Cook has made several decisions in the past handful of years that seem to show an ability to resist the group think that exists among the large tech companies leadership.
It’s unfortunate (and it says a lot about our current situation) that that behaviour is worthy of note.
> Jobs left one last blessing for Apple shareholders in his decision to elevate Cook.
I don’t understand the obsession with shareholders. It’s all about money money money, good products and respect for the customer be dammed. Cook was a fantastic choice to fill Apple’s coffers, but an awful one for those who identify with Apple’s (old) values of making something good.
That’s such a leading question, I’m genuinely wondering if you’re arguing in good faith.
I’m saying neither of those. I’m talking about how Apple’s leadership transition from Jobs to Cook changed focus from what the company used to do best.
¹ Let’s see if that continues with Evans Hankey leaving.
Don't make this mistake. Integrity and humility have always always always been rare traits in high profile, high power leaders.
Tim Cook himself, a decade ago, might have had something to say about that¹.
> It is possible to do what's best for both, and Apple still does that plenty
My objection is the trend more than the current state. A decade ago it would have been unthinkable to me that Apple would ever have ads in any OS. Today, I’m dreading the moment they go “full Windows” and start shoving third-party ads in Spotlight, then Safari, then the Dock².
¹ https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rej...
² Yes, I am exaggerating to make a point. At least I hope it’s an exaggeration.
It’s analogous to HP of old, which is no great surprise given the founders.
They could be a noodle shop. The distinction isn’t relevant to the point: they are shoving ads in our faces, from their own apps from their own OSs. Always pushing you to the subscriptions. Everything Cook does indicates it will only get worse.
However I don't think Tim Cook in that moment was necessarily saying that accessibility was non-negotiable, shareholders be damned, it's also possible he was taking a broad view of shareholder interest that is about more than immediate ROI.
A job he doesn’t need¹ and which he’s aware he’ll leave in the not-too-distant future.² The only thing stopping Cook from making different decisions is himself.
¹ He’s filthy rich.
² https://wccftech.com/tim-cook-not-running-apple-in-10-years-...
https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/26/apple-china-website-censorshi...
The collision of politics and business is never good though, but in most cases the company has to bow politely, at least in the near term.