[snowwrestler]

Every culture has its myths, and in Apple's culture today, no myth is bigger than Steve Jobs. It might be wise of Cook to invoke Jobs at big moments.

He knows he's never going to match that legend... so why try? Instead of fighting it, he uses it to foster a common purpose within the company.

In terms of "maintaining" the business, Apple's share price when Cook became CEO seven years ago was about a quarter of what it is now. Pretty good maintenance.

[rm_-rf_slash]

I asked Tim once what the hardest thing was for him, personally, to fill in Steve’s shoes.

He told me that Steve was his friend, and he believes that no true friend can ever be/replace their friend, so he chose to run Apple like Tim.

From his emphasis on privacy to his masterful supply chain management, it is clear that he has stuck to that position.

[leesalminen]

I was just having a conversation with a friend about Tim and his role at Apple.

I posited that Steve probably wasn’t the right person to grow Apple to $1T in market cap and that Tim really made it happen. My friend took the opposite side believing that Tim is just running of Steve’s ideas and that Tim had relatively little to do with making it happen.

Curious to see what HN thinks.

[snowwrestler]

I think they're different people with different strengths, so it's futile to compare them.

I think Steve Jobs was an incredibly talented person and it's not really fair to ding Tim Cook for not being Steve Jobs. Apple is obviously not the same company without Jobs, but is that Tim Cook's fault? I don't see how.

It seems to me that a lot of the "analysis" of Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs is really just people wishing Steve Jobs was still alive. I wish he was too.

I will point out that Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 and hired Tim Cook in 1998. So Jobs' incredible 2nd run at Apple was also, to some extent, Cook's incredible run too.

[thereare5lights]

This kind of debate is like who's the GOAT of the NBA, Lebron or MJ. It's gonna be a lot of cherry-picking of data, subjective thoughts, etc. Not that the debate wouldn't be fun or illuminating, just that an objective answer is probably out of reach.

[leesalminen]

For sure. It’s not a black and white topic.

This is an interesting topic for me as I find myself asking similar questions about my role at a company I founded.

I founded a company currently valued in the low-mid 8 digits. I successfully brought the company through an acquisition and have doubled revenues since.

I keep coming back to an article I read on HN years ago talking about the 4 types of CEOs: founder, growth, maintenance, death (bankruptcy). While I’ve found success in 1 and 2, I don’t enjoy 2 as much as 1 and I don’t think I’d be any good at 3 or 4.

I’m probably experiencing a form of imposter syndrome as the board & leadership are all satisfied with my performance, but the thoughts still linger.

[raleigh_user]

Read Rocket Fuel. Its a book I am sure the HN crowd will critique but it has made a large difference in how my biz operates and how multiple founders fill roles. I am very much an "integrator" from the book. I am less of the massive, big picture and more of the day to day execution. Good at growth/maintenance. Not great as a true "founder". And I have managed through near death and it seemingly took years off my life so I'd prefer not to go back to that one!