It's amazing to me how so many people outside Apple think Jony Ive could be a credible candidate for CEO, when no one inside Apple would believe that for a second. The only product-focused executive who would even have had a chance is Scott Forstall.
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.
Steve Jobs wore a lot of hats (ruthless tastemaker and keynote impresario among them) not because the CEO must hold these roles but because he happened to be best at them. Arguing that they must be held by the guy with the organizational power to fire anyone is daft.
No one person replaces Steve Jobs. Tim Cook and Jony Ive know it.
"ruthless tastemaker" either has to be the CEO or be someone with 100% unequivocal support of the CEO even in the face of unpopular decisions, which is such a rare situation that practically speaking, it kinda does have to be the CEO.
Someone has to be CEO and for the long term is Tim Cook really the best person
for the job ? Steve Job is an irreplaceable part of Apple's lore, but that does not
stop Jony Ive from making his own major mark. He already has a rich history
of designing great products. To understand Aarons point better you have to watch Steve Jobs interview, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOgOP_aqqtg . There he says the only problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste. Steve recognize some questions it's importance, he says having good taste is important for Apple. According to Steve having good taste is key to Apple's culture and success, Steve Jobs said it. A company can have great financial success without good taste, Steve Jobs said that about Microsoft. But as Aaron mentioned in the article that is not how Apple works. Tim Cook is great at operations, perhaps he should have stayed COO. The interesting move would be to appoint Jonathan Ive's as CEO. Of course to many that would seem unconventional and perhaps even risky. But that would be authentic Apple, that would be thinking different.
Tim Cook has been playing a certain role to date. He has been in charge of execution and organization. Does this mean that he doesn't have taste? Does the fact that he is not a genius public speaker mean that he doesn't have great taste?
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.
We don't know that the assistant janitor at Apple doesn't have the killer taste required to run the company, but without any particular evidence of it, it's probably best to assume he/she does not.
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.
"Here’s how Apple products are created: a team of designers decide exactly what a product should do and how it should look and feel, their work is ruthlessly edited by Steve until he approves, and then the entire rest of the company is given the task of moving mountains to make that dream real."
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 certain degree of arrogance built into the idea that the person best suited to run the world's most successful company is the one whose skills we can best appreciate.
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.
I believe the blog post isn't really about a temporary solution, it's about what happens when Jobs can't (or won't) fulfill the role of product scrapper:
"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."
Question: Why does the 'tastemaker' have to be CEO? A traditional CEO's role is to provide vision for the company, sure, but Cook clearly knows he's not Jony Ive, and I'm sure is willing to keep people like Ive around to make those 'tastemaker' decisions. I don't think tastemaker == CEO at all, necessarily.
Operational depts have a natural tendency to answer "that's not possible" when challenged very hard, and to try and negotiate compromises. You don't need the top guy to be the tastemaster, but you need his arbitrages to be heavily biased in favor of designers, not operatives.
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.
It's not just about taste though, is it? WebOS was beautifully designed, but has basically been unsuccessful.
It's really a combination of taste and the ability to execute on it.
Jobs wasn't as successful with Next, despite his tastes. He may not have had the right team in place to work with, to execute on his vision. And with Apple, he already had a well established brand to work with. Even all of the products released by Apple under Jobs' reign were not successful, such as the G4 Cube, the first Apple TV, the ROKR iTunes phone - and who is to say that products he nixed wouldn't have gone on to be successful - no one really knows.
Tastes are important, but there are a LOT of things that matter in addition to good design taste.
You make a good point. Execution is just as crucial to Apple's success as the good 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.
Naming Tim Cook as CEO makes a lot of sense. Obviously, it made the most sense to Jobs himself. People like to think that Apple's design alone is the only reason the company's grown so large. It's easy to forget that without the operational work of Cook, Apple could not even have built the products they did. In that regard it makes more sense for Cook to be CEO because he can insure that the company remains as profitable as it is, while also enabling new devices to be realized. With great designs and weak organizational leadership, Apple cannot thrive as it has.
If Apple is to continue its revolutionary successes, then there needs to be a well functioning "4-man band" to take his place. Mr. Ive can still supply the vision part, but he'll have to work together with others to ensure software design and execution are harmoniously in step. Fortunately, I think that's what Steve has been planning all along.
Steve Jobs worked on a lot of products in his life- not only the many that we know about but probably several times that in products that didn't end up coming to market.
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?
Aaron was right about what should have been done, but it's known that Ives incurred the wrath of Jobs recently when he said he was tired of working in the US and wanted to go home and Jobs said absolutely not. This put Ives on Apple's "Disloyal" list.
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.
[+] [-] insidepitch|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] richcollins|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irons|14 years ago|reply
No one person replaces Steve Jobs. Tim Cook and Jony Ive know it.
[+] [-] georgemcbay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rockarage|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donnyg107|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GavinB|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] extension|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] far33d|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bignoggins|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kalleboo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hmottestad|14 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] mashmac2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fab13n|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dr_|14 years ago|reply
Tastes are important, but there are a LOT of things that matter in addition to good design taste.
[+] [-] fuzionmonkey|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] eevilspock|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azulum|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schmittz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxniederhofer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fonosip|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hmottestad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doomlaser|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bugsy|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tjogin|14 years ago|reply