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 wish I could say I cared at all about the stock price.
(I do not)
I swear to god ... the obsession with "number go up" is going to ruin literally everything.
...and never owning up to it.
Ah, the days when Microsoft seemed like the vanguard of modern computing interface design.
Whereas Apple taking a page from bargain-bin Windows software that may have been "hip" in the 1980s.
Adorning OS X' Address Book and iCal with tacky faux leather veneer helped no one.
The concept of PC calendar and address management software had been well known for 20+ years.
You do realize this only happened because of hardware and software success during this period, right?
The Apple Watch, AirPods, transitioning Macs to ARM. This isn't an AI bubble type thing where "number go up" is just because of a likely unstable business model. People bring up the AVP, but that wasn't a major lifeline or anything.
Apple can't even make enough phones and it's December. It's more of an Apple issue than a demand issue, I think. If Christmas is coming, why not ramp up iPhone production?
Because you can’t ramp up to infinity. At some point, their suppliers hit max capacity.
Both statements are understandable. However, it's worth noting that it's one thing to understand the general consumer and another to put one's opinions on the matter. Many users, who have never used a smartphone before did find skeuomorphism easier to pick up. After people became accustomed to the applications, Apple didn't need the concept anymore.
First 5 results in google scholar showed that elderly people found skeumorphism to have a positive correlation with understand ability. Ignorance is not a valid argument against an idea. It did help when consumer adoption was needed most. There's actually a few papers in support of this concept, even if it's over 200 years old.
Currently, Neumorphism is the current design trend. It's a combination of skeuomorphism and flat design.
Reference: https://blog.logrocket.com/ux-design/neumorphism-ui-design/
I'm not actually supporting him, I'm just noting that his work is mostly UI based so he's not suitable. It's a little bizzare that people took issue with "that" statement. I'm sorry if you're not used to people having neutral explanations without a strong stance.
Peace
Certainly hope he's better than Cook, who has been a fashionable maintenance man: "the thinner the better" until it hurts. Can't get rid of some of these deadwood fools like Dye fast enough.
It's interesting that currently, the ratio of Apple's profits from hardware versus software and services is about 1:1.
Errr. There was talk of offering something to him. Not that is what he actually wants. Report was that he had another offering. That offer could very well to "do some tech" stuff, not "hang in C-suite all day".
I agree, I think he is a techie with a business sense, not a biz person ...
I'm not sure he is looking for a "technical" challenge, Apples silicon journey is far from over from that perspective...
But hey, rumors generate clicks, and attention ...
Apple is way better at selling MacBook Pros than they are at selling as extremely expensive as possible Mac Pros.
Apple selling some $100K device is likely very bad. Apple doing the whole service top to bottom is also not particularly Apple either. ( they aren't AWS or very general service either).
It always was a dubious idea that was likely completely funding by "Google ad check" they got each year to selling out the end users for default search slot. The visual ML stuff likely was helpful for some Vision Pro and later "interpret my context" products but the 'car' itself; someones vanity project ( in part to look like Tesla hype or Waymo wannabee).
Big bridge to no where. Probably has hurt the "Apple Ultra" efforts too as crept closer to be a competitor as opposed to a supplier for the other Automakers.
Um, they didn't when Steve Jobs died.... and they knew he was going to die.
Tim Cook hasn't been per say a bad CEO... but I wouldn't say he was the right CEO. Innovation has been meh, software development was killed all over the place and what they have done has been bug ridden garbage with not much in the way of updates....
Apple needs a tech guy at the helm. Someone that can see the connection of hardware and software and bring back some of that Apple magic that's died in favor of margins and very incremental safe bets.
Software is especially a thing for me. Apple used to be "Do it all right out of the box" with full featured suites of apps - and the ones that still exist really haven't changed much in 10 years. Pages/Keynote haven't even seen a new template in a decade (save those goofy animated background in Keynote).
We keep getting crappy IOS apps slapped on MacOS and even those IOS apps have lacked in innovation.
Ummm…Jobs picked Cook as his successor. If I recall, in his letter of resignation to the board, he mentioned this was part of their pre-established succession plan.
That is revisionist history. Tim Cook was put in charge of the Mac division long before Jobs was extremely sick. His assignments and responsibilities were added over time. Even quotes of Jobs giving Cook advice to try to only think of what "Steve do".
In part.
" ... With his October 14, 2005, promotion to COO, Cook became responsible for all of Apple’s worldwide sales and operations. He also led the company’s Macintosh division and worked with CEO Steve Jobs and other Cupertino execs “to lead Apple’s overall business.” ...
...
