4 ms·

You're correct, but I think this also is why it needs to be Cook. Essentially, Apple is a one product company. That product is "the mac". The "mac" comes in t

You're correct, but I think this also is why it needs to be Cook. Essentially, Apple is a one product company. That product is "the mac". The "mac" comes in the form of a combination of software and hardware. OS X on Macintoshes is the past, iOS on iDevices is the future. All of that is Forstall (if I'm understanding things right.) And even then, the hardware is merely the box for the software. They make a very great box. But Forstall is the "new jobs" in that regard. Ive can demand that it have fewer buttons, and Schiller can demand that marketing be on message, and Forstall has to listen to them, and if he doesn't then Cook should have their backs. Cook is thus well placed to be the "vision guy" (and yes, I think that is a legitimate description and that he'd be just as good as jobs at it) whose got his finger on the daily operations but also is looking 5, 10 & 15 years into the future. Apple University is the glue that holds these four guys together and keeps them on the same page. Plus, of course, The Writings of The Chairman from Jobs over the years. In fact, I would bet good money that there literally is a book within Apple, that probably only has a dozen or fewer copies, written by Jobs about the Apple Way and presenting his vision for the Apple Way. In a way, his living will to the future. I think this book is Apple's equivalent to Cokes "secret formula", only Apple doesn't trumpet that they have a secret formula, they keep even the existence of it secret.

6ren 15y ago
> Apple is a one product company It depends on your definition of "product", but most would classify the iPhone as a different category of product from a mac, not just a different product. As different as a minicomputer is from a desktop. I think before long we'll see Apple launch yet another new category. Even if we forget the special talents of Steve Jobs, most companies go downhill without their founder/s. Probably HP most famously. It's partly that others lack the unique clout of founder, as kenjackson says. In addition, founders tend to be insightful, energetic and bold (else they couldn't have succeeded as founders). Employees generally don't have that crazy extreme fire, or they'd be founders themselves. But Jobs is unique beyond that, because it's rare for even founders to create more than one dominating industry. Jobs has done it with the Apple IIe, iPod, iPhone and iPad. It's that he can see what's important; and can make it happen. I think his design talent/taste is in addition to this, and while yet another unique talent in its own right (and related), is not quite as important.
Steko 15y ago
Tim Cook's function at Apple is to take care of all the shit Steve doesn't want to be burdened with because Steve wants to spend all day obsessing on small product details like removing unneeded buttons. Steve is a designer. Jon Ive is a designer. Tim Cook afaik is not a designer. Who's going to take the prototype home and obsess over the tiniest details? http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/132488837/The-Behind-The-Scenes-Partnership-At-Apple http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/132488837/The-Behind-The-Scene...
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  That's essentially why Cook will be the new CEO. No one will accept a "new Steve Jobs" in the Steve Jobs role, so trying to foist a new Steve Jobs onto the company -- and into the public eye -- would be an exercise in futility. People would rebel. People would doubt. People would question this person's every move. One slip-up or bad quarter, and people would be calling for his head; analysts would be publishing lengthy diatribes about how Apple had lost its way. Etc. Apple has some amazing designers and engineers in the likes of Ive, Forstall, etc. It doesn't need to promote one of them to the top spot in order to extract the genius from them. This is why Cook wins by default. He's a CEO Wall Street and employees will accept, and nobody's expecting him to have a Jobsian design aesthetic or artistic vision. But they're expecting his lieutenants to carry that torch while he keeps everyone and everything unified.

6ren 15y ago

> Apple is a one product company It depends on your definition of "product", but most would classify the iPhone as a different category of product from a mac, not just a different product. As different as a minicomputer is from a desktop. I think before long we'll see Apple launch yet another new category. Even if we forget the special talents of Steve Jobs, most companies go downhill without their founder/s. Probably HP most famously. It's partly that others lack the unique clout of founder, as kenjackson says. In addition, founders tend to be insightful, energetic and bold (else they couldn't have succeeded as founders). Employees generally don't have that crazy extreme fire, or they'd be founders themselves. But Jobs is unique beyond that, because it's rare for even founders to create more than one dominating industry. Jobs has done it with the Apple IIe, iPod, iPhone and iPad. It's that he can see what's important; and can make it happen. I think his design talent/taste is in addition to this, and while yet another unique talent in its own right (and related), is not quite as important.

Steko 15y ago

Tim Cook's function at Apple is to take care of all the shit Steve doesn't want to be burdened with because Steve wants to spend all day obsessing on small product details like removing unneeded buttons. Steve is a designer. Jon Ive is a designer. Tim Cook afaik is not a designer. Who's going to take the prototype home and obsess over the tiniest details? http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/132488837/The-Behind-The-Scenes-Partnership-At-Apple http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/132488837/The-Behind-The-Scene...

jonnathanson 15y ago
That's essentially why Cook will be the new CEO. No one will accept a "new Steve Jobs" in the Steve Jobs role, so trying to foist a new Steve Jobs onto the company -- and into the public eye -- would be an exercise in futility. People would rebel. People would doubt. People would question this person's every move. One slip-up or bad quarter, and people would be calling for his head; analysts would be publishing lengthy diatribes about how Apple had lost its way. Etc. Apple has some amazing designers and engineers in the likes of Ive, Forstall, etc. It doesn't need to promote one of them to the top spot in order to extract the genius from them. This is why Cook wins by default. He's a CEO Wall Street and employees will accept, and nobody's expecting him to have a Jobsian design aesthetic or artistic vision. But they're expecting his lieutenants to carry that torch while he keeps everyone and everything unified.