[mullingitover]

Cook was arguably the real brains behind Apple's turnaround back in the early 2000s - he was a supply chain wizard as COO, and when Jobs was out of the picture it made absolutely zero difference in the company's performance. There's a reasonable case to be made that Cook was actually the main driver of the company's success even before Jobs departed.

[lapcat]

Because Tim Cook invented the iPhone? The iPod? Mac OS X?

The supply chain is irrelevant unless you have consumer demand for your products.

Apple brought back Jobs because they needed his operating system NeXTSTEP. How many operating systems has Tim Cook ever developed?

Cook literally never led a software or hardware product team until he became CEO, after which he "technically" led every team at Apple.

Jobs was behind Apple II, Lisa, Macintosh, NeXT, Mac OS X, iMac, MacBook, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc. It's absurd to compare Cook with Jobs. Cook started as CEO gifted with some of the greatest tech products in history. Halfway between 3rd base and home plate, to use a baseball metaphor. Of course he's going to score.

Honestly, other than spec bumps such as speed and battery life, I don't think my Apple products are any better than they were 15 years ago. I think the design is actually worse now in many ways.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Cook was an excellent XO who made all the Jobs-induced innovations practical.

Which was an immense job. Supply chain management at global scale is phenomenally challenging.

Cook seems to be a very competent bean counter. He lacks the charisma and the "one more thing" that Jobs had, but he has done an incredibly impressive job of turning Apple into one of the planet's biggest money making machines.

Apple is now a movie studio, a music distribution company that makes its own hardware, a software marketplace, one of the world's biggest consumer hardware companies, and a legendary brand.

Someone less competent wouldn't have kept all those plates spinning.

The cost has been an outbreak of blandness. Jobs was primarily a narcissist who enjoyed pushing others because it made him feel better about himself. But he also had a genuine passion for creativity, aesthetics, and the future.

Cook lacks those qualities. He's the ultimate perfected FAANG company man. There's nothing cool about him. This has affected the products, which are good enough to very good, but not inspiring.

It's impossible to know what Jobs would have done, or if there was even room for game changing new products. We know VR is on its way, and Car has been happening for a while. But neither of those is truly a game changer. (VR might be, but it could also fail badly.)

So I suspect this is a hint of frustration from the Board, who are happy to count their money, but are also missing that One More Thing that will be Insanely Great.

[mullingitover]

> Cook lacks those qualities. He's the ultimate perfected FAANG company man. There's nothing cool about him. This has affected the products, which are good enough to very good, but not inspiring.

Under Cook, Apple launched the Apple Watch, AirPods, Apple TV, and their HomeKit platform, and each of those products are massive businesses. Their online services (which frankly languished under Jobs) has grown by nearly 20x. They brought a custom CPU to Macs, to wild acclaim.

> So I suspect this is a hint of frustration from the Board, who are happy to count their money, but are also missing that One More Thing that will be Insanely Great.

I think it's more Cook having some humility. The share price in the last year is down 22% (it's still performing incredibly well considering the hammering the tech sector has taken).

I'm not saying Jobs didn't have merits, but I've studied the company for decades. I've read the Jobs biography. He was passionate and driven, but a lot of what he accomplished was from being in the right place at the right time, having the right friends, calling in favors, and taking credit for other people's work. In many ways he was an absolute monster, and I would argue Apple succeeded as much in spite of him as because of him. It certainly hasn't missed a beat in his absence, and to say the products post-Jobs have been bland is a subjective stretch.

[subharmonicon]

> Cook literally never led a software or hardware product team until he became CEO, after which he "technically" led every team at Apple.

And why does that matter? Steve Jobs selected him because he felt he would be the best person for the job out of the executive team.

> Jobs was behind Apple II

Woz was behind Apple II. If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots and fought Woz on that and lost. Woz was ready to walk away with his design.

> Lisa

Commercial failure.

> Macintosh

Commercial failure.

> NeXT

Commercial failure.

