3 ms·
"It's telling that after Jobs, Apple didn't slide into irrelevance but instead continued to thrive." Tim Cook is clearly incredibly important to the success of
by endorphone 7y ago
"It's telling that after Jobs, Apple didn't slide into irrelevance but instead continued to thrive."
Tim Cook is clearly incredibly important to the success of Apple, but from a product perspective it is a refinement of all the products Steve Jobs launched that still carry the company. Those products are faster and slicker and have better cameras -- the innovations afforded to a hyper-profitable company -- but it isn't like Apple has done a 90 degree turn or anything. They aren't a smartphone/pad/computer company that turned into a smartcar/massage chair company.
- mullingitover 7y agoApple Watch and AirPods both launched after the Jobs era, and they're doing pretty well in their respective categories. I wouldn't bet against Apple on their product strategy with Cook running things, they're a lot doing more than just adding polish to what Jobs left them with.
- _rutinerad 7y ago> it is a refinement of all the products Steve Jobs launched that still carry the company Not really. You could say that the iPhone still carries the company, but with the exception of that outlier newer initiatives like Services and Wearables/Home/Accessories bring in way more money than products that Steve Jobs launched (Mac and iPad).
- endorphone 7y agoNot really? Then you casually say "if you exclude the iPhone" which kind of undercuts the entire argument, doesn't it? 70% of Apple revenue comes from the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Services revenue is entirely and absolutely based upon that, and certainly didn't originate post Jobs. Even the Watch -- have one and love it -- exists on the back of the iPhone. So, yeah, really. Everything Apple has done that has been successful since Jobs is entirely in the halo of the iPhone, which of course still accounts for the vast bulk of Apple's profits.