> Steve Jobs selected him because he felt he would be the best person for the job out of the executive team.
It's not actually Jobs's choice. Apple is a publicly owned company, and both Jobs and Cook are employees, not owners. Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. Never forget that when Jobs demanded that the Apple board of directors choose between him and John Sculley, they chose Sculley.
In any case, Jobs didn't expect to die until it was too late. He didn't have years to groom a successor. Cook was expedient.
> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots and fought Woz on that and lost. Woz was ready to walk away with his design.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove? They were cofounders. They were both behind the Apple II. This is well known and documented. Of course Jobs wasn't Woz's boss, they were equals. And they had some disagreements, which is natural and expected. So what? I used to have cofounder bosses, and they argued and disagreed all the time.
>> Macintosh
> Commercial failure.
Um, no. No it was not. That's absurd. Otherwise Apple wouldn't exist now. What do you think Apple sold before iPod and iPhone?
>> NeXT
> Commercial failure.
It was acquired for $400 million. I'd love to fail that badly.
> But it’s entirely disingenuous to discount the likes of Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, and all the other people who made those products happen.
Good thing I never did that. You're arguing against a straw man. Jobs was the leader of a team.
By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple. And it's rumored that Ive was disappointed Cook didn't care about design like Jobs did.
> he was hardly singularly responsible for the success behind those products
I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was.
It's funny that you're arguing against me with the straw man that Jobs deserves 100% credit, but you don't argue against the person I was refuting who claimed "Cook was arguably the real brains behind Apple's turnaround back in the early 2000s" and "Cook was actually the main driver of the company's success even before Jobs departed". Why aren't you criticizing that argument as much as or more than mine? However much credit Jobs deserves for his over 30 year body of work, how in the world would Cook deserve even more credit than Jobs for that???
> Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation.
And what point are you trying to make? Jobs recommended him, the board selected him. Saying the board had to agree doesn't change the fact that Jobs and board felt he was qualified and the best option for a successor, which was the point.
>> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots
> I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove?
You said "Jobs was behind Apple II" and a host of other products, but at best in the case of Apple II he saw Woz's good design as something he could take and sell. He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.
>>> Macintosh
>> Commercial failure.
> Um, no. No it was not.
Yes, it was. I'd suggest actually reading up on the product release and what happened after. If it hadn't been for the cash cow of Apple II, the company could have failed. That's according to numerous accounts, including Woz. I believe it was at least three years before it even matched the sales of (what was then an 11 year old) Apple II.
> Jobs was the leader of a team.
Like Tim Cook.
> By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple.
Yes, and if you understand what happened there, it was the right thing to do. And the rest of the exec team, especially Ive, was very happy about that move.
> I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was.
By every account I've read, Jobs primary contribution was as an editor, saying "no" to bad ideas. And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same. Jobs wasn't spending most of his days brainstorming with the design team, although he did do some of that. More than Tim Cook, sure, but most of the idea generation in the company was coming from a large crowd of people, not Steve Jobs.
> He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.
This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.
> I'd suggest actually reading up the product release and what happened after.
I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?
>> He was hardly responsible for what that product actually was.
> This is ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you after this reply, because you're rewriting history.
You're saying Steve Jobs designed the Apple II? Or had a substantial hand in the design? Sorry, Woz and history disagree.
> I'd suggest not making assumptions. I don't have to "read up [sic] the product release and what happened after", because I was alive at the time. Were you?
Yes, and in fact owned the first generation Mac upon release.
> It wasn't. Cook was purging a rival for power, and Maps was just an excuse.
Steve and the board chose Cook over Forstall. He didn't need to "purge a rival". Forstall was difficult to work with, and people wanted him gone.
>> And again, by every "insider account" I've seen published, Tim Cook is doing the same.
You citation didn't say what you claimed. There's no mention of Cook saying no to bad ideas. All it said was "We meet on average three times a week." Which is kind of a joke, especially when you compare it to what Ive says about Jobs establishing enduring values and principles.
> Forstall was difficult to work with, and people wanted him gone.
Jobs didn't want him gone and didn't seem to find him difficult to work with.
> There's no mention of Cook saying no to bad ideas.
Ive said:
"Steve established a set of values...with a small team of people [and] Tim was very much part of that team – for that last 15 or 20 years."
And you think in being a part of that team and as CEO he doesn't say "no"?
Sorry, time for you to provide those citations of how Tim Cook green-lights everything.
> Jobs didn't want him gone and didn't seem to find him difficult to work with.
They were friends for nearly two decades. It's not easy to fire friends, and by all accounts they got along. Forstall with the rest of the executive team, not so much.
>"The Macintosh sold 50,000 units in 74 days, outselling every other computer" "Apple had sold 280,000 Macintoshes compared to IBM's first-year sales of fewer than 100,000 PCs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Macintosh#1985%...
I'm not claiming the Macintosh was initially the best selling computer of all time, merely that it wasn't a commercial failure as claimed. There's a huge range. Selling less than C64 or Apple II doesn't make a product a failure.
> It's not actually Jobs's choice. Apple is a publicly owned company, and both Jobs and Cook are employees, not owners. Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. Never forget that when Jobs demanded that the Apple board of directors choose between him and John Sculley, they chose Sculley.
Upon Jobs' return to Apple, the board was entirely replaced by Jobs' hand-picked people. From that point on, they were simply there to rubber stamp his decisions, and given the company's performance after the iPod launch they would never second guess him. It was 1000% Jobs' choice.
> given the company's performance after the iPod launch they would never second guess him
This is the point though. It only lasts as long as the stockholders have confidence in the leadership. If the stockholders start to worry about the future performance of the stock, they can replace everyone, including the CEO and board of directors.
Cook was a known, safe choice to the stockholders. Whereas if Jobs had chosen some kind of maverick or outsider as his successor, the stockholders would be very worried about that.
It's not actually Jobs's choice. Apple is a publicly owned company, and both Jobs and Cook are employees, not owners. Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. Never forget that when Jobs demanded that the Apple board of directors choose between him and John Sculley, they chose Sculley.
In any case, Jobs didn't expect to die until it was too late. He didn't have years to groom a successor. Cook was expedient.
> If you read the accounts, Jobs didn’t want more than two expansion slots and fought Woz on that and lost. Woz was ready to walk away with his design.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove? They were cofounders. They were both behind the Apple II. This is well known and documented. Of course Jobs wasn't Woz's boss, they were equals. And they had some disagreements, which is natural and expected. So what? I used to have cofounder bosses, and they argued and disagreed all the time.
>> Macintosh
> Commercial failure.
Um, no. No it was not. That's absurd. Otherwise Apple wouldn't exist now. What do you think Apple sold before iPod and iPhone?
>> NeXT
> Commercial failure.
It was acquired for $400 million. I'd love to fail that badly.
> But it’s entirely disingenuous to discount the likes of Jony Ive, Scott Forstall, and all the other people who made those products happen.
Good thing I never did that. You're arguing against a straw man. Jobs was the leader of a team.
By the way, Cook purged Forstall from Apple. And it's rumored that Ive was disappointed Cook didn't care about design like Jobs did.
> he was hardly singularly responsible for the success behind those products
I never argued that. What I argue is that Tim Cook is not a "product person" like Jobs was. Cook is not making design decisions; Jobs was.
It's funny that you're arguing against me with the straw man that Jobs deserves 100% credit, but you don't argue against the person I was refuting who claimed "Cook was arguably the real brains behind Apple's turnaround back in the early 2000s" and "Cook was actually the main driver of the company's success even before Jobs departed". Why aren't you criticizing that argument as much as or more than mine? However much credit Jobs deserves for his over 30 year body of work, how in the world would Cook deserve even more credit than Jobs for that???