I think it's a genius move. People will begin to understand in the coming years just how much information these companies are tracking/extracting, and turn(or stay) to Apple.
I think users would care about privacy, if they truly knew just how much information is being gathered.
Care about privacy? Ok, don’t use gmail instead setup your own mail server and configure gpg.
Vs
Care about privacy? Ok: use apple products when they work for you.
https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rej...
And with regard to displeasing shareholders - Tim Cook has no problem with that - to quote, "if you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservativ...
In other words: It was a niche product and always has been, but that niche has played a large role in the success of iOS. It should be one of Apple's primary concerns to keep them happy.
I don't know how real the difference between Jobs and Cook is regarding the product line. They worked together for a long time and what you're saying seems like the romantic apple media. True to a degree probably though.
10 years ago is when Apple started to neglect the Mac Pro, and the Mac Mini is embarrassing, but the rest of the line has been doing great in sales and attention from Apple save a few missteps here and there.
> You mean the platform where iOS development happens?
Yes, that one. I doubt "iOS developers" can keep Apple alive.
In q3, mac sales represented ~12% of revenue which is greater than the iPads ~11%. I wouldn't exactly call it tiny.
And yes, I guess tiny is not a good word, still very small.
Embarrassing is an understatement, I'd say it's overtly consumer hostile https://d2w9rnfcy7mm78.cloudfront.net/1000779/large_7cbe8b3f... 2012 Mac Mini on the left; 2014 Mac Mini on the right. The unscrewable bottom was one of the championed features when this design initially launched
Tim Cook is no Steve Job, but Steve Jobs was no Tim Cook. They’re good at different thing, but Tim Cook will probably go down in history as one of the greatest CEOs of all time.
The original iPod was only possible because one of Apple's suppliers happened to make a 1.8" disk drive. iPhone and iPod were only possible because flash storage, batteries, screens, and mobile processors all got to a point where the original iPhone was (barely) viable as a product. Apple can't just will that the underlying technologies which will make autonomous cars or AR glasses possible come into existence now. They can nudge things a little here and there, but, for the most part, they have to wait just like everybody else.
Regarding Tim Cook: my take on Steve Jobs is that his most recognized success at Apple was creating the best products in the world. His collaborator for this was Jony Ive. But he had another accomplishment that is much less recognized: he put a tremendous amount of energy into building Apple the company. His collaborator for this was Tim Cook.
IMO, while Tim Cook may not be a product visionary, I think he is unrivaled as a business visionary. Calling him merely a "good" operator does the man a tremendous disservice. Nothing about the way Apple operates is typical. Their organizational structure is almost unheard of for a company of their size, they refresh almost their entire product portfolio every year, they release 3 new operating systems every year, they rarely make acquisitions, but when they do, it almost always works out. They have built an utterly dominating advantage in mobile processors. Etc, etc.
As I said elsewhere, this bothers me too. Cook is damn good at what he does, the problem is what he does is product delivery, not product development. The solitary new line they've launched since Job's passing was new sizes of iPhones and iPads, and the only entirely new product was the Watch, which arguably the first gen (Series 0 now) should never have left Cupertino. It wasn't ready, and I'm sorry but I think Jobs would've told them to take it back to the lab and make it GOOD before they released it.
Much hay is made out of the fact that version 1 of the watch wasn't 100% spot on. But again, that's fine. No company in the world is as good at Apple at iterating on products. So they iterated and the watch is a pretty great product now (and they sold a bunch of version 1 despite it's shortcomings).
The watch, which has been the only product released since Jobs his passing (and I'm definitely not a Jobs fanboy) is.. garbage imo. I'll take my mechanical watch any day of the week, thanks.
1) Lots of people are buying them.
2) They have incredible customer satisfaction numbers. Higher than any other Apple product, I believe.
They see the Mac like a truck. Yes, most people will buy cars, but we'll always need trucks too.
Further, best as I can tell, Mac continues to grow, both fraction of new sales and installed base.
Also, the gimmicky as hell trash can Pro with no meaningful upgradability was a slap in the face to anyone who loved the silver full tower BEASTS that preceded it. We STILL have some of those in service than were manufactured in 2008.
By having both consumer-oriented and pro-oriented hardware, Apple makes the most of the (admittedly limited) Mac marketplace. Plus, the simple fact is you cannot hackintosh a PC that would be equivalent to even a late 2012 Macbook Pro in terms of reliability, battery life and portability.
I also find it far more convenient when working. One usb-c plug to plug into my entire work desk (monitor, backup hard drive, power, various chargers and connector cables).
Perhaps you haven’t invested in a decent usb-c switch? Only upsides for me so far.
It's pretty obvious the iMac Pro was supposed to replace the Mac Pro lineup (despite having all the same problems) then at the last minute they decided to start working on a New New Mac Pro.
Not sure who has this vision if it's Tim, Ive or someone else but whoever it is they don't respect the idea of an actual computer like Jobs did. From what has been reported Cook doesn't even use a laptop anymore.
For the record I'm not saying they are taking this stance for some charitable reason, I'm saying it would/could make financial sense for them, especially considering their branding as a premium product.
(Besides Apple's CEOs tend to last a long time. 14 years with Jobs at the helm for example, and 6+ years with Cook and counting).
I think a mismatched CEO would either lose fighting it, or destroy the core of what makes Apple great, which shareholders will not like.