Comment by darkmighty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkmighty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I feel that reflects quite well Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook as well. Jobs just wanted to make 'insanely great' products [for their users], with the side effect of profit, while Tim Cook is probably fixated on efficiency and Shareholder value. Apple has had record profits and performance, but most will tell it's not the same and its future is not so certain.

It seems paradoxical that trying to maximize shareholder value at all costs could have the opposite effect long term; but think of it this way: almost every company in the world is fixated on profit -- that's not a differentiator. What makes the company is amazing products that people need, even depend upon -- once you have that, it is very hard to fail.

Profit singlemindedness can definitely lead you astray, be fragile (of course, the 'user-oriented' robust strategy can be thought as ultimately also a form of profit seeking).

What Nadella seems very competent at doing is also pleasing his workforce as an additional important stakeholder.

> Tim Cook is probably fixated on efficiency and Shareholder value.

Tim was the 2nd in command of Apple for years. Easy to forget this, but Apple's success in the 2000s is partially attributable to Tim as well (not to forget all the other brilliant folks at Apple).

Ballmer was the 2nd in command of MSFT for years as well, doesn't he deserve the same credit as Cook?

I'd probably agree. It might also be a Peter Principle thing where Ballmer/Cook were great at busdev/ops respectively while Gates/Jobs were more inspiring leaders.

Product development, especially in brand-new markets, requires a visionary with excellent taste, and the trust and respect of his team to revise with confidence.

I can imagine what happened with Zune, cloud, etc is that (an enormously successful) MS assigned senior engineers to head up potentially prestigious new projects as professional rewards, but what they should have done was acquire-hire startup founders with fire in their belly (and strong vision) about the space. Ironically anyone with that much belly fire probably would have left MS to pursue it, basically disqualifying everyone left. :)

I oversimplify both the MS and Apple examples as the "builder vs. caretaker" pendulum. Though Tim Cook could hold the reins for the next 10-20 years, I have no doubt that Apple will transition to another builder in the future. Once per generation? Every other generation? The computers (plural, laptops, PCs, phones, etc.) industry is still young.

Eight years post-Jobs, it remains to be seen what Apple's evolutionary thrust turns out to be, Amelio/Sculley. For now the market expectations (user desires) would seem to support innovation and design as a business priority.

This was right on point. The TouchBar and the problematic keyboard on those recent Macbook Pro laptops were clearly features that no Apple users ever wanted or asked for. Apple has lost some global market share as a result even though their net profit still went up. I'm afraid they are trading long term brand reputation for short term profit gains. They need to re-align product innovations with customer's best interests in mind.

It was pointed out recently that in this year's product lineup apple have started responding more actively to customers (it was also noted that these are post Ive too so there might be something in that)

Of course success with a vision often also includes a significant degree of luck and being in the right place at the right time. The iPod was just another MP3 player, albeit one with a certain style and design that captured lots of attention in spite of a premium price.

But it certainly wasn't ordained that Apple would parlay that into the runaway success of the iPhone.

Luck and timing play into it, but so does design and usefulness. Keep in mind the state of the world when the iPod came out. College kids sharing MP3s across school networks, etc. If you used microsoft's media players, by default they often "protected" the music by converting it to WMA files that were locked. Now you're unable to share with the other kids in your dorm. The cute boy/girl who asks "what song is that" that's blaring out your open dorm room can't just receive a copy. MS tried to win the war by cozying up to the labels.

Contrast this with Apple, which (then) used MP3s and you could plug in the player and have friends copy the music; add in the premium pricing and you've also got a status symbol. "Sharing" mp3s was the modern equivalent of sharing CDs or cassettes, something the labels took way to long to figure out in their early attempts at strict online digital music.

I have no idea if Apple intentionally did this, but it mattered. MP3 players were in their infancy and when people compared, the ipod looked better.

The iPod had, famously, "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." It won for various reasons, but the iTunes music store started off with DRM, with tracks limited to 5 devices, so it didn't win for lack of DRM. (Well-executed UX and design played a huge part.)

Well pre-Zune (which was pretty mediocre; I got one for free and gave away as a gift) there were lots of other MP3 players. But I agree Apple had the premium offering especially once you got to the click wheel generation. And the music store sealed the deal.

> Jobs just wanted to make 'insanely great' products [for their users], with the side effect of profit

https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Diagnostic_Port....

Vision Master vs Execution Master

Reply on news.ycombinator.com