would not exist without Tim Cook, as it did exist and was thriving after Steve's return.
Ironically even the film industry mis stated Steve's persona suggesting he was aggressive etc., when simply not true. He was passionate, which shone through with every communication we had! Chuck too had that same passion spark, and headed up Adobe and I had the pleasure of speaking with Chuck also on many occasions way back.