3 ms·
Gruber's argument confuses me: 1. Steve Jobs, the only CEO to ever successfully lead Apple in the company's 25-year history, has resigned. 2. Because of the
by socratic 15y ago
Gruber's argument confuses me:
1. Steve Jobs, the only CEO to ever successfully lead Apple in the company's 25-year history, has resigned.
2. Because of the current popularity of the iPad, iPhone, and MacBooks, Apple has great economies of scale. (However, Gruber primarily gives us anecdotes to support this.)
3. These economies of scale are evidence that the new CEO, an operations guy, will be able to lead the company.
4. In fact, design is copy-able.
5. Therefore, because Apple's designs are copy-able, in terms of competitive advantage, the new CEO has always been more important than Steve Jobs.
Is that correct?
- ugh 15y agoYou are reading way too much into it. This article is not trying to make the argument that Steve Jobs was irrelevant or less important for Apple than Tim Cook.
- socratic 15y ago"But at this point, it seems clear to me that however superior Apple's design is, it's their business and operations strength — the Cook side of the equation — that is furthest ahead of their competition, and the more sustainable advantage."
- Fluxx 15y agoRight, but you can't discount the vision that Jobs had to show Apple and everyone else that having products that are uncompromising on design + are solid technically will lead to great success.
- sambe 15y ago"at this point" refers to their advantages now, not when it became clear to Gruber. It is not intended to discount anything that happened in the past.
- code_duck 15y agoThere's no reason to even try to analyze it to that extent. Gruber's essay composition plan appears to be to start with the conclusion, which is invariably that Apple is the best possible at everything, will reign eternally supreme. Then he fills in whatever works in the middle to get there.