Hacker News Reader

Comment by ellyagg | Hacker News Reader

Apple's going to be fine.

One half of Apple is execution. I believe that Jobs has infused the company with a culture based on his favored principles, and it's reasonable to think this culture is sticky.

The other half of Apple is big strategic decisions. Do the iPod. Do the iPhone. Do the iPad. I don't know anyone else with a track record like that. I don't know that it's trainable. Until the next smash product line that's not from his lips to Apple's ears, I don't know that Apple is going to be fine.

View on HN

> The other half of Apple is big strategic decisions. Do the iPod. Do the iPhone. Do the iPad.

It's interesting, though, because to hear Apple's brass tell it, the crucial decisions haven't been "do this" so much as they have been "don't do this, don't do that."

Apple is huge on focus, and they credit that focus with their success more than anything else. Focus seems to be baked into their culture as much as anything else at this point.

A mark of a good leader is being able to build a team that can function even when that leader is absent. So far, Steve Jobs has, for all his eccentricities, succeeded in every other measure of leadership – to an exceptional degree. I'd be pretty shocked if his talents couldn't include the final part of the equation.

In the short-term, I'm confident that they can function well absent their leader. Long-term may be a different story. I don't think the company will "follow" Cook the way they follow Jobs.

In order to lead like Jobs, Cook will have to make some very bold decisions. The first time one of those fizzles, the resulting fear will be much greater than it would have been, had Jobs been at the helm. Should he have a streak of fizzles, watch out.

Apple has a very bumpy ride ahead, I do believe. I really hope they do well, though, because I enjoy their products.

No, actually. My recommendation to Tim Cook is to not lead like Jobs. There is only one Steve Jobs, and the world knows it. Tim Cook will need to evolve his own leadership style, and the company will need to trust Jobs that he has passed the baton onto the right person.

There's no point trying to replace Jobs, because that's impossible. What's possible is for Cook to become someone different, someone, dare I say it, even better than Jobs (ie less of an ass or a douchebag, but just as exacting when it comes to high product standards with the global business acumen when it comes to supply chain management) - do you see it? Tim Cook now has a chance to make magic happen - He's worked so hard over the last few decades just for a chance to stand in that CEO position - and now that he has it - he better make the best of it.

My prediction is that Apple will radically change in the next few years - it has to - in order to say goodbye to Jobs, and welcome the new king - Tim Cook.

In the short-term, I'm confident that they can function well absent their leader. Long-term may be a different story.

Apple should do quite nicely for 5 years. After that, it's a big question mark. My bet is that past 5 years, it'll be "never quite as good" as now.

I think you've hit on one of the key leadership traits of Jobs right there - the ability to say, "don't do this, don't do that." Especially when there are entire industries that may be urging him to do something against his vision.

That's trainable. What's not trainable is knowing what to say "no" and "yes" to. Steve developed this instinct over a long time. He made a lot more blunders when he was younger, and learned from them.

Totally agree. And that comes not just from experience, making lots of mistakes and the ability to learn from those mistakes - but also from an ability to be idealistically realistic and see patterns throughout and across industries.

Another key trait of a good leader, IMHO, is the ability to train others to do the same. Time will tell if Steve Jobs pulled this off. (You see this in the restaurant industry - the truely great chefs spawn other great chefs.)

> [The] crucial decisions haven't been "do this" so much as they have been "don't do this, don't do that."

Miles Davis' players often commented that he never told them what to play, but he'd frequently tell them what not to play. Much more effective for building anything great.

>the crucial decisions haven't been "do this" so much as they have been "don't do this, don't do that."

"It’s incredibly rare that I’ve actually regretted saying no, but I dread my yes’s all the time." -DHH

"The other half of Apple is big strategic decisions. Do the iPod. Do the iPhone. Do the iPad."

