How Apple Works
aaronsw.com
aaronsw.com
To the naive observer, Apple seems like a hardware company. But it is really a software company monetized through hardware sales, just as Google is a software company monetized through advertising. As Steve himself said, differentiation through software is the key to all of Apple's products. Ive doesn't have much experience, credibility or interest in this area.
On the other hand, Scott Forstall is the most powerful and credible software executive at Apple. More specifically: the Human Interface team that does all the HI design for iOS and Mac OS X reports to Forstall, not Ive. Ive isn't even one of the executives present at executive HI reviews, whereas Forstall is the one driving the decisions when SJ is not there. The HI team may get less outside visibility than Industrial Design but they make a much bigger difference to the experience of Apple products.
Furthermore, it's clear from watching company politics that Forstall has the ambition to go to the top (as does Phil Schiller), and Ive just doesn't have that kind of drive. Ive has the trust and affection of Steve for being an artist, and that's the main reason he is on the executive team. He hasn't had to fight for it like the other execs. Note for example that Eddy Cue (iTunes, iCloud) and Craig Federighi (Mac OS X) still aren't on the executive team, despite heading critical product lines and much bigger departments than ID.
No one person replaces Steve Jobs. Tim Cook and Jony Ive know it.
Given that we know almost nothing about the guy except that Steve picked him as his replacement, I'd say he'll do ok:)
On your second point, you're almost certainly right. Aside from the appointment of a certain Mr. Sculley almost 30 years ago, Steve's track record in hiring the absolute best people to work with is as good as his track record in shepherding innovative products into the marketplace.
Yes. It has nothing to do with his ability to critique a product design. Jobs was sui generis.
It's possible that he does, and possible that he doesn't, but it's entirely possible that Cook has talents that simply weren't being tapped in his old job. I suspect that following up on the vision of Jobs and the design group actually takes a lot more of this magical "taste" than is immediately obvious. There are a huge number of decisions that need to be made even in the later stages of the process.
It seems like we're assuming that because he was a COO, Cook doesn't have the talents that it takes to be a CEO. How can we possibly know that? The only evidence given is that he's a COO now, and doesn't have the showmanship that Jobs does.
But we don't really know who was, is, and will be running the show at Apple, or how those matters of taste are truly decided. All we know is that this is the time they chose to officially announce Jobs' succession and that Cook is the person who they felt investors would have the most confidence in as CEO. The ultimate power is with the BoD, and probably with Jobs for the rest of his life.
Steve Jobs did not specifically request that an assistant janitor take over as CEO. With Job's blessing, it's safe to assume that either Cook, or some system Job's put in place, is expected to continue Apple's taste.
Unsurprisingly, this is exactly how Pixar works. But Pixar was essentially run by Ed Catmull, who is much more like Tim Cook than Steve Jobs. Yes, Steve was CEO, but he wasn't the tastemaker at Pixar. As long as the CEO trusts someone else to drive the taste and works hard to preserve that culture, Apple will continue to be successful.
There's a connection, but one I can't well articulate, between that point and the success of the iPad. I know I'm not the only one who occasionally scratches his head at the popularity of a device that's too big to pocket and too small to compete with a laptop. But it's Apple's execution in the mass market that matters, not what the geekerati think.
Jobs is still Chairman of the Board. I imagine decisions regarding "taste" will still run through Jobs. Ive is likely to have an increased role as well.
Tim Cook does not have to take over all of the roles that Steve Jobs had in order to be successful. He just needs to execute on Job's vision, and other top executives like Forstall and Ive will step in to take over some of Steve's day to day.
edit below:
ghoulish: 1. strangely diabolical or cruel; monstrous: a ghoulish and questionable sense of humor. 2. showing fascination with death, disease, maiming, etc.; morbid: ghoulish curiosity. 3. of, pertaining to, or like a ghoul or ghouls.
sanctimonious: Making a show of being morally superior to other people.
Steve is Apple. He created it, he saved it from death. There's only one logical reason why he would step down and people are mentioning that. It's too bad that your sensibilities are offended.
TMZ got a recent photo of him, take a look.
I'm not a doctor but he doesn't look good.
