Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will John Ternus Really Be Apple's Next CEO?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally agree.
All three are overhyped technologies where many big companies jumped in out of FOMO.
Apple have done a few of their best things when not hastily jump on a hype train - ipod, iphone, ipad.
I so hoped that Apple would carefully investigate possibilities with AI and then some years after others present something that made everyone say - "So this is the way it should be used!"
John Ternus started his career at Apple in the design team. It’s true that Fadell talks more than Ternus… if that’s what makes you think he would be more productive-oriented.
Yes, I get the impression that Jobs suspected that once he was gone, that despite Ive and his team staying on, product innovation and design at Apple might suffer in some significant ways, and so he realized the most secure path for Apple for some years after Jobs would be to make the most of the products that launched under him, while still innovating when possible. Cook was the guy who was able to maximize the supply chain, etc. to put Apple in the financial position it's in now. But he's also the guy who's put Apple into the somewhat stagnant position it's been in for a while, with exceptions like Apple Silicon and some others.
The high level departures aren’t a sign of trouble: they’re either simply coincidental or they’re candidates who didn’t get the final succession pick and are making the personal call to leave because of it. Normal stuff around these transitions.
Scott definitely couldn't be back, as he's not part of the company anymore. His mistake was definitely a push for an unpolished Apple Maps. He was mostly in the UI and software sides of the product.
His Skeuomorphism approach helped people (Who's never had a smartphone before) become comfortable.
He worked on Aqua UI before that, which was an appealing interface.
His team ported the foundation of MacOS, which helped cross-platform compilation.
Other than that, he doesn't have much product oriented experiences.
The biggest reason though... is that he's making broadway shows now...
Oh, I also need to add a Star Trek Quote: "Never trust a Federighi" XD
His Skeuomorphism approach helped people (Who's never had a smartphone before) become comfortable.
He worked on Aqua UI before that, which was an appealing interface.
His team ported the foundation of MacOS, which helped cross-platform compilation.
Other than that, he doesn't have much product oriented experiences.
The biggest reason though... is that he's making broadway shows now...
Oh, I also need to add a Star Trek Quote: "Never trust a Federighi" XD
Someone with an engineering or at least product background would be beneficial for a tech company. Apple is not the first company that lost focus due to the quarterly-results-hunting suits. And there's plenty of resources available for that.
Remember that - product-wise - Apple was far more successful when it was smaller.
Remember that - product-wise - Apple was far more successful when it was smaller.
This is from the piece:
So supposedly, unnamed former Apple execs are hoping for a dark horse candidate (but the piece doesn’t mention any names) and at the same time Tony Fadell is allegedly telling “associates” that he’d be willing to take the job. For all we know the “people who have heard his remarks” is Fadell himself. He probably is delusional enough to think he should be a candidate for the job. When he did a Reddit AMA a few years ago he referred to himself as the inventor of the iPod and iPhone (even though his executive bio on Apple’s website never did and by 2008 he was just an advisor to Jobs). It’s like 99.99% certain the next CEO of Apple will be someone currently working at Apple. What’s baffling though – if Fadell really wants the job (and think there is a slight chance the board could go with someone from the outside) – is him thinking this is the way to go about getting it.
So supposedly, unnamed former Apple execs are hoping for a dark horse candidate (but the piece doesn’t mention any names) and at the same time Tony Fadell is allegedly telling “associates” that he’d be willing to take the job. For all we know the “people who have heard his remarks” is Fadell himself. He probably is delusional enough to think he should be a candidate for the job. When he did a Reddit AMA a few years ago he referred to himself as the inventor of the iPod and iPhone (even though his executive bio on Apple’s website never did and by 2008 he was just an advisor to Jobs). It’s like 99.99% certain the next CEO of Apple will be someone currently working at Apple. What’s baffling though – if Fadell really wants the job (and think there is a slight chance the board could go with someone from the outside) – is him thinking this is the way to go about getting it.
Last edited:
It's all about Apple making money; the more profit, the better. It's not about our happiness.
So basically some people at the company are not happy that the successor is not planning to burn thru money for useless bubble projects intended for short-term gains? Nice. Then I hope John Ternus takes the role if that is actual description of him.
Meta, Microsoft, Open AI are all financial bubbles. They do not create products that are to be used by actual, real people. Investors need to understand that their value is only slightly bit higher than the bitcoin, while Apple will hopefully be the same old Apple in 20 years if they fix current troubles. Like, who cares that F16 was made in 1974? Lockheed still exists and thrives, they don’t need AI bubble playing to stay afloat, until countries need warplanes they will exist.
Meta is toying with AI obviously for better data collection and analysis, so they are able to see user behavior faster than ever (and show more ads). However it would break one day because people might lose interest in opening random ad links and buying every single trash that Amazon recommends, especially as we enter the age of recession (including AI-driven one).