What was interesting about Cook was how much he differed from many others in Apple’s upper echelons. He was understated compared to Jobs and the likes of Scott Forstall, a senior vice president who dressed like the Apple co-founder. (Forstall even drove the same model silver Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG as his boss.)
But Cook was like Jobs where it mattered. A hard-nosed negotiator, he proved tireless in his dedication to Apple — and obsessive about achieving feats most other companies viewed as impossible ...
"
Today in Apple history: Tim Cook becomes Apple's chief operating officer
On October 14, 2005, Tim Cook was named Apple's new chief operating officer, continuing his upward climb through the ranks.
www.cultofmac.com
Another article I can't find the source to but quoted elsewhere.
"... Tim Cook was formally named as Apple's Chief Operating Officer, setting him on the road to be the chief of what is likely the most impactful company of the 21st century.
Chief Operating Officers don't get as much attention as Chief Executive Officers, but at least in the case of Apple, the COO has proven key to the company's success. So much so that it's not a surprise Tim Cook was promoted from COO to CEO, but also so much so that it's surprising what Apple did before him.
Tim Cook was named Apple's COO on October 14, 2005 and officially, his predecessor was... no one. Not quite.
In practice, Jon Rubinstein had retired from operations at the same time Cook was promoted, and would have been in overall charge. Yet there was no formal COO role until Cook got it. And even as his appointment was announced, Steve Jobs revealed that it wasn't exactly a new post.
"Tim has been doing this job for over two years now, and it's high time we officially recognized it with this promotion," said Steve Jobs at the time. "Tim and I have worked together for over seven years now, and I am looking forward to working even more closely with him to help Apple reach some exciting goals during the coming years."
Apple specifically stated that Cook would continue be responsible for all of the firm's sales and operations worldwide. ..."
[ Note that COO title was 'new' at that point. That is a 'clue'. Change the middle 'O' to 'E' on nameplate and... done. There are lots more C-titles slapped around in the current set-up so it is more muddled now, but back then it was pretty clear if paying attention. ]
Lots of outsides spent their time looking for a Steve Jobs wanna be or Steve Jobs clone. That isn't what Jobs or the Board was looking for at all.
COO is normally not someone doing logistics it is operating the company day to day.
Mac Pro 2013 was a 'safe bet' ?
Apple Watch? For the first two years every front page macrumors article associated with the Watch was had sprinkled "flop" , 'failed" posts throughout the thread. The Watch 14K gold was a flop. The Watch wasn't.
Apple silicon ... hyper conservative safe bet.
Cook didn't kill older products as fast as Jobs, but Jobs didn't have the user base size to deal with either.
MS Office clone versus iMessages work... which one is more ecosystem segmenting for Apple from the rest of the market. Jobs probably would have done the exact same thing.
St. Steve workship more than reality.
""If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth — and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago." -- Steve Jobs.
When the iPhone user base was an order of magnitude larger than the Mac user base, Jobs probably would have done the same thing. The iPad Pro ( and A__ X SoCs) paved the way for the M-series. The plain Mn is a direct decendent of the the old A__ X in the iPad Pro. Used exactly the same way in the iPad Pro. Same constraints. etc.)
Jobs are not about swimming totally upstream from inertia.
How exactly did Apple get to over 1 billion active iPhone users, if they sucked?
I guess I see all this as a package deal. The areas that Apple did well in, I happened to be in a position to benefit (eg: iPad Pro + Smart Keyboard + Apple Pencil + AirPlay mirroring from Apple TV). Meanwhile, the parts which Apple may have dropped the ball on (eg: Mac Pro), just didn’t apply to me.
For all the flaws that iOS and iPadOS have had, I am still using my iPad in the classroom, and using it well. I have found myself buying more Apple hardware and services during Tim Cook’s tenure. It doesn’t feel fair to say that everything successful about Apple is despite Tim Cook, while everything wrong with Apple is because of Tim Cook?
Apple are not alone in having challenges for the long term future. All big tech companies have.
The computer market is mature, so is the mobile market and most of the gadget market. Have any other company introduced a global must-have computer, mobile or gadget the last 10-15 years? Maybe drones, but not that much else. There is evolution, but often evolution for its own sake than to satisfy unfulfilled user needs.
Probably a reason why so many big companies jump on the AI train. A hope of something new to generate global revenue growth for decades to come.
Other alternatives tried are anthropomorphic robots, self driving cars, low cost high bandwidth satellite communication, colonization of Mars, asteroid mining. None of these will give earth shattering global growth in the foreseeable future.
I guess one reason are current investors unrealistic growth expectancies. We have for long (many decades) had a rather stable global annual GDP growth at 3%. But investors today expect much much more, 10% is ridiculous, give me hundreds! Mature markets do not provide that.
