Friday, October 13, 2017

Does Apple Need to Replace Diversify Its Leadership?

seekingalpha | Summary:
  • Under Tim Cook, Apple became the most valuable, most profitable, and most well-known company in the world.
  • But Tim Cook simply inherited the success created by Steve Jobs, who left him with the iPhone, iPad, iMac, and the whole Apple ecosystem.
  • Assessment of the new products and projects unveiled under Tim Cook reflects a lack of vision and innovation required by a successful tech company CEO.
Tim Cook in many ways is identical to Steve Ballmer, and for the same reasons should be replaced.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), is one of the more controversial CEOs in the world. On one hand, people praise him for the financial successes that Apple accomplished under his tenure. On the other hand, there are those who believe that Tim Cook is not the visionary CEO that a world-class company needs. The following presentation will provide a brief yet thorough analysis of Tim Cook's track record in terms of product and innovation and will conclude that, despite the successes he oversaw, he must be replaced.

markstcyr |   Why I posit the above is for this reason:
Back in May of 2014 I penned the article: “Did Apple Just Become Microsoft?” In it I made the following points. To wit:
“However since the passing of Jobs, quite rightly, there has been an intense spotlight focused squarely on the Apple tradition going forward. Just what new products or changes to existing lines would be forth coming, and how will they be packaged for sale to an ever-increasing market.
Everyone (and I mean everyone) understood that the new management structure at Apple would both need to pay homage to the ever-present shadow of Jobs while also needing to blaze or create new trails free of the ominous Jobs overhang. i.e., Something Jobs would say, “Wow, I never thought of that!” as compared with nothing more than a refinement to an already Jobs inspired creation.
However, it would seem we not only have the latter taking place, but is veering way off the path Apple has been so skillful in avoiding: Buying an also ran business. e.g., The Beats™ headphone line. Some say it’s for it’s streaming music service or some other thing but if that is the case, not putting the money into a true revamp of iTunes seems even more as an un-Jobs move.”
And here we are nearly 4 years later (or 4 product cycles, if you will) and what has been the result of this once “fantastic” partnership? When was the last time you heard anything or any buzz about Beats®? ____________ (insert crickets here.)

Oh, but wait you say, “What about iTunes? It was updated as to allow easier downloading of apps and such for mobile.”

Yes, yes it was. An update that most users will only encounter when they go to update or purchase something, then, find out they can’t do it the way they’ve been doing for-e-ver. i.e., “Oh, wait, I have to do this on my phone now, and not my computer? Wait, how do I…? Wait…what…I mean…WTF!”

I believe this to be a blatant design faux pa. Why? Because if you look at the iTunes of today, it looks no different that it did years, and years ago. The only difference? The “Apps” option is no longer there. This is to “reduce clutter” via Apple’s thinking.

But the same old, tired, antiquated looking and seemingly lifeless iTunes of old? It’s still there, but now with less clutter – so you can see more clearly how lame it has become due to design atrophy.