Apple creates products that you can go and buy. Does Microsoft make smartphones? Nope. They only make the worst operating system, filled with trackers and popups.
Oh, maybe Open AI? Honestly no use cases apart from boring cubicle daily office jobs, and even that in the future would be not necessary. What if there will be no electricity one day or Internet, will ChatGPT still be useful? And an iPhone or MacBook? Yes!
Best “next big things” are always on-device, cold stored. Imagine if you couldn’t take a photo without Internet, how outrageous would it been? Until AI is not a part of a phone, written to certain blocks of the flash memory with possibility of “packs” and updates, it would not be useful to many.
While Tim Cook is certainly a good manager and the person who led Apple to $4.2 trillion valuation, but there are certainly things that were rushed during his reign: AVP, whole zoo of iPhones (some of which are truly useless and create more issues for software optimization), weird UI design choices (I blame lack of oversight from CEO, Tim should have been more like Steve and fire whole design department after multiple blunders), weirdest marketing campaigns I’ve seen (and not in a good way, campaigns are very un-Apple). So I hope his successor would bring “balance to the force” of this $4.2t monster
Meta, Microsoft, Open AI are all financial bubbles. They do not create products that are to be used by actual, real people. Investors need to understand that their value is only slightly bit higher than the bitcoin, while Apple will hopefully be the same old Apple in 20 years if they fix current troubles. Like, who cares that F16 was made in 1974? Lockheed still exists and thrives, they don’t need AI bubble playing to stay afloat, until countries need warplanes they will exist.
Meta is toying with AI obviously for better data collection and analysis, so they are able to see user behavior faster than ever (and show more ads). However it would break one day because people might lose interest in opening random ad links and buying every single trash that Amazon recommends, especially as we enter the age of recession (including AI-driven one).
Apple creates products that you can go and buy. Does Microsoft make smartphones? Nope. They only make the worst operating system, filled with trackers and popups.
Oh, maybe Open AI? Honestly no use cases apart from boring cubicle daily office jobs, and even that in the future would be not necessary. What if there will be no electricity one day or Internet, will ChatGPT still be useful? And an iPhone or MacBook? Yes!
Best “next big things” are always on-device, cold stored. Imagine if you couldn’t take a photo without Internet, how outrageous would it been? Until AI is not a part of a phone, written to certain blocks of the flash memory with possibility of “packs” and updates, it would not be useful to many.
While Tim Cook is certainly a good manager and the person who led Apple to $4.2 trillion valuation, but there are certainly things that were rushed during his reign: AVP, whole zoo of iPhones (some of which are truly useless and create more issues for software optimization), weird UI design choices (I blame lack of oversight from CEO, Tim should have been more like Steve and fire whole design department after multiple blunders), weirdest marketing campaigns I’ve seen (and not in a good way, campaigns are very un-Apple). So I hope his successor would bring “balance to the force” of this $4.2t monster
Warplanes are needed for war, which involves killing others. Apple, on the other hand, doesn't make anything that kills people.
What would the iPhone or a MacBook be powered by without electricity? Water?
Cook probably wouldn’t be so stressed out if he did his job the right way.
It’s gotta be stressful when people constantly complain about the software bugs, poor implementation of AI, poor decision making, and lack of innovation in the hardware.
Everyone underneath him does all the work. Cook is too busy kissing the board’s balls to do anything productive in the day to day operations.
Don’t care who it will be as long as he/she/it will bring back iPhone Mini.
Genghis Khan wasn't from the area now know as Pakistan. In modern age, it trends more Muslim than 'Pakistani'. (not particularly confined to the borders of Pakistan. ). The source meaning is 'King'/'Royalty' so tended to get adopted across cultures.
He’s an idiot and has made so many huge mistakes that the lack of a solid succession plan would not surprise anytime.
I think most people here believe that and doesn't know what they're doing aimlessly going forward without a plan, believing Apple and Cook is just lucking out having 1+ Billion active/repet customers and becoming one of the most successful consumer tech companies in the world.
Sun! Solar power is best of all possible option, though a wind turbine as a backup is a good idea for winter days.
Solar panels can charge power stations like Bluetti, alternatively one can burn thru fuel for sure (in case there is fuel) with power generators
Tim has actually overseen a lot of seemingly successful products (we don’t get sales numbers, so we don’t actually know). Apple Watch, AirPods, Mac Studio, HomePod Mini, Studio Display, AirTags.
The only things that seem like flops are the big HomePods (remember when smart speakers were the future?) and the Vision Pro, which is apparently selling well enough for them to updated it to the M5, so who actually knows.
Apple C-Suite was full of people who were or near retirement age, versus Meta where even Zuck keeps it around his age. If anything this is on Tim Apple and the board for just riding the wave and not promoting more people like Ternus to these ranks. Now it looks like Srouji wants out unless he gets a C-title. It's just a failure all around to keep blocking talent at a company like Apple.