The computer market is mature, so is the mobile market and most of the gadget market. Have any other company introduced a global must-have computer, mobile or gadget the last 10-15 years? Maybe drones, but not that much else. There is evolution, but often evolution for its own sake than to satisfy unfulfilled user needs.
Probably a reason why so many big companies jump on the AI train. A hope of something new to generate global revenue growth for decades to come.
Other alternatives tried are anthropomorphic robots, self driving cars, low cost high bandwidth satellite communication, colonization of Mars, asteroid mining. None of these will give earth shattering global growth in the foreseeable future.
I guess one reason are current investors unrealistic growth expectancies. We have for long (many decades) had a rather stable global annual GDP growth at 3%. But investors today expect much much more, 10% is ridiculous, give me hundreds! Mature markets do not provide that.
Xiaomi built this incredible EV in 5 years and sells for $42,000 USD. You don't think Apple could build something like this? And then eventually a Waymo competitor service?
Hello from a rare contributor to these parts. I don't have much to say in the way of predictive speculation here,
but the person you want to monitor as a "fly on the wall" about Tim Cook succession would be someone who
even many Apple mavens don't know about. That would be the longstanding Apple Chairman of the Board,
Arthur D. Levinson, a behind-the-scenes type who aided with the transition from Steve Jobs.
Art remains the "biotech billionaire" ex-CEO of Genentech, then a working scientist who had the respect of
many in industry. He was an acolyte of Apple from early on -- juggernaut Genentech had the largest footprint
for Apple machines of any San Francisco Bay Area company, keeping that quiet because it was a corporate competitive advantage to do so.
(Aside: Art's son Jesse parlayed his own Stanford doctorate addressing software for self-driving cars to become the CTO of Zoox, now owned by Amazon.)
At any rate, Levinson would, in a natural way, step down from COB to make way for Cook to fulfill that
role if he chooses to do so. Both Levinson & Cook are totally keen on whatever it takes to continue Apple's legacy.
BTW another aside from a Unix "graybeard" who worked at NASA Ames Research Center. Steve Jobs once unexpectedly interviewed me at NeXT when I was visiting a principal there, the late Michael Hawley who helped draft Jobs' infamous Stanford college commencement speech. I declined a position there because Jobs wouldn't even say what the work involved, demanding total loyalty & corporate secrecy. This was a bit much for me at the time because I was working with open source (Unix) software at a public institution, where we collaborated openly with U.C. Berkeley + Bell Labs, etc. Eventually I jumped to the more mercenary private sector, but would have regarded working with Steve Jobs as many do now with Elon Musk. Ironically, I made more $ holding AAPL shares over the years than I ever would have being a working software engineer there. Such is my bias.
but the person you want to monitor as a "fly on the wall" about Tim Cook succession would be someone who
even many Apple mavens don't know about. That would be the longstanding Apple Chairman of the Board,
Arthur D. Levinson, a behind-the-scenes type who aided with the transition from Steve Jobs.
Art remains the "biotech billionaire" ex-CEO of Genentech, then a working scientist who had the respect of
many in industry. He was an acolyte of Apple from early on -- juggernaut Genentech had the largest footprint
for Apple machines of any San Francisco Bay Area company, keeping that quiet because it was a corporate competitive advantage to do so.
(Aside: Art's son Jesse parlayed his own Stanford doctorate addressing software for self-driving cars to become the CTO of Zoox, now owned by Amazon.)
At any rate, Levinson would, in a natural way, step down from COB to make way for Cook to fulfill that
role if he chooses to do so. Both Levinson & Cook are totally keen on whatever it takes to continue Apple's legacy.
BTW another aside from a Unix "graybeard" who worked at NASA Ames Research Center. Steve Jobs once unexpectedly interviewed me at NeXT when I was visiting a principal there, the late Michael Hawley who helped draft Jobs' infamous Stanford college commencement speech. I declined a position there because Jobs wouldn't even say what the work involved, demanding total loyalty & corporate secrecy. This was a bit much for me at the time because I was working with open source (Unix) software at a public institution, where we collaborated openly with U.C. Berkeley + Bell Labs, etc. Eventually I jumped to the more mercenary private sector, but would have regarded working with Steve Jobs as many do now with Elon Musk. Ironically, I made more $ holding AAPL shares over the years than I ever would have being a working software engineer there. Such is my bias.
It will be John Scully.
He will return.
And he will rebuild, what Jobs destroyed just out of spite.
He will return.
And he will rebuild, what Jobs destroyed just out of spite.
analysts aren't happy that Apple didn't light a big enough pile of cash on fire at the altar of AI
Really? My amigo who sat in the front row during the WWDC keynote and occasionally gave a presentation to Steve said the company had an extensive succession plan.
