6 ms·

I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top leve

I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?

MBCook 2y ago
You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- klelatti 2y ago
  You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.
makeitdouble 2y ago
I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama. On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation. I see very little upside TBH.
- klelatti 2y ago
  > keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas Combining fresh ideas with experience is a bad idea?
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    We're talking about high level executives who crushed whatever opposition they had to get to the top of the pyramid. They're of course good at collaboration as well, but they don't look to me like the type to enjoy someone watching over their shoulder and whispering advices to their ears.
- MBCook 2y ago
  In Apple’s case the leadership learned a ton of important lessons from being the scrappy underdog that was always fighting to succeed. And they shouldn’t forget those. But those same ideas and strategies may not work as well when you’re the biggest company in the world (or close). So I think either they’re in the tension you describe at the end of your comment, or they’ve taught the new generation the old ways so they’re not trying to change things enough.

MBCook 2y ago

You’re right you didn’t comment on Apple. That’s why I replied to you. Because while I think you’re correct in general in specific regard to Apple I think this is a bad strategy.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
klelatti 2y ago
You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.

makeitdouble 2y ago

I think it's true in general: keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas, but then it's a screwed situation anyway, as the whole succession plan is botched and you get the Disney drama. On the other side, if the successors are decent but go in a direction the old guard doesn't approve of, it creates an overly tense and conflictual situation. I see very little upside TBH.

klelatti 2y ago
> keeping the old guard around only helps if the new leaders aren't having good ideas Combining fresh ideas with experience is a bad idea?
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  We're talking about high level executives who crushed whatever opposition they had to get to the top of the pyramid. They're of course good at collaboration as well, but they don't look to me like the type to enjoy someone watching over their shoulder and whispering advices to their ears.
MBCook 2y ago
In Apple’s case the leadership learned a ton of important lessons from being the scrappy underdog that was always fighting to succeed. And they shouldn’t forget those. But those same ideas and strategies may not work as well when you’re the biggest company in the world (or close). So I think either they’re in the tension you describe at the end of your comment, or they’ve taught the new generation the old ways so they’re not trying to change things enough.