> Mac OS X

Jobs was one of several people instrumental in making that happen, but I think you can hardly give him more than 50% credit in that one.

I think you can give Jobs a lot of credit for the vision behind iMac, iPod, and iPhone. But it’s entirely disingenuous to discount the likes of Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, and all the other people who made those products happen.

Jobs vision from the early Apple days was of computers as home appliances. You purchase it, it is complete as is (little to no extensibility), and it’s well-designed (physically) like the products designed by the people Jobs admired (Dieter Rams).

That’s a great vision and what still drives the company today, but he was hardly singularly responsible for the success behind those products.

[lapcat]

> Steve Jobs selected him because he felt he would be the best person for the job out of the executive team.

It's not actually Jobs's choice. Apple is a publicly owned company, and both Jobs and Cook are employees, not owners. Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. Never forget that when Jobs demanded that the Apple board of directors choose between him and John Sculley, they chose Sculley.

In any case, Jobs didn't expect to die until it was too late. He didn't have years to groom a successor. Cook was expedient.

> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots and fought Woz on that and lost. Woz was ready to walk away with his design.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove? They were cofounders. They were both behind the Apple II. This is well known and documented. Of course Jobs wasn't Woz's boss, they were equals. And they had some disagreements, which is natural and expected. So what? I used to have cofounder bosses, and they argued and disagreed all the time.

>> Macintosh

> Commercial failure.

Um, no. No it was not. That's absurd. Otherwise Apple wouldn't exist now. What do you think Apple sold before iPod and iPhone?

>> NeXT

> Commercial failure.

It was acquired for $400 million. I'd love to fail that badly.

> But it’s entirely disingenuous to discount the likes of Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, and all the other people who made those products happen.

Good thing I never did that. You're arguing against a straw man. Jobs was the leader of a team.

By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple. And it's rumored that Ive was disappointed Cook didn't care about design like Jobs did.

> he was hardly singularly responsible for the success behind those products

I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was.

It's funny that you're arguing against me with the straw man that Jobs deserves 100% credit, but you don't argue against the person I was refuting who claimed "Cook was arguably the real brains behind Apple's turnaround back in the early 2000s" and "Cook was actually the main driver of the company's success even before Jobs departed". Why aren't you criticizing that argument as much as or more than mine? However much credit Jobs deserves for his over 30 year body of work, how in the world would Cook deserve even more credit than Jobs for that???

[subharmonicon]

> Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation.

And what point are you trying to make? Jobs recommended him, the board selected him. Saying the board had to agree doesn't change the fact that Jobs and board felt he was qualified and the best option for a successor, which was the point.

>> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots

> I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove?

You said "Jobs was behind Apple II" and a host of other products, but at best in the case of Apple II he saw Woz's good design as something he could take and sell. He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.

>>> Macintosh

>> Commercial failure.

> Um, no. No it was not.

Yes, it was. I'd suggest actually reading up on the product release and what happened after. If it hadn't been for the cash cow of Apple II, the company could have failed. That's according to numerous accounts, including Woz. I believe it was at least three years before it even matched the sales of (what was then an 11 year old) Apple II.

> Jobs was the leader of a team.

Like Tim Cook.

> By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple.

Yes, and if you understand what happened there, it was the right thing to do. And the rest of the exec team, especially Ive, was very happy about that move.

> I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was.

By every account I've read, Jobs primary contribution was as an editor, saying "no" to bad ideas. And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same. Jobs wasn't spending most of his days brainstorming with the design team, although he did do some of that. More than Tim Cook, sure, but most of the idea generation in the company was coming from a large crowd of people, not Steve Jobs.

[lapcat]

> He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.

This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.

> I'd suggest actually reading up the product release and what happened after.

I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?

"The Macintosh sold 50,000 units in 74 days, outselling every other computer" "Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first-year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Macintosh#1985%...

>> Jobs was the leader of a team.

> Like Tim Cook.

No. As I already said, "Cook literally never led a software or hardware product team until he became CEO".

> Yes, and if you understand what happened there, it was the right thing to do.

It wasn't. Cook was purging a rival for power, and Maps was just an excuse. If it was right, then why didn't Jobs fire Forstall?

> By every account I've read, Jobs primary contribution was as an editor, saying "no" to bad ideas.

This is essential. I would love it if Cook said no to bad ideas. Soooooo many bad ideas lately. Terrible ideas.

> And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same.

Citations needed.

[subharmonicon]

>> He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.

> This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.

You're saying Steve Jobs designed the Apple II? Or had a substantial hand in the design? Sorry, Woz and history disagree.

> I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?

Yes, and in fact owned the first generation Mac upon release.

> It wasn't. Cook was purging a rival for power, and Maps was just an excuse.

Steve and the board chose Cook over Forstall. He didn't need to "purge a rival". Forstall was difficult to work with, and people wanted him gone.

>> And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same.

> Citations needed.

https://www.engadget.com/2014-06-16-jony-ive-talks-new-mater...

[rasz]

>"The Macintosh sold 50,000 units in 74 days, outselling every other computer" "Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first-year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Macintosh#1985%...

Commodore 64 sold ~300K in 4 months of 1982 alone, and kept outselling everything up until ~1986. 1 million units in first 16 months. 3.5 million units year later https://pctimeline.info/c64/. 6 million at the end of 1986. https://www.pagetable.com/docs/c64_sales/12.png

[mullingitover]

> It's not actually Jobs's choice. Apple is a publicly owned company, and both Jobs and Cook are employees, not owners. Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. Never forget that when Jobs demanded that the Apple board of directors choose between him and John Sculley, they chose Sculley.

Upon Jobs' return to Apple, the board was entirely replaced by Jobs' hand-picked people. From that point on, they were simply there to rubber stamp his decisions, and given the company's performance after the iPod launch they would never second guess him. It was 1000% Jobs' choice.

[lapcat]

> given the company's performance after the iPod launch they would never second guess him

This is the point though. It only lasts as long as the stockholders have confidence in the leadership. If the stockholders start to worry about the future performance of the stock, they can replace everyone, including the CEO and board of directors.

Cook was a known, safe choice to the stockholders. Whereas if Jobs had chosen some kind of maverick or outsider as his successor, the stockholders would be very worried about that.

[scyzoryk_xyz]

Cook helped make those devices commercially viable at scale. They’re secret one day, announced the next, and become available to millions within a month. All of this with a huge margin and a global supply chain.

People misunderstand Jobs role in all of this IMO. He wasn’t doing the inventing, not personally. He was responsible for identifying and hiring people like Cook and getting them to play well with other brilliant people, like Ive. He talked about this, like, all the time.

These brilliant people would then create coordinated design/production processes that gave the company such strong inertia that the products arrive improved and on schedule every year.

All Cook has to do is keep the course - and he’s clearly very good at it.

[lapcat]

> Cook helped make those devices commercially viable at scale.

Nobody is disputing his role in operations.

> They’re secret one day, announced the next, and become available to millions within a month.

Availability to millions is irrelevant unless millions want the product. Otherwise it becomes unsold inventory, a liability. Cook knew that as well as anyone.

> He wasn’t doing the inventing, not personally.

Jobs was a notorious micromanager. Not to mention that at the very beginning, it was just him and Woz. I'd like to see Cook start a tech company from scratch. Jobs did it twice.

> on schedule every year

Um, Apple didn't have a yearly schedule until Cook.

> All Cook has to do is keep the course

This is actually my point. Which is very different from "Cook was arguably the real brains behind Apple's turnaround back in the early 2000s".

[scyzoryk_xyz]

I think we can agree because we actually agree ;)

[rasz]

I was up there with you until

>Jobs was behind Apple II, Lisa, Macintosh, NeXT, Mac OS X, iMac, MacBook, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc.

"well actually" Apple 1/2 was all Wozniak. Lisa was a HUGE flop. Jobs stole Mac project, but not the way you think :) he stole it from Jef Raskin https://www.mac-history.net/steve-jobs-discovers-the-macinto.... Macbook? its just a laptop., continuation of PowerBook line under new name. iPhone/iPad was resurrecting hundreds of millions spend on R&D building Newton by Larry Tesler team (under Sculley).

[lapcat]

> Lisa was a HUGE flop.

Some people are trying to make this all about money, but that's missing the point. I already acknowledged that Cook is great at making money. But he's not a "product person". The Lisa was an incredible, groundbreaking achievement despite not being financially successful. It was innovative, and laid the groundwork for Macintosh.

> Jobs stole Mac project, but not the way you think :) he stole it from Jef Raskin

For the better.

"Jef Raskin, who had fought against the application of a mouse and instead preferred a pen or a joystick." "Raskin did not particularly support the innovations the Lisa team had picked up in the Xerox PARC"

> Macbook? its just a laptop., continuation of PowerBook line under new name

Yes, my use of "MacBook" was intended to be just a generic reference to Apple laptops. MacBook is the most recognizable name.

> iPhone/iPad was resurrecting hundreds of millions spend on R&D building Newton by Larry Tesler team

I was up there with you until...

[rasz]

>The Lisa was an incredible, groundbreaking achievement despite not being financially successful.

Have you ever used one? I dont think incredible and groundbreaking is how I would describe copying Xerox $16K Star into $10K Apple that takes _30 seconds_ to open empty text document and 10 seconds to save same empty text document. Opening diskette takes 15 seconds, copying _empty_ text document from one drive to the other takes 15-25 seconds, deleting a file takes 5 seconds, ejecting floppy another 15 seconds etc etc.

>Yes, my use of "MacBook" was intended to be just a generic reference to Apple laptops

again all started under Sculley

[lapcat]

> all started under Sculley

Fair criticism. I was fuzzy on the timeline for that. So remove MacBook from the list.

What I'd say about Lisa is that Jobs saw the GUI as the future of consumer computing — in a way that Xerox never did — and spent years doing everything he could to make it happen. And it did take years to make it happen, because revolutionary change is never easy.

Ask yourself why Xerox never became Apple. Xerox executives didn't even know what they had.

[dvngnt_]

M1 was a game changer.

airpods are more successful than most tech companies alone

[muzani]

Yup. I avoided Macs until the M1. Had an old work MBP (2020 or so) that I didn't like because of some hardware glitches, but they patched it all up by 2022.

[lapcat]

> M1 was a game changer.

The pandemic was a game changer, because everyone had to work from home. (Apple's quarterly results actually showed a huge Mac sales bump before M1 was introduced.) Now with the pandemic winding down, the tech companies are coming back to earth.

> airpods are more successful than most tech companies alone

AirPods are an accessory to other Apple products. iPhone and Mac set the stage for everything else.

That people are touting M1 now just shows how far Apple has fallen in software design. Mac OS X was vastly better than Windows even while Macs were still using the inferior PowerPC chips, before they switched to Intel. I would have never traded Mac for Windows just for a CPU.

[Jcowell]

> I would have never traded Mac for Windows just for a CPU.

I question if you’ve ever used an intel Mac and then transition to an M1 Mac. The difference isn’t truly night and day. The fact that I could actually use it as a laptop *and* the fact that I could carry it all day without worry about battery life is enough.

For the basic consumer, an M1 Mac or even an M1 iPad is enough to switch from windows.

[lapcat]

> I question if you’ve ever used an intel Mac and then transition to an M1 Mac.

I don't know why you question this, because I've clearly been using Macs since PPC.

To be clear, I've owned around a dozen Macs over the past 20 years: PPC, Intel, Apple silicon.

> is enough to switch from windows

Ok but basically any reason is enough to switch from Windows. ;-)

Whereas I was considering the opposite switch from Mac to Windows.

[jmac01]

How many operating systems did jobs develop? Zero also