This guy has already survived a very long time with an illness that kills most people within months. He has now chosen to take a bow and exit the stage gracefully, a decision that I'm sure was made as late as possible. I'm certain that resignation letter has been sitting in a drawer at his lawyer's office for quite some time. The truth is this man will be dead within the next few weeks, let's give him the privacy to go out with decency. Paparazzi shots and discussions about how "not good" he looks are completely unnecessary.
As far as this thread's topic is concerned, the question boils down to the point of whether Apple can thrive on execution alone. We'll see. Ideally, Ive will reconsider scaling back his role as a creative lead. I think together with Schiller's enthusiasm and Cook's organizational talent, there is no reason why Apple shouldn't continue to put out great innovation. But even if they do enter a creative slump, they have a lot of momentum and cash to carry them over any dry spell that might happen.
I'm not forensic analyst, but that photo is clearly 'shopped.
"But it’s about fulfilling Jobs’ dreams, not forging new ones. He [Cook] can continue to run the company while Jobs is away because he’s continuing to ensure the execution of designs that Jobs has already approved. But Apple can’t run indefinitely on old plans. The only reason it works for Cook to be in charge while Steve is away is because Steve is still around, doing ruthless critiques of yet-to-be-invented products from his sickbed."
For this reason, it sounds worrisome to put the chief operative officer at the top position, generally speaking. Now I don't know Tim Cook, maybe he's able/trained to let the visionaries call the shots.
Tastes are important, but there are a LOT of things that matter in addition to good design taste.
Palm and HP never had much success because they couldn't execute on the hardware front. They were continually behind the curve on hardware and continued to push an unpopular form factor. As a former Pre user, webOS was a pleasure to use but the phone itself was poorly made and had dated hardware.
HP/Palm was always too little, too late and they just couldn't execute.
Apple's excellent supply chaining and fabrication processes are a huge edge against the competition. They can execute where other's can't.
But there is one product that is the most central to Steve's Life. In fact, it is his masterwork. He started when he was young and is still working on it today-- and that product is Apple itself.
Steve says Tim Cook is the right person to succeed him, and I believe that Steve would never say this if he didn't believe it. He, more than anyone else in the world, wants to see Apple continue to be what he wanted it to be.
Also, Tim Cook is gay (sorry but for me, that counts as an asset in the taste department). He's a creative guy (you have to be) and he's a uncompromising. You can't work as hard as he does and achieve what he has behind the scenes without a kind of ruthlessness that sets a very high bar.
Tim's experience as COO is exactly what makes him the best man to fill Steve's shoes, if ruthless focus on design is what Apple needs. After all, Steve isn't a designer. Steve doesn't even, by all accounts, have a lot of natural taste. He's acquired the taste over many years. What Steve has always had, and what Tim seems to have, is an uncompromisingly high bar.
Jonathan Ive is probably going to be well compensated for staying at Apple over the long term, and the skilled software designers and hardware and software engineers and those who lead them as well are critical.
But the "vision" thing is not a mystical ability, and it isn't an innate talent, or if it is, both Tim and Steve have it.
In fact, I think this is why Tim was the preferred choice by Steve, over people like Ron Johnson and Jonathan Ive. I think Steve saw this in Tim's nature, and not in Jonathans.
This makes sense, because I think a designer has to be more flexible and more open minded and more willing to take risks. A designer has to produce some crap in the process of producing brilliance because you can't know in advance that it is crap. To be able to ruthlessly weed out the crap, you have to have a different perspective.
So, Steve made the decision, and I think it makes perfect sense, but even if it didn't, who better than Steve to know who the right person is?
Cook will be a disaster. He would have been fine as an exact opposite but balancing weight against a visionary leader like Jobs, as Ives would have been. But as the visionary leader, a man whose only contributions have been to reduce costs and quality in order to increase profits, it's going to go down a predictable path that other companies have followed.
The salary and $385 million signing bonus thing being reported are obscene for Cook who has not a single case of innovation, because it is something he is simply not capable of. This is not an insult against him, it is a simple acknowledgment of his known strengths and capabilities.
But I don't mind people doing that at all. Like I said, it amazes me, fascinates me, even entertains me.