I'm starting to wonder if maybe Tim Cook is a better CEO than Steve Jobs. No one will ever have Jobs' combination of taste and presence, but I think these numbers are showing that spending as much time managing the supply chain and making inroads into emerging markets is as important as playing with foam cutouts with Jony Ive.
You know how it typically takes one CEO to make a newly founded startup viable and successful, then a transition to another to keep it there? Think that's what we're seeing here.
It's a nearly impossible comparison to make. Under Steve Job as CEO (and with Tim Cook in key operational roles), Apple went from innovative, iconic, dying computer maker to one of the world's most successful companies, top pc maker, creator of shiny new products, upender of markets, stupidly profitable retailer, global brand name, etc, etc.
Under CEO Tim Cook, Apple's gone from that to a ludicrously more profitable, bigger version of that. He's clearly done very well but the starting point is different, the time period is shorter. Tim Cook helped Apple become an Imperial Star Destroyer and is apparently a pretty competent captain of one.
too early to tell. so far, we know he hasn't messed up the formula and financially he's off to a great start.
but jobs faced steeper hurdles right away bringing the company back from bankruptcy and reinvigorating morale within the company. jobs then successfully invented new product categories and much of the success apple is enjoying comes from an expanding smart phone market, which you rightly point out that cook is doing a fantastic job of addressing.
the apple watch will take a couple years to see if it's really a success. lots of fanfare so far, but it could fade in popularity like the iPad which, if you recall, was an incredibly fast growing category.
the iphone franchise, just like any other franchise, cannot last forever. and to find another product category with growth like that is going to be a very, very difficult thing to do.
i personally believe that SIRI will be the most important category at apple over the next 5-10 years. voice interfaces, without the use of a 5" screen will be the next most important UI/UX in computing. and i would not currently bet on apple to be the best at delivering that.
i'd say cook will have to be measured by his ability to dictate and keep up with technology trends, not just manage the supply chain. but you're right, he's done a great job of that for sure.
tim was the COO when steve was around, you have to also remember that the markets now are much larger than the one's before.. i do believe tim is an exceptional CEO but these numbers seem to reflect better and increased interest in apple products and bigger market size thanks to their bold expansion into asian countries
> I'm starting to wonder if maybe Tim Cook is a better CEO than Steve Jobs.
I don't know if this was ever in question. I never viewed Jobs as a particularly good CEO—charismatic and spiritual leader, yes. Good CEO? Probably not. He knew how to motivate people to get his version of the truth to consumers, and that version was incredibly successful.
Jobs was a marketer (and perhaps innately clairvoyant) at heart who was so successful at marketing that he could do a good job at CEO and create a multi-billion-dollar company.
Cook is a genius at the broad-stroke of business operations and most likely leaves the storytelling and imagination to others. It's little surprise the immediate results are a better bottom-line. Time will only tell if Apple truly has enough creativity and stories in the ranks to be long-term successful. (I think it does.)
Sorry, but I think Tim is still mostly coasting on Jobs' brilliance. Not only was he a product genius but he was a gifted recruiter. At the senior level, Cook is 1 for 2 at best. Forstall may have been a jerk (like Jobs) but was arguably the second most important person on the iPhone.
Or look at it this way: would Cook be doing as well without his predecessor? Almost certainly not. Would Apple be doing as well with Jobs still at the helm. Almost certainly so.
Tim Cook is masterfully using all of Apple's inertia to keep breaking revenue records. He's refining and improving existing products, but he's not leading a foray into a completely new category like Steve Jobs did over and over again.
It will work as long as improvements in its core markets occur on a linear curve. It won't withstand an competitor making the product obsolete (for example, a possible transition from mobile to wearables - not that I'd put my money there, but still).
Also, the Watch seems like it could have benefited from some Steve Jobs type of editing and distilling. That's the kind of product focused authority that such a company really needs.
Much like the laptops and desktops tablets are suppose to replace, most people don't have a reason to upgrade every two years. For most customers upgrading your phone is very different from replacing your tablet.
Couldn't agree more. I have an iPad 2 (I think) sitting at home that I occasionally pick up. It serves it's purpose and there's no reason, or incentive to go out and get a new one.
Agreed, I still have the first iPad, bought when it launched in Europe. The browser dies pretty often compared to an iPad 3, but it us still sort of usable for browsing and watching movies.
I have an iPad 2 and it is still usable (with a noticeable slow down for web browsers after the iOS8 upgrade) after all these years. I suspect a lot of people just upgrade their tablets less often that their phones. I use it mainly as a glorified e-reader.
I think the larger iPad will help. My mom (iPad target demo?) is waiting for the larger iPad to upgrade to. If it's A4 / letter size then it will really take off for the publishing industry and academia (reading PDFs).
A big downside to the iPad is slow text input. Many people love their laptops because they can quickly communicate with people.
I suspect a lot of this is due to the rise of tablet-phones. The iPad is now like the iPod was earlier, essentially an iPhone 6 Plus without the phone functionality.
Competitors tablets are getting better and better, the market is pretty much saturated and the large phones that even Apple has started to produce make them less interesting.
I wouldn't say they are dead. The decline of the sales for iPad can be attributed to its wildly successful launch. People just hang on to their iPads a lot longer than they do their iPhones. The numbers should stabilize soon.
And there are few compelling reasons to develop sophisticated iPad apps anymore. App prices are low, the platform is buggy, and building a good iPad app is a more complex and expensive endeavour than building an iPhone app.
iOS as a general platform tends to blast API's more quickly than most platforms--take a look at all the top-line games that needed special versions for iOS 8.
In addition, Apple has it's own "private" API's that app developers aren't allowed to use which makes development more complicated than it has to be.
Finally, iPad's have way more screen size than iPhones. Little things that you might get away with on a 5 inch screen suddenly look really bad when blow up to 10 inches.
The Surface Pro is growing very well, though I don't think it would be accurate to say that it is signicantly taking away share from the iPad. As far as I know, the SP3 sold ~800k units last quarter, as compared to the iPad's >12 million.
It's really hard to say how Android tablets are doing because the market for them is so diverse.
I think this is probably the key. The rise of $200 90%-as-good-as-iPad tablets is capturing a bunch of the market. And really, if you're not already on iOS, they're >90% as good.
Or simply on a slower replacement cycle. There's room, but it's not for essential or daily use, like a phone or a notebook, and the things it's used for don't require the latest shiny hardware.
So many people that own one don't replace it until the battery starts dying.
Phones are also typically on multi-year contract (or a multi-year payment plan depending on your location and/or carrier), so you get "prompted" to upgrade on a regular basis when you finish a cycle. I only really upgrade my tablet when there's a serious tech jump, like going to Retina or cutting 1/3 weight or whatever.
Note that is true only in America and some richer western markets. Phones in mich of the world are bought just like tablets, but are used often and so still get replaced every coupke of years.
Jobs admired Sony, which introduced and won several new product