True... add saying 'no' to that when it's too early... Don't ship a phone yet. Don't ship a tablet computer yet. Steve knows when to say no. I'm sure they could have shipped some kind of phone years earlier and some kind of tablet years earlier and there were probably people inside Apple who were cursing him for waiting at the time. Kudos to Jobs for waiting until the exactly the right time and until the right feature set and performance characteristics were viable.

> Don't ship a tablet computer yet.

How quickly we forget the Apple Newton.

Part of Jobs' legacy is also how well the company was able to bury and move on from missteps. For every company like Nintendo that recovers from a Virtual Boy, there's plenty of CueCats and click-of-death Zip drives.

> How quickly we forget the Apple Newton.

Jobs had left Apple when Newton was released.

There isn't going to be another Steve Jobs. How many leaders inside of Apple (or outside, for that matter) started a company in their garage, then turned that company into one of the world's largest and most successful enterprises? He is one in a million. Possibly even one in a billion.

This means that post-Steve Apple will be fundamentally different -- but it can still be successful. The best organizations spawn generations of great leaders, each with different styles and different visions. Rather than attempting to replace Steve with Steve Lite, the company should chart a new legacy within the culture and guiding principles that Steve built.

An admittedly simplistic and imperfect analogy here, but bear with me: the United States prospered long after the Founding Fathers left the scene, in large part because they established powerful and enduring principles for their successors. And every now and then, a truly great, Non-Founder leader emerged to reshape the country for a new era. Lincoln, for instance. Does anyone fault Lincoln for not being Thomas Jefferson?

If only Lincoln had been Thomas Jefferson! We'd be doing so much better as a country right now. :(

Not to derail this, but there is a lot of idolatry surrounding Lincoln that he doesn't deserve. He was just a Politician; like all the rest.

The other half is more like: "Do the iPod, do the iPhone, do the iPad, do the next great thing Apple can do execute well", but "Don't do the PDA, Don't do the netbook, Don't do the seemingly "next" thing."

The Don't do's are as important, as difficult to foresee, and as difficult to hold the urge to execute as the Do's. This is one of the key talents of Jobs that is not recognized as much as it should.

I'm sure Apple will be around for some time to come. However, I fear they may lose that edge in creating disruptive innovations and become a company (albeit still a profitable one) of sustaining innovations.

History has seemed to show indicate that it takes quite a bold leader, or leadership team, to make the tough trade-offs and take the seemingly insane risks to create disruptions in an industry.

Tim Cook seems capable enough of running Apple. But will he continue the tradition of risky bets that Jobs' has made? And does he have the capability of coming up with such visions - or fostering a corporate culture of doing so?

I'm not entirely sure. But I hope I'm wrong.

I think Cook is fine.

This is his Commencement Address at Auburn University this spring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEAXuHvzjao. Kinda reminds me of Steve's Commencement Address at Stanford (2005).

Even if he has the same personal quality, the fact that he is not Jobs means he is less powerful, and that he won't be allowed to take the same risks.

Yes, quite right, I haven't thought of that. Jobs was like the God himself, he could do whatever he wished and he didn't have to answer to anybody (for 99.99% of times). No other executive in Apple or elsewhere has this privilege (except in startups!).

Steve has instilled a culture of innovation and creativity at Apple.

The board and the senior management team are all top-notch innovators and leaders that Steve hand-picked.

I would add do Unix (OSX). yet I do think they are fine, for a few years at least. The new stuff is flying off the shelf, and they simply need to execute now.

That one was actually a pretty easy call.

NeXT was bought because Apple had fucked the dog on their next-generation operating system strategy. NeXTStep gave them a solid new platform upon which to build Mac OS, and the rest is history.

Easy in retrospect. I doubt you could have claimed this when they (NeXT) made the decision to go with BSD

NeXT was founded in 1985 for the purpose of creating a good workstation for the higher education market. By then, SunOS 2.0 was out, Ultrix was out, and 4.3BSD was under development. It wasn't even until mid-1986 that NeXT decided to make their own OS, and that was around the time that 4.3BSD and AIX were released. With Apple's technology off-limits, I'd say NeXT was following the herd when they decided to build off BSD.

Especially when you also saw BeOS in the running. I was happy when they chose NeXT but I always wanted a BeBox :)

They should have bought Be. pouts

The other half of Apple is big strategic decisions. Do the iPod. Do the iPhone. Do the iPad.

Maybe, but a lot of this is just a matter of picking the biggest new trend in consumer electronics and entering that market.

mp3 players are becoming popular? Great, let's make a better one!

Internet-enabled fancy phones are becoming popular? Great, let's do that too!

People like iPhones? Let's make a big one!

And what's next? I don't know, but it'll plug into your TV.

Knowing when the time's right is key - everyone else made shitty stuff, some because the components just weren't ready, some because they didn't know how to make anything better (still true for many MP3 players).

1999 Can we sell this Tablet? NO

2002 Can we sell this Tablet? NO

2004 Can we sell this Tablet? NO

2006 Can we sell this Tablet? NO

2008 Can we sell this Tablet? NO

2010 Can we sell this Tablet? YES

Very true. And, I think when they were saying NO, they were also thinking about WHY they can't sell a tablet at the time and tried to solve the problems.

2000: Can we sell this tablet (or phone)? - NO, because hardware isn't good enough and even if it were, why would anybody buy this, if they can't watch movies or listen to their music without too much hassle? Let's build a music (& movie) store, so that when the hardware is ready, we are ready too.

2005: Can we sell this tablet (or phone)? - No, the hardware is good enough now, but we need great software too. Let's build a great mobile OS (from scratch) and leave the legacy behind. And give the 3rd party developers the SDK and tools to build great apps for our device.

2010: Can we sell this tablet? - YES, the software is great now, just like hardware. Order 15M iPads to Foxconn and ship the damn thing!

Perhaps I am taking your post too literally, but I think this is an example of the mythos that Apple generates.

I don't believe for a second that Jobs had the iPad in mind in 2000.

They probably just brainstorm, try different stuff internally, see what works and see if they can make a product out of it that meets their high expectations. Jobs was no doubt an important part of this process but it is not impossible for the culture and process to outlive the person who helped create them.

I would not be surprised if Jobs was speaking honestly when he talked down tablets in 2008.

I don't believe for a second that Jobs had the iPad in mind in 2000.

Bill Gates certainly had something like it in mind in 2000. I have an example of such a device in my living room. (tc1100 - Mine dates from 2001) The "raw" functionality (for a technically savvy person like me) far exceeds the typical use of the iPad. It even has the same screen resolution. Still, I don't do anything on the iPad that I didn't do on the tc1100, and do everything on the iPad -- the whole gestalt is just more pleasurable to use.

I would not be surprised if Jobs was speaking honestly when he talked down tablets in 2008.

No, he was lying ;)

Watch his D8 talk (With Walt Mosberg), it's available in iTunes (Podcasts -> Apple Podcasts). He (Jobs) says that they began working on a multitouch tablet in the early 2000's, but around 2005 decided first ship a phone (When I saw the rubber band thing, I said: My God, we can make a phone out of it!). When that got successful, he put the tablet off the shelf and the rest is history.

Again, watch the D8 talk. It's awesome.

Maybe, but a lot of this is just a matter of picking the biggest new trend in consumer electronics and entering that market

I think Microsoft is a splendid example of how this strategy can fail. Zune? Mobile Phones? Tablets?

In your zeal to denigrate Apple you've missed the point, or perhaps you thought you were posting about Microsoft?

The iPod's success was down to the whole package, excellent product design, good (but not excellent) performance and iTunes.

Ditto the iPhone, a well designed, brilliantly conceived package together with the App Store. The whole thing, all of it, "just worked".

Saying the iPad is just a big iPhone is juvenile and speaks volumes about your analytical abilities. Apple created a successful tablet when others who had tried had not. Oh, and there was no tablet trend before the iPad, Apple created that market too.

If you are correct, and 1/2 of Apple's success is execution, then what about the vision half?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com