Hacker News Reader

Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

I think the continued underestimation of Apple since Tim Cook became CEO really just comes down to this: people desperately want a Great Man to worship. Tim Cook isn't revered in that way like Steve Jobs was.

View on HN

If only I had listened to everyone and sold my APPL stock when he took over... /s

If Apple develops another new product under Tim Cook that generates $500+ billion in profit over time, he might be.

The only interesting product that has been originated under Cook, that isn't a direct derivative of the iPhone (as the watch is), are the AirPods.

Cook is an excellent steward and operator, which is why Jobs de facto installed him as CEO.

What are the chances of another $500b consumer product existing PERIOD. From ANYONE?

The iPhone may have been a once in a century product, even if Steve was still here.

Apple has ONLY made ‘little’ things like the Apple Watch and AirPods. Both are absolutely huge businesses. If people weren’t using the iPhone as a yardstick we wouldn’t stop hearing about how successful Apple is.

But they’re the iPhone company.

You do realize the iPhone was a direct derivative of the Mac, so by your logic even Steve Jobs did nothing that wasn’t derivative?

Are you suggesting Steve Jobs wasn't involved with the development of the Mac?

Some people would say Jeff Raskin and Xerox were where the Mac concept came from.

Which may be as it may be, but has no bearing on my comment or the discussion.

Are you suggesting that Tim Cook was not involved in the development of the Apple Watch or AirPods?

When did I say that?

The point was about the meaningless of calling products ‘derivative’.

The Mac can hardly be called derivative. If you want to go that deep into that kind of logic, you're really reaching to the point that all things are "derivative" of basic physics and no one has ever done anything that's not "derivative".

It's pointless argument.

If you don’t think the Mac is derivative of the Lisa, which is derivative of the Xerox Alto, then I’m quite surprised.

Which was a derivative of ... which was a derivative of ... which was really all derivative of John von Neumann so what's the point of this ridiculous argument.

Steve Jobs was Apple's Bill Gates. Tim Cook is Apple's Steve Ballmer - great businessman, but very little charisma or vision. It's remarkable how reliably these patterns repeat. Sundar Pichai is Google's Steve Ballmer as well.

I think Pichai is Google's Ballmer, but I don't think that applies to Apple at all. The better comparison for Cook is Bob Iger.

I think you're vastly underestimating the business acumen of Ballmer. His personal antics and lack of filter notwithstanding, he (and not Satya) is the only reason why Microsoft is a $1T+ company today: he was the one who started Azure and SaaS/subscriptions at Microsoft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com