If I had a nickel for every "Apple is doomed" post I've seen here the past 13 years...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Agrees to Pay $490M to Settle Lawsuit Alleging That Tim Cook Defrauded Shareholders
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Cook disappointment (no hate) derives from the fact that he has spent his entire tenure essentially riding the existing product wagon, with no substantial changes other than spec bumps. His one sole product was a boondoggle destined for dusty shelves. The iPhone and iPad OS has become past stale and almost embarrassing at this point. His product development team is a shambles. There's no vision, no creativity. The best that can be said of him is that he created shareholder value -- but only through a tired portfolio which only goes so far.
It's time for him to ride off into the sunset and for Apple to find a real visionary to take them forward...
If you don’t get why people don’t like Cook you must have been hiding in a cave in the last decade.
Destroying Apple doesn’t necessarily mean the company is doomed. It could remain a huge company and even a profitable one. But it has lost a long time ago the status it had: it no longer innovates, it no longer wow people. It is basically like Coca-Cola: a big profitable company that almost nobody is excited by.
Really beginning to think history is not going to look too kindly on the Tim Cook era
Tim Cook is the worst CEO Apple has ever had
Maybe, but I think there is a large reputation cost besides the legal cost to go to trial.
Are you kidding? Have you forgotten how well Apple was run compared to other large companies in recent years like during Covid and afterwards.
How Apple Has Steered Clear Of Layoffs Amidst Big Tech Job Cuts
Of the recent layoff announcements, you will see one company noticeably missing from the long list—Apple. With over 68,000 tech workers downsized in 2023, Apple employees have—so far—been able to avoid the ax.
www.forbes.com
Apple Hired Judiciously Throughout The Years
Compared to the other Big Tech companies, Apple scaled its workforce at a relatively slow pace and has generally followed thesame hiring rate since 2016. While there was a hiring surge in Silicon Valley during the pandemic, Apple added less than 7,000 jobs in 2020. In September 2022, it was reported that the company employed 164,000 full-time workers, in both its corporate and retail divisions. In August, the iPhone maker let go of 100 contract recruiters.The Rest Of Big Tech—Not So Much
The tech companies undergoing layoffs right now hired fervently during their pandemic—and even before.Alphabet has consecutively expanded its workforce at least 10% annually since 2013, according to CNBC. The company grew its headcount over 20% in 2018 and 2019. The growth continued, adding over 16,000 new hires in 2020 and 21,000 employees in 2021.
Since 2012, Meta has expanded its workforce by thousands each year. In 2020, Zuckerberg increased headcount by 30%—13,000 workers. The following year, the social media platform added another 13,000 employees to its payroll. Those two years marked the biggest growth in the company’s history.
Amazon has initiated its plan to separate more than 18,000 white-collar professionals from its payroll. In 2021, the online retailer hired an estimated 500,000 employees, according to GeekWire, becoming the second-largest employer in the United States after Walmart. A year later, the company expanded its workforce by 310,000. Prior to its layoff announcement, it was reported that Amazon employed 1.5 million workers, including corporate and warehouse staff.
Tim Cook doesn't care when he disappoints consumers, but he probably cares a lot that he disappointed shareholders. That's because Cook doesn't care about consumers but he does care about shareholders. Cook runs Apple in a way intended to do what is best for shareholders while giving consumers as little as he can get away with.
Despite all the naysayers, remember Cook was handpicked by Jobs to take over. He could have picked Ives or anyone else.
Cook was brought in to steady the Apple ship. The company was going through exponential growth. They needed someone like Cook who can establish the business foundation for Apple to move forward.
We can only hope whomever is after Cook will have vision and taste. Talent is talent is talent.
No matter how much Cook try to establish ”Apple University” or whatever to ”teach” the Apple way to their employeess, he should know better flowcharts and ”design thinking“ will NOT produce the next Jobs.
Cook was brought in to steady the Apple ship. The company was going through exponential growth. They needed someone like Cook who can establish the business foundation for Apple to move forward.
We can only hope whomever is after Cook will have vision and taste. Talent is talent is talent.
No matter how much Cook try to establish ”Apple University” or whatever to ”teach” the Apple way to their employeess, he should know better flowcharts and ”design thinking“ will NOT produce the next Jobs.
You mean you guys didn't see Tim Cook advising everyone to short Apple right before the big stock drop, and then buy bacl later? He was all over Macrumors telling us to do so, under the pseudonym Timothée Pomme.
Well, a certain former president just got hit up for $500M so there might be hope ...
The lawyers.
The intrinsic value of a stock is based on predictions of the future cash flows and profitability of the business.
And probably double that on the ski goggle fiasco that has seen the light of day and is heading for the ditch. How many more billions do we need to loose before we cut that off?
They have deified Jobs, so they have to demonize his replacement. It would have been the same no matter who was made CEO after their new god.
I’ll pass that along to the WSJ, Reuters, Financial Times, and Shawn Williams at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.
What are you referring to exactly? If you can provide proof Apple knew sales were struggling in (and I don't mean an inaccurate forecast of future sales), I'd love to take a look at it and I'll admit I'm wrong.
We live in a litigious age.
And large corporations have large legal departments for a reason.
Will even be that much for most people? I’m not sure how they’ll distribute but assuming it’s automatic to the shareholders of record during that time frame based on the quantity they owned. With 15,000,000,000 outstanding shares, that’s $0.0333.. per share. Before the lawyers take their cut… with that math, someone would have to own at least $52,000 of AAPL to get $10 (at todays value).
True, but I think Steve picked Cook for the logistics side of the business knowing full well that the creative side of things would be led by Jony Ive.
While some have issues with Ive as well, he truly seemed to care about the product and never about the bottom line. We clearly see how Steve was able to see the big picture where Jony was mired in the details.
Jobs was a once in a lifetime visionary. I'm not sure if the leading contenders (such as Craig, Jeff, Phil etc) will do much better than Tim from a vision or taste standpoint.
Last edited:
He's not great but I also don't trust anyone to choose someone better. Steve Jobs was a special, once in a lifetime CEO. It's all downhill from here because the tech industry has been taken over by visionless grifters with no passion for making things people actually enjoy using
Isn't Phil the one responsible for the awful App Store shenanigans that are ruining relations with developers and making usability worse for EU customers?
If that's the case, my bet is he will probably be the one picked and also he'll be absolutely reviled because of his terrible style of dealing with people and lack of judgement on what's important and what's not important
Craig is OK but he's also the person responsible for Apple's declining software quality and overall poor management of balancing all the different software Apple has to juggle and keep updated. His philosophy seems to be "as long as it's just barely good enough, it's fine" with seemingly no concern for the software being exceptional or enjoyable to use
I don't know a single thing about Jeff so I have no opinion on him
I was looking at Apple's Leadership page and saw that John Ternus is responsible for Hardware. I've never heard his name before but that's the one area Apple is excelling in. Probably more than ever. If that's an indication of his management and vision, maybe he's the one who could do a good job replacing Tim
Apple will never be brave enough to hire the next Jobs. The only reason they did was because they had absolutely no other option. The next Jobs probably isn't even in Tech since it's become the de facto playground of greedy grifters. People forget that at the start of the tech industry, people actually believed they could make the world a better place using technology. Now when people say that i's just market spin to justify stealing from customers (like Facebook) and to mollify rubes
Last edited: