Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Tim Cook Is Filling Steve Jobs's Shoes

timothy posted about a month ago | from the think-I'd-prefer-a-road-trip-with-jobs dept.

Businesses 209

The New York Times, in an article about Apple CEO Tim Cook, focuses in large part on the ways in which Cook is not Jobs. He's less volatile, for one thing, whether you think that means he's less passionate or just more circumspect. A small slice: Lower-level employees praise Mr. Cook’s approachability and intellect. But some say he is less hands-on in developing products than his predecessor. They point to the development of the so-called iWatch — the “smartwatch” that Apple observers are eagerly awaiting as the next world-beating gadget. Mr. Cook is less involved in the minutiae of product engineering for the watch, and has instead delegated those duties to members of his executive cabinet, including Mr. Ive, according to people involved in the project, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to press. Apple declined to comment on the watch project. ... Mr. Cook has also looked outside of Apple for experienced talent. He has hired executives from multiple industries, including Angela Ahrendts, the former head of Burberry, to oversee the physical and online stores, and Paul Deneve, the former Yves Saint Laurent chief executive, to take on special projects. He also hired Kevin Lynch, the former chief technology officer of Adobe, and Michael O’Reilly, former medical officer of the Masimo Corporation, which makes health monitoring devices. Not to mention the music men of Beats.

cancel ×

209 comments

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0, Troll)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a month ago | (#47241459)

errrr... by not having pancreatic cancer?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241525)

Steve Jobs only cared about fucking customers up the ass with reach-rounds available for an exorbitant fee. On the other hand, Tim Cook enjoys just as much receiving as giving, if you catch my drift.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (-1, Troll)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a month ago | (#47241565)

I share your same anti-apple hate but i can't so eloquently share it because of my account's reputation. Props!

Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242105)

I don't know why you were modded down as a troll for speaking the truth. Cook is a known homosexual, and as such is a perfect fit for Apple.

They don't call it homOSeX without good reason. Studies show that nearly half of Apple users are homosexual, compared to less than 10% of the general population.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0, Redundant)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242147)

It's symptomatic of the decline of standards of Slashdot that this comment has not been modded down.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (-1, Offtopic)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a month ago | (#47242393)

I have many, many better scoring comments than you. This either proves your point or means you're a boring pinhead. I'd say the problem is undecidable.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241463)

link?

The New York Times authors are would-be novelists. (3, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a month ago | (#47242085)

The New York Times article Slashdot mentioned, Tim Cook, Making Apple His Own [nytimes.com] , is an example of the collapse of the New York Times.

The authors are WRITERS (Heavenly horn sounds). The first 4 paragraphs are examples of their intent to tell stories like novelists, avoiding writing boring stuff like news. And, of course, WRITERS don't care about messy things like technology, even if they write about technology companies.

It's okay to put in some facts to give novels a feeling of realism: "And the [Apple] stock price fell nearly in half from its 2012 peak to the middle of 2013" Then: "To shore up shareholder faith, Mr. Cook split the stock, increased the dividend and engineered a $90 billion buyback -- steps that helped shares rebound almost entirely." The price of stock goes up when someone buys a lot of it.

But novelists have problems. Sometimes facts are more weird than any novelist would invent: "rap star Dr. Dre ... will join Apple [wsj.com] ." The Wall Street Journal's novelists say Apple is "Tapping Tastemakers to Regain Music Mojo". Apple will sell "high-end headphones", under the Beats name. What could go wrong?

Mr. Cook is not much like Steve Jobs. He supports brand confusion: "Mr. Cook is trying to broaden Apple's brand, too, taking to Twitter and other public venues to express support for environmentalism and gay rights (and for Auburn University football)."

There are big hopes for the Apple iWatch "... according to people involved in the project, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to press." Steve Jobs fired people who announced products early because announcing early creates brand confusion.

The whole point of being a novelist is to avoid unpleasant realities. It's like being a drugee, but without the drugs. Don't get involved with messy issues. Quoting: "Jonathan Ive, the head of design at Apple ... says Mr. Cook has not neglected the company's central mission: innovation. 'Honestly, I don't think anything's changed,' he said."

Mr. Cook wrote an opinion piece [wsj.com] in The Wall Street Journal in support of proposed federal legislation protecting gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

Nothing has changed?

Another quote: "Last July, a federal judge ruled that Apple had illegally conspired with publishers to try to raise prices in the e-books market; Apple is appealing."

And this: "Apple has also started building apps for Android systems".

Novelists like to live in their fantasy worlds. They don't want to think about messy news like the beginning of a gay, rap-singing, law-breaking, watch-making Apple that makes software for Google.

The real story? Apple and the New York Times are both spiralling downwards, in my opinion.

Re:The New York Times authors are would-be novelis (1, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47242573)

Mr. Cook split the stock, increased the dividend and engineered a $90 billion buyback -- steps that helped shares rebound almost entirely.

I'm old enough to remember when Apple stock went up because they made and sold revolutionary new products.

Pro-tip for entrepreneurs: If you spend $90 billion buying your own stock, the stock price will rise. Similarly, if you get very drunk an ugly girl doesn't look quite as bad.

The problem is you can only do that so many times before you can no longer pretend she's a supermodel or you have to go to rehab to prevent your life from falling apart around you.

twice as gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241493)

half as promiscuous

Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | about a month ago | (#47241503)

Jobs was a right-brain leader. Creativity and creative genius cannot be emulated or duplicated. People should stop thinking that someone can just come in and do the same things he did, think the way he thought. It's impossible. Find another, equally brilliant right-brain thinker and maybe you have a shot at a new era of Apple that is reminiscent of building things around sacred geometry, art and magic - but new and different on its own merits.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241569)

And that, ladies and gents, was an extract from the First Epistle of TheDarkener to be included in the forthcoming Testament of Jobs (Profit Be Upon Him): Building things around sacred geometry, art and magic.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (3, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | about a month ago | (#47241643)

Hey AC, don't worry, I'm not an Apple fanboi to any extent. I think Jobs was an asshole in many respects, a profiteering, egotistical glutton that couldn't ever get enough power under his belt. I think that had a lot to do with why he got cancer (stress). I don't even own any iDevices. I think the app store is inherently evil in how they regulate apps (think VLC, anything with F/OSS code in it). I could go on.

But you can't deny that Jobs *was* a creative genius. I bet you could count the number of people that could run such a huge corporation *and* stay true to the right-brain roots that built it on one hand.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241711)

Did he actually create anything on his own, though? I don't think we can call him a "creative genius" just because he had the resources to hire people with actual talent and actual creativity. Maybe he could be given some credit for wrangling these people, but that's about it, I think.

Re: Left brain vs. right brain leadership (4, Insightful)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a month ago | (#47242325)

He had taste. That, combined with bring sociopathic, was the secret of his success.

Creative With A Twist - (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242753)

We know that Jobs wasn't a technologist. Even in his later years you couldn't have possibly called him much of an inventor and certainly not one of the same caliber as Wozniak.

We also know that Jobs was a poor businessman until his later years, and even then, he only learned his lessons the hard way by nearly destroying the company after the early success of the Apple ][ series. He was no Markkula.

What Jobs was, other than an egomaniacal backstabber and chronic credit thief, was a nonpareil marketer. The only thing he promoted better than his products was himself, but that's besides the point - convincing his company and his customers that he was the second coming of digital Jesus (or an Silicon Valley version of the Old Testament God) was just part of doing business and a means of gaining control over his environment, necessary tasks for any executive despite his means of fulfilling them. He understood the concept and power of fashion and how easy it is to reach into that right-brain and some deeper, more reptilian components accompanying it, and cause people to want to buy things regardless of their technological merits. By transforming devices into accessories and attaching status to the Apple brand through trendy design and hip advertising, Jobs was able to create a commercial cult unmatched in recent history, and all of that has to do with a profound understanding of the irrational human mind. (The huge part that rests underneath the iceberg of consciousness, mostly unseen by ourselves.) That man could've sold dog droppings at $1,000 a pound and Apple would still be the richest company in the world. He was just that good, the king of postmodern consumerism.

I can't even be mad at him for how he ran Apple. I'm fascinated by it, actually. Not only is it instructional for future leaders, it's a validation of every critique of the common consumer and a gigantic rebuttal to the idea that agents in a market always behave rationally, when in fact they seldom do. (The greatest force in the marketplace is not reason but a combination of impulse and passion, which are perhaps one and the same.) I condemn how he treated his friends and his family and we all know now that he was a deeply unpleasant, Machiavellian asshole through and through, but if you ignore his character he did everything else right. He played his game astonishingly well and is one of the few people I would actually say 'won' at capitalism. It's a shame he didn't live longer. I would've liked to have seen where he would take the company next and what other schemes he would devise over time.

Speaking of which, he was no medical doctor, either. Too bad for him that he convinced himself he was one. Hubris kills in more ways than one.

It was never about Jobs, but rather his adherents. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241629)

A lot of people who look at Apple's "success" will attribute it to Steve Jobs, or to Apple's products, or to something vague like "design".

Upon further examination, it becomes clear that none of those are responsible.

What is responsible for the state of Apple today? It is the cult-like mindset that affects so many of Apple's customers.

Apple is a religion, plain and simple. It is really no different from Catholicism or Islam, or even the Republicanism and Democratism we see in American politics.

Apple gives a pseudo-cause for some segment of the population to believe in. It makes them feel as if there is some significance to their otherwise pointless lives.

No longer is Little Johnny just the nancy nerd artist that the varsity football players make fun of. Now he thinks he's Big Johnny, a Ruby on Rails ninja and web designer guru, all thanks to his MacBook Pro.

No longer is Little Sally just the overweight clarinet player in the marching band. Now she thinks she's Big Sally, a music connoisseur and album curator, all thanks to her iPod.

Now, a given religion can infect the minds of millions upon millions of people. And it can cause them to engage in actions that make no sense. I'm sure we can all think of examples of this involving traditional religions. But in the case of Apple's followers, it typically involves them spending a huge sum of money on a device that is not special in any way, other than being "blessed" with an Apple logo. Millions of followers engaging in this sort of behavior can easily lead to billions of dollars in revenue and profit.

The reality, however, is that Johnny is still a nancy nerd, and Sally is still an overweight social reject. Both have spent money not to get the best available computing or entertainment product, but rather because they wanted to buy a state of mind that has no attachment to reality.

Re:It was never about Jobs, but rather his adheren (1)

tomhath (637240) | about a month ago | (#47241875)

What is responsible for the state of Apple today? It is the cult-like mindset that affects so many of Apple's customers.

Yes, and that cult was created and centered around Jobs. He created the market for Apple products and the aura around them.

Re:It was never about Jobs, but rather his adheren (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242003)

Jobs was merely a prophet within the religion of Apple. He was a messenger, at best. That's why the religion has outlived him. It doesn't depend on any one messenger. It's about the (false?) hope it gives people who buy such products. It's this market, the market for a cause for these social rejects to rally around, that existed independent of Jobs, and still exists very strongly today even though he has been dead for some time. The messenger is irrelevant; it's the cause that's most significant.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (2, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47241713)

Jobs was a right-brain leader. Creativity and creative genius cannot be emulated or duplicated. People should stop thinking that someone can just come in and do the same things he did, think the way he thought. It's impossible. Find another, equally brilliant right-brain thinker and maybe you have a shot at a new era of Apple that is reminiscent of building things around sacred geometry, art and magic - but new and different on its own merits.

Lateralization of the brain is pseudoscience bullshit.
http://www.plosone.org/article... [plosone.org]

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about a month ago | (#47241871)

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.

"Holding it wrong"

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242721)

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.

"Holding it wrong"

No, that was classic Jobs: Take something somebody else created and put his own label on it.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (4, Insightful)

schnell (163007) | about a month ago | (#47241893)

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.

Typical engineering mindset - "inventions" are not the only yardstick of creativity. Pablo Picasso never invented anything either, but I hope you're not going to argue that he wasn't creative.

Jobs demonstrated a highly creative approach to business, acting intuitively and often flouting the rules of "what businesses should do." He transformed Pixar from a software company to an entertainment company. He change Apple from an also-ran PC manufacturer into a provider of an ecosystem of mobile and desktop devices with seamless software, entertainment and marketplace integration. He imagined what customers would want and took the gamble of building it, and had no fear of cannibalizing his existing products to do so. And, in the world of business, that is creativity.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242617)

Picasso is created Cubism w/arguable amounts of co-credit to Braque, and Wikipedia says he invented constructed sculpture and co-invented collage. You might want to research someone before you use them as an example.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242751)

He imagined what customers would want

"would want" is businessperson weaseltalk for "could be convinced to buy". His vision since returning to Apple was to be the bad guy in his 1984 commercial.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241963)

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.The celebrity-pop culture-hero worshipped-can do no wrong CEO?

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (-1, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47241971)

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.

Name me one thing you ever invented.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a month ago | (#47242647)

Sorry , you dont get to skate on an Ad Hominem no matter how badly your opponent present his argument.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1)

Suffering Bastard (194752) | about a month ago | (#47241997)

What the GP may have meant to say, or have said better, is that Jobs had an incredible form of intuition, seeming to know from a long distance what was going to work and what wasn't, even when that meant doing something totally different from what would have seemed normal or sensible. That can't be written off as coming just from experience. Who the hell knew 20 years ago that Apple could possibly end up where it's at today? Jobs had something inexplicable (call it 'genius' or 'vision' or whatever) that most corporate execs lack.

As for creativity, I dunno, I think Jobs was pretty creative in his reformulation of Apple and its product line. Not that he was totally original in product ideas, and not to excuse his deplorable behavior as a human, but he certainly did "think outside the box." (I dare not say "think different")

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242089)

Name one thing he ever invented.

Apple

Creativity (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#47242157)

Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.

Apple. As in the company. It is very much the creative brainchild of Steve Jobs. He founded it, led it, it foundered without him and he rebuilt it. If you think that didn't require immense creativity and invention then I think you don't understand the meaning of the words. Furthermore many of the important details of Apple products have been shown to be directly attributable to Steve Jobs. No, he didn't do it all himself, but then nobody does in business.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a month ago | (#47242635)

Jobs genius was knowing what you take away is is just as important as what you put in. The story of the Itunes CD burn team is a great example. Jobs would describe a specific FUNCTION (like burning a CD) and then have an elegant solution engineered that would cut away any unnecessary fluff.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a month ago | (#47241933)

There is no "right/left brain" at all. This was debunked decades ago. Why on Earth do fuckwits like you insist on perpetuating this myth? It's more like there are hard brains (like Steve Jobs) and weak brains, the kind that keep repeating discredited ideas despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

How do educated people even say things like "sacred geometry, art and magic"? WTF? Magic doesn't even exist. It's all sleight of hand by conmen. What does "sacred geometry" even mean? Please define it. How is it different from ordinary geometry? I'm genuinely curious to know.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | about a month ago | (#47242243)

Sacred geometry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Apples use of Golden Ratio: http://paulmmartinblog.wordpre... [wordpress.com]

I wasn't actually aware that it wasn't proven regarding brain hemisphere + function. Thanks for pointing that out, though I think you could have been less accusatory and generally like a fuckwit, as you so elequently dubbed me. Why not just denominate it to how one can refer to "creative-centric" vs. "logic-centric" thinking. Which I guess you couldn't handle on your own without being a literal-nazi.

I took the time to link those URLs for ya, since you probably didn't think of doing that for yourself, either.

Re:Left brain vs. right brain leadership (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242309)

Why not just denominate it to how one can refer to "creative-centric" vs. "logic-centric" thinking.

Perhaps one shouldn't. They are not opposing forces. Before the belief in such a dichotomy we had people like Leonardo da Vinci.

It's common for people to be gifted in both regards. I know a guy who is both a rocket scientist (literally) and a composer.

Ugh! No actual Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241505)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/technology/tim-cook-making-apple-his-own.html?_r=0 Here I've saved the pain in case you actually RTFA...

where is the link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241509)

hey mods where is the link for this article? I know reading the article is an optional slashdot activity that only some members participate in, but on this occasion i wished to read the article and was unable. I could google and find it myself but that defeats half the purpose of coming to slashdot.org so now i guess i'll look at something else.

Your Friend
A.C.

TFA (1)

tvon (169105) | about a month ago | (#47241533)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/technology/tim-cook-making-apple-his-own.html

Don't forget! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241547)

Apple ditched Chiat/Day and is using an in-house advertising team.
That doesn't seem to fit the mold the NY Times is trying to push.

Re:Don't forget! (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a month ago | (#47241645)

They haven't ditched Chiat/Day yet. They're simply pitting them against their in-house team for now and choosing the best from each.

He's not filling Steve Jobs' shoes ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about a month ago | (#47241559)

How Tim Cook Is Filling Steve Jobs's Shoes

Cook is not filling Steve Jobs' shoes. Steve Jobs' shoes are in a display case at Apple's museum. Cook is wearing his own shoes.

Cook is not Jobs nor is he trying to be Jobs nor should he try to be Jobs. Jobs made lots of product design and development mistakes. His genius was in exploiting those projects where time and circumstances made them successful, in pretty much maximizing the potential of the products that turned out to be successful. In 2001 Jobs brought us both the iPod and the Flower Power iMac.

Cook has to use his own judgement, things Jobs said years ago don't necessarily apply any more. Time and circumstances have changed. The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied.

Jobs' good decisions have a time and a context. They are not necessarily universal truths. His shoes don't need to be worn.

Lets not rewrite history here (1, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47241961)

Time and circumstances have changed. The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied

Ignoring the fact that when the ipad mini came out it was the low resolution device (1024×768 px at 163 ppi). Steve jobs had already launched the iphone 4 with its *cough* retina display (960×640 at 326 ppi) two years earlier.

You seen to forget that Jobsy(I like to park in handicapped space) was not the density of pixles...bit the size of the display to quote the foul smelling genius "It's meaningless unless your table includes sandpaper," Jobs said, "so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of their present size." He said 7-inch screens were actually 45 per cent the size of an iPad, which wasn't sufficient.

"Apple has done extensive user testing and we really understand this stuff," he added. "There are clear limits on how close you can place things on a touchscreen, which is why we think 10 inches is the minimum screen size to create great tablet apps.

Lets not start using words like "universal truths"(sic) when you are at best misinformed

But who will succeed Steve Jobs? (5, Funny)

Daniel Oom (2826737) | about a month ago | (#47242013)

Maybe Apple could make a comeback under Scott McNealy, former head of SUN Microsystems.

Re:He's not filling Steve Jobs' shoes ... (1)

danomac (1032160) | about a month ago | (#47242457)

The iPad mini is a good example. When Jobs frowned upon a smaller iPad a smaller device meant a lower resolution screen. Once pixel densities improved and a smaller device could have the same resolution as the original full sized device the circumstanced changed such that Jobs' original judgement no longer applied.

Really? I remember Jobs saying nobody wants a small tablet, period. I'd used a large one at work and decided it was too heavy to use, so when Google released their 7" tablet in July 2012, I bought one. It was pretty hard to get initially, they were selling quite fast in my area and as soon as stores got them in they sold. Then, in October 2012, Apple did a "me too!" and announced the iPad mini. I still think it was a reactionary move and I doubt the iPad mini would have surfaced at all if someone else hadn't released it first.

Re:He's not filling Steve Jobs' shoes ... (4, Insightful)

Reverberant (303566) | about a month ago | (#47242593)

so when Google released their 7" tablet in July 2012, I bought one.

Then, in October 2012, Apple did a "me too!" and announced the iPad mini. I still think it was a reactionary move and I doubt the iPad mini would have surfaced at all if someone else hadn't released it first.

Wait, you think the iPad mini was approved, designed, engineered, mass manufactured and released in four months?

Apple Employees Newsletter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241561)

Why do we care?

Because you read/comment ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241601)

Why do we care?

Because people like you will read and/or comment on the posting rather the ignore it and move on to something else.

Re:Because you read/comment ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241659)

I guess the underlying question is where does this 'story' originate?

Apple HQ? Tim's diary? Where?

That's the extent to which I care - just enough to wonder why multiple layers of 'news' media are being utilized to help stroke someone's ego.

Solid strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241607)

He has hired executives from multiple industries, including Angela Ahrendts, the former head of Burberry,

If she can sell their hideous branded goods, she is surely a mistress of consumerism and should be applauded.

poorly (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month ago | (#47241651)

That's how he's filling his shoes; poorly. The ipad 3 was heavier, shattered easier at a lower drop height, and got hotter. The ipad 3 mini was a lie. IOE 6, 7, and 8 were universally hated disasters. iTunes 11's new layout was a crime against software design. Also, as usual, everyone everywhere is suing them for everything they're doing. Apple is going down like the Titanic.

Re:poorly (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a month ago | (#47241679)

most people find those devices OK. your opinion is not meaningful when Apple shares and profits are climbing to the statosphere

Shares (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242119)

most people find those devices OK. your opinion is not meaningful when Apple shares and profits are climbing to the statosphere

Except Apples shares plummeted under cooks leadership it has taken two years to recover some of it most based on market manipulation rather than actual success. Its profits continue to be based on the iphone in the American market...everything else is struggling including the ipad and that peaked two years ago. Apple is seeing shrinking margins and its first shrinking profits under Jobs.

The bottom line is that growth before came from successful launches of products...Cook has yet to show the world anything slashmydots is criticising later iterations of products Jobs launched as *new* markets, and people are buying competitors products more, because they are larger, faster, cheaper, newer, powerful blah blah blah

Re:poorly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241687)

Yeah, we know you hate Apple. Come back when you can get over your fanboy bullshit.

Re:poorly (1)

sribe (304414) | about a month ago | (#47241739)

IOE 6, 7, and 8 were universally hated disasters.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Re:poorly (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about a month ago | (#47241839)

IE 6, 7, and 8 were universally hated disasters.

Fixed: typo

LMFAO (1)

John Bokma (834313) | about a month ago | (#47241845)

Best joke posted to Slashdot this month, thank you!

Re: poorly (4, Interesting)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a month ago | (#47241857)

That's how he's filling his shoes; poorly. The ipad 3 was heavier, shattered easier at a lower drop height, and got hotter. The ipad 3 mini was a lie. IOE 6, 7, and 8 were universally hated disasters. iTunes 11's new layout was a crime against software design. Also, as usual, everyone everywhere is suing them for everything they're doing. Apple is going down like the Titanic.

Let's see where to start?

1. If iOS 7 was so bad, why was the adoption rate so high so fast?
2. The iPad 3 did suck. All indications are that the A6 and the lightening connector just weren't ready in time. They bought out a new iPad six months later.
3. ITunes has been a disaster since it started trying to manage iOS devices.
4. Everyone is suing Apple because that's where the money is. Who isn't getting sued left and right these days?
5. IOS 8 is a "disaster"? You mean the OS that isn't even shipping yet?
6. The iPad Mini 3 a lie? Huh?

Re: poorly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241975)

I've got to add my 2 cents:

IOS 7 is better than the previous versions in my experience. I don't get the bitching. I've got an iPhone 4 and an iPad 2 (both free, I don't like Apple. But I repair their products.)

I have never experienced any of the problems people seem to be bitching about. I'd say the worst thing is when the i's get locked into the infamous "Connect to iTunes" mode which I can only repair about 50% of the time.

Re: poorly (0)

dk20 (914954) | about a month ago | (#47242023)

1. If iOS 7 was so bad, why was the adoption rate so high so fast?
Forced updates and no way to go back to the previous version thanks to encrypted downloads?

Re: poorly (1, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242031)

There are no such forced updates.

Re: poorly (1)

dk20 (914954) | about a month ago | (#47242051)

I dont own a lot of Apple products so take this with a grain of salt...

My OSX desktop does the same thing as windows, and tries to download updates nightly, as does my Apple-TV. I guess they are not "forced" as i can turn those options off, but the default was to have them ON.

I notice you neglected to address the extent to which Apple makes it hard to "roll back" an update, instead focusing on the "forced update" angle?

Re: poorly (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242107)

Sure, it'll download updates. And it'll notify you about them. But it won't install them without your permission.

Neither with iOS do updates without your permission.

I notice you neglected to address the extent to which Apple makes it hard to "roll back" an update, instead focusing on the "forced update" angle?

That would be because you said one thing that was wrong, not two things that were wrong.

But more to the point than the one you got right, the reasons for the extremely high adoption rate are:
1) The updates are actually made available, and promptly, unlike Android.
2) The users are all informed that they are available, and the installation made simple.
3) All OS updates are free of charge.
4) There's a buzz around new versions. Not just amongst enthusiasts and tech media, but in the mainstream media.

Re: poorly (0)

dk20 (914954) | about a month ago | (#47242167)

Man, you work for Apple's PR department or what?

1) The updates are actually made available, and promptly, unlike Android.
What exactly does this mean? Android has updates as well. (FUD on your part)?

2) The users are all informed that they are available, and the installation made simple.
Yeah, because clicking on the "update" box in android is challenging?

3) All OS updates are free of charge.
Perhaps true now, but in the past apple charged a fee for its updates.

4) There's a buzz around new versions. Not just amongst enthusiasts and tech media, but in the mainstream media.
Some call it buzz, others call it hype.

Apple TV doesn't just download them, it installs as well, unless Apple's website is incorrect in which case you can have them update it with the correct info.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht... [apple.com]
Keep your Apple TV always up to date by automatically installing software updates when available.

Re: poorly (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242237)

What exactly does this mean? Android has updates as well. (FUD on your part)?

Android updates for phones come a long time after Google releases, if at all. Few Android phones get more than one update. Apple updates are available to all compatible devices on the day of release.

Perhaps true now, but in the past apple charged a fee for its updates.

Apple never charged for iPhone updates. OSX used to be charged, but now they are not. And that's on of the reasons adoption is so high. The past is irrelevant.

Apple TV doesn't just download them, it installs as well, unless Apple's website is incorrect in which case you can have them update it with the correct info.

Quite possibly. Neither of us have Apple TV, and it's not what we were talking about. It's OK to do auto updates on that because there is are no third party app compatibility risks, whilst the most compatibility with the various services will always be with the latest OS version.

Re: poorly (0)

dk20 (914954) | about a month ago | (#47242433)

Apple updates are available to all compatible devices on the day of release.
So just make some devices incompatible right?

Why doesn't IOS 7 work on an iPhone 3GS?
https://discussions.apple.com/... [apple.com]

When apple does it, it is fine because the hardware is "too old for the new OS" but when android does the same thing for similar reasons "Few Android phones get more then one update". There is a huge difference between Android and IOS. Apple makes both the hardware and software. It is not a function of "android" when hardware manufacturers don't release new updates for their devices, that is the manufacturers doing that.

BTW, How many updates did the 3GS get before it was EOL?

You said "Apple OS updates are free of charge". OSX updates were not always free of charge.

PS, Apple did a similar "EOL" for Mavericks, two models, released fairly close together, one gets the update the other doesn't.

"Quite possibly. Neither of us have Apple TV, and it's not what we were talking about."

Really, so because this device does 'auto updates' it is OK because here are no third party risks? isn't the same true for all IOS devices since they all use the app store?

Re: poorly (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242541)

Why doesn't IOS 7 work on an iPhone 3GS?

Your link explains. It's a very old phone that's not powerful enough to run iOS7. The same is NOT true of Androids. Androids typically get an update at maybe 6 months old, and then never get any more. The problem is that device manufacturers and networks don't feel any incentive to update them beyond that. It's not because they are no longer powerful enough.

You said "Apple OS updates are free of charge". OSX updates were not always free of charge.

Which would be why I didn't say "Apple OS updates were always free of charge."

Really, so because this device does 'auto updates' it is OK because here are no third party risks? isn't the same true for all IOS devices since they all use the app store?

1. Yes.
2. No.

Re: poorly (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a month ago | (#47242267)

Updating to iOS7 was the ONLY way to get the SSL/TLS bug fixed, so yeah, it was pretty much forced.

I know that's the only reason that *I* updated.

Re: poorly (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242453)

Updating to iOS7 was the ONLY way to get the SSL/TLS bug fixed, so yeah, it was pretty much forced.

Wrong. Apple released a patch for iOS 6 on the same day as the iOS7 fix for that bug.

watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241697)

"...so-called iWatch — the “smartwatch” that Apple observers are eagerly awaiting as the next world-beating gadget"

so.. like every other wearable announced?

and... looks like the motorola 360 is the shit to beat by a long margin - if its anything close to what has been shown off..

Re:watch (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47241799)

What is a Motorola 360? I have never ever seen one in use, nor a Sammy gear or a google glass for that matter. I guarantee that when apple sells 10 million iwatchrd the first year, we will all see them everywhere. And yes, I know what a moto 360 is, I'm just proving a point. Also, nobody knows what the iwatch will look like.

First; best or cheapest (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242037)

What is a Motorola 360? I have never ever seen one in use, nor a Sammy gear or a google glass for that matter. I guarantee that when apple sells 10 million iwatchrd the first year, we will all see them everywhere. And yes, I know what a moto 360 is, I'm just proving a point. Also, nobody knows what the iwatch will look like.

I have no idea how successful the iwatch will be, what I do know, it is already a long way from being perceived as being first. It is not walking into a market which has years of necessary frand patents. It is walking into a market with large companies Sony; Samsung; Google already having products(some on their second generation) and patents. Whatever the iwatch looks like they changed the game...and it is costing them now. Oh and I like the look of the Motorola 360 too, so its looking pretty good for an unlauched product.

Re:First; best or cheapest (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242141)

I have no idea how successful the iwatch will be, what I do know, it is already a long way from being perceived as being first.

You don't even know whether there will be a watch.

All the smartwatches so far have been awful, and commercial failures. Apple will only make one if they have a different concept of it, such that they can make a device people want. Otherwise they won't bring out a smartwatch.

Given this years WWDC, a game console is far more likely than a watch. And they are unlikely to launch into 2 new categories in the same year.

A watch, console or personal massager? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242275)

You don't even know whether there will be a watch.

Except it is already a proven market, with large companies and some great products. I personally would love Apple the parasite and its abuse of patents to stay out of new markets.

It is unlikely to get involved in consoles...low turn over...no profit margins already a premium market. It could make money on *cough* apps, but android is there first and in droves cheaper with a larger ecosystem...and it does not make the same margins from software. The bottom line is Apple can't even right drivers as fast as Linux...they run 15 year old games as a tenth of the speed.

The bottom line is I would love a more powerful AppleTV a product Apple have squandered. At least we have chromecast.

Re:A watch, console or personal massager? (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47242381)

You don't even know whether there will be a watch.

Except it is already a proven market, with large companies and some great products.

to date the market has been proven to suck. even the most successful product, the nike fuel band, is shutting down. the only way apple gets involved is if they can flip the bitch and make something new.

It is unlikely to get involved in consoles...low turn over...no profit margins already a premium market. It could make money on *cough* apps, but android is there first and in droves cheaper with a larger ecosystem...and it does not make the same margins from software.

apple already makes consoles... TV consoles. it just needs to flip the switch and open up an app store and allow games. then roll it out to the millions of already existing apple TVs in the market.

The bottom line is Apple can't even right drivers as fast as Linux...they run 15 year old games as a tenth of the speed.

true for mac gaming, which is retarded. but false for iOS gaming, which leads the pack. didn't you see the support for new and better games in iOS 8, and the gaming tools in Swift? growth growth growth.

Flip this and Flip this...Flipping eck? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242427)

I didn't really understand your point about watches, something about "bitches" and flipping. Your talk about the nike band...not really a smartwatch really, but http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04... [cnn.com] there is talk of collaboration between the two which makes more sense, as they are unlikely to compete in the smartphone market, which is already hitting strides. The moto360 is making waves.

As for switching on games on AppleTV...are those people games buyers or would they have like bought a game console instead of an AppleTV.

As for swift...a proprietary language, other than locking in developers to ios why would anyone care. you can't pull those tricks with a market share of 15% and shrinking however good it is...and the drivers are still slow.

Re:A watch, console or personal massager? (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242487)

Except it is already a proven market, with large companies and some great products.

In your dreams. There are no commercially successful smartwatches. They all bombed.

It is unlikely to get involved in consoles...

Noted, so I can say I told you so later.

but android is there first

The Android Ouya also completely failed in the market, despite you previously predicting it was going to be a market beater. There have been no successful Android consoles.

The bottom line is Apple can't even right drivers as fast as Linux...they run 15 year old games as a tenth of the speed.

Clearly you also haven't heard of Metal.

Brand identity (4, Interesting)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a month ago | (#47241753)

According to this article [informationweek.com] Apple bought Beats because the Apple brand is fading. Tim Cook is buying what Steve Jobs created from within.

Re: Brand identity (3, Interesting)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a month ago | (#47241823)

Or they could have bought a company that sells high margin products and has a streaming music service because they wanted to sell high margin products and streaming music service....Nahh to simple of an explanation. I think I like your explanation better.....

Re: Brand identity (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a month ago | (#47241907)

too

Brand identity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241925)

Cough cough Weren't the iPod, iTunes, and what OS X was based upon all created outside Apple and therefore bought in? Cough Cough

Re:Brand identity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242027)

Shhh.. the fact Itunes was purchased and OS-X is based on BSD are secrets. Clearly all the great stuff comes straight from apple.

Re:Brand identity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242259)

Not really.
NeXT bought Apple extremely cheap, then renamed Nextstep to OS X.

You cannot say with a straight face that Apple bought NeXT.

Re:Brand identity (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242065)

Apple is still the most valuable brand in the world. Beats doesn't even make an appearance.

http://www.forbes.com/powerful... [forbes.com]

Google replaced them (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242163)

Your information is out of date.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/je... [forbes.com]

Google has overtaken Apple to become the world’s most valuable global brand in the 2014 BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brand ranking, worth $159 billion, an increase of 40% year on year. After three years at the top, Apple slipped to No 2 on the back of a 20% decline in brand value, to $148 billion, according to annual research conducted by Millward Brown.

Re:Google replaced them (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242269)

Although it's being reported on the Forbes site, that's not the Forbes list. That's the Brandz list. Apple is still number one on the Forbes list.

But OK, Apple is number 2 and Beats still isn't on the list. The point is the same.

Thank you finally (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242303)

OK, Apple is number 2

Something we can finally agree on, the fact that Apples brand is shrinking and Beats is growing in an Apple area dominates does not really matter. the whole point is Apple is relying on past glories...and those under Jobs.

Re:Thank you finally (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242439)

the whole point is Apple is relying on past glories...and those under Jobs.

If that's your point, you're misinformed. Apple just had it's most impressive WWDC since the launch of the iPhone. It's for developers, so it's understandable you don't know. But it presages some very exciting products when they do their hardware announcements in the fall.

Launch a new Product Line already (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242475)

Apple just had it's most impressive WWDC since the launch of the iPhone.

Safari(With Bing?) Mail improvements, More Lock in/Cloud(At a price). Single platform...slight(after slight) at google, costly cloud applications, even with a few tweaks...like a clone of the awesomebar, and a nice payout from Microsoft.

Spin is just that spin. I bought the first iPhone

Re:Launch a new Product Line already (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a month ago | (#47242559)

You've not even covered the tip of the iceberg of what was revealed at WWDC.

Less hands-on (4, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a month ago | (#47241795)

But some say he is less hands-on in developing products than his predecessor.

The best leaders will see their own shortcomings and delegate to trusted experts to pick up their slack. Perhaps this is Cook's strategy.

Re:Less hands-on (2)

joh (27088) | about a month ago | (#47241847)

If you just compare the nearly total standstill of iOS up until iOS 6 to what happened in iOS 7 and 8 he obviously made sure to get some people into the right places who were able to get something done. About time, I'd say.

Re:Less hands-on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47241883)

The only reason iOS7 is installed on so many devices, is because nobody is allowed to install anything else. If users were allowed to dump iOS7 and roll back to 6, those numbers wouldn't look half so good.

iOS7 is a design disaster, both in overall look and in usability. It looks like someone tried to duplicate the Android OS entirely out of HTML, and did a half-assed job of it.

Re:Less hands-on (1)

rainer_d (115765) | about a month ago | (#47242673)

Maybe you and some of your friends would roll back.
But that doesn't mean that half of the people who got upgraded to 7 would downgrade to 6 in an instant. That assumption is totally unfounded.
Do you think that the customer satisfaction statistics that show 90%+ results of ipad/iphone would look as good if people hated iOS7 en masse?

grammar is not very different from coding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242133)

If you were to say, "Jim Thompson [according to those] who spoke anonymously...,'" it would mean something very different from "Jim Thompson [according to those who spoke anonymously]...." The summary uses the first, which implies this named man spoke anonymously.

Huge difference in people (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month ago | (#47242169)

Cook is a businessman.

Jobs was a evangelist.

AppleTV App SDK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242239)

Honestly I'd be happier to see an openly available AppleTV SDK than a watch.

Yesterday I streamed the 24 Hours of Le Mans via my iPod (paid for via an in app purchase) and put it on my TV via AirPlay. If they had an open SDK they likely would have had an Apple TV app which would have worked better than my approach. I had to switch devices/screens to view timing data and replays whereas a native TV app could have provided a much nicer experience.

Besides, think of the games! :)

AppleTV a failure (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a month ago | (#47242359)

Honestly I'd be happier to see an openly available AppleTV SDK

Apple have squandered a lead they had with AppleTV when for a few $ you can by a cromecast of android device(even dedicated gaming ones) who cares now. In context of this article I think its cooks biggest failure.

mi80s 3, Troll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47242291)

Walt Disney (1)

Falos (2905315) | about a month ago | (#47242413)

"I am in no sense of the word a great artist, not even a great animator; I have always had men working for me whose skills were greater than my own. I am an idea man."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...