Will John Ternus Really Be Apple's Next CEO?

[delsoul]

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.

This is true. And that’s what made Apple so special in the Jobs era…while Microsoft based computers were always chasing compatibility issues, bugs, etc…the Mac’s just worked near flawlessly. The presentation of macOS looked stunning and really made you feel like you had a premium, POLISHED product. Sadly, it feels almost like Apple has switched places with Microsoft these days. Always new bugs with each release that shouldn’t even exist, stale graphics updates that nobody asked for, etc. It feels like the software team at Apple is just doing something for the sake of keeping their position and getting a paycheck, there’s just no care or passion behind it. Honestly, I’m feeling that way about all of the Apple
Products these days and it’s a direct result of Tim Cook. A stale leader leads to stale results. I feel that the iPhone air is one of apples best creations in a long time. It actually dared to be different and try something new, just like how Apple used to be.

 

[rappr]

Always new bugs with each release that shouldn’t even exist, stale graphics updates that nobody asked for, etc.

Sounds a lot like the early years of Mac OS X 🤣

 

[teaneedz]

if apple software had their act together we'd be able to use siri to autocomplete a genetic clone of steve jobs. but c’est la vie.

put in john ternus on monday

 

[dumastudetto]

I do not know who the top level executives are at Apple, i.e., who is responsible for what, etcetera.
But, why are so many wanting Tim Cook to leave (I do not care either way)?

Innovate, keep the gadgets coming, just don't overcharge for the sake of it, and carry on...

Whoever the next CEO is will have to keep delivering on numbers, or the new CEO won't last very long in the role.

 

[binaryfuneral]

If that happened I would have all my Apple products on eBay before the end of the day.

Imagine being so fragile that you are willing to stage a complete upheaval of your own technological ecosystem over one man. Toughen up. Life’s not easy. Wear a helmet.

 

[binaryfuneral]

Scott Forstall is the obvious choice. Ive is gone. What’s the issue now?

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Imagine being so fragile that you are willing to stage a complete upheaval of your own technological ecosystem over one man. Toughen up. Life’s not easy. Wear a helmet.

I’m tough enough to permanently say goodbye to a company if they go a direction I strongly disapprove of.

If being fragile means sticking to your standards and morals, even when it causes me discomfort, hassle and money, then feel free to call me fragile. I wear it with pride.

All of this moot, though, because Apple isn’t that stupid.

 

[JayKay514]

Well, I'm not going to speculate on Silicon Valley drama, but the point that "Apple needs a product person" is probably the key takeaway here.

There's the mundane version of that - someone who keeps the product lineup simple, understands the market, price points, refresh cycles, and delivers iterative improvements.

And we've seen just that over the last 15 years. In the last five years alone, Apple devices have been on a steep upward curve in power and performance, the likes of which we haven't seen... maybe ever.

But then there's the longer-term vision thing.

It does feel like the whole industry is flailing, trying to see what will stick, under increasing Wall Street pressure, particularly trying to find a productive use for AI / LLMs.

The attempts to create "the next iPhone," such as the Rabbit R1 and the Humane AI Pin, were essentially stuffing some half-baked features into a small case without thinking about the problems such a device is supposed to solve. Likewise, the focus on Apple Intelligence was a misstep because it was both too early and its use case ill-defined.

What Apple might have tried to do is deliver on its long-unfulfilled Knowledge Navigator concept, because that demo showed value. A conversational interface, contextual understanding, and proactive automation to deliver a digital "majordomo" to deal with the firehose of tasks, distractions and noise we all face every day. Who wouldn't want that -- if it worked as well as the demo promised?

What that demo did was not focus on the underlying tech; it could have been a stack of Mechanical Turks all the way down. The user doesn't care if it's Apple Intelligence or an infinite number of elephants behind the UI, the user cares about the quality of the experience, ease of use, and convenience. They value what it does for them, not how it does it.

Apple needs more than just a product person, but - and I hate this word - a product visionary who can see what people want before they know they want it, what they need before they know they need it.

Maybe that's computers. Maybe that's software. Maybe it's something new that isn't a general-purpose computer, or that hides the "computery" part in favor of a new kind of experience. But whatever it is, it has to identify an unmet need and then - hopefully - create an entirely new product category.

 

[splifingate]

...or that hides the "computery" part in favor of a new kind of experience.

Therein lies the rub.

 

[Robertus]

Apple is rolling out the new iClone pod and out step a cloned version of Steve Jobs to re-take his old job?

 

[Woyzeck]

It's all about Apple making money; the more profit, the better. It's not about our happiness.

Of course it is - they are still a commercial company. However I think that it's not sustainable to focus on profit alone. Too many tech companies went downhill following that path.

 

[chmania]

Of course it is - they are still a commercial company. However I think that it's not sustainable to focus on profit alone. Too many tech companies went downhill following that path.

Companies do not decline by solely focusing on profit, as that is precisely what companies are for: to generate profit. All company actions, even those that appear to be philanthropic, are centred around increasing profit for the company, one way or another, often serving as a form of advertising. If a particular philanthropic initiative does not yield the desired results, companies typically phase it out gradually, or simply drop them. All board meetings are conducted with that singular focus in mind: profit. A company is not your friend, no matter how much you become a fan of it or its products.

 

[Varmann]

Companies do not decline by solely focusing on profit, as that is precisely what companies are for: to generate profit. All company actions, even those that appear to be philanthropic, are centred around increasing profit for the company, one way or another, often serving as a form of advertising. If a particular philanthropic initiative does not yield the desired results, companies typically phase it out gradually, or simply drop them. All board meetings are conducted with that singular focus in mind: profit. A company is not your friend, no matter how much you become a fan of it or its products.

A common, but flawed, opinion.

For some companies, increased profit may be the all over shadowing motivation. But for far from all. There are lots of companies that have had other motivations. Key persons in Apple, for example (like Steve Jobs), were for long periods more motivated by a will to "change the world" than to make most profit. There are many companies where main owners, board and/or CEO have alternate agendas than profit. You do not buy Washington Post or Twitter to make profit, you do it to gain power and influence. In the luxury industry the profit focus took overhand for some in recent years which led to increased production and reputation and desirability of their products went down.

 

[Woyzeck]

Companies do not decline by solely focusing on profit, as that is precisely what companies are for: to generate profit. All company actions, even those that appear to be philanthropic, are centred around increasing profit for the company, one way or another, often serving as a form of advertising. If a particular philanthropic initiative does not yield the desired results, companies typically phase it out gradually, or simply drop them. All board meetings are conducted with that singular focus in mind: profit. A company is not your friend, no matter how much you become a fan of it or its products.

Yes and no - of course a company will aim for profit, as this will keep it alive. The question is just how much is enough. If they lose the ability to innovate and create products ahead of the competition they'll lose in the long run.

Compare the Apple from the 2000's to today's Apple. They are now a resource-rich giant, but it's easy to see that they have increasing problems with innovation.

 

[firewood]

You mean, like a certain someone who founded Apple, then left to make animated movies?

While hiring, wrangling, and motivating many of the people who eventually brought Mac software into the future and movie animation technology into reality. (some of that early predecessor technology to the GPUs that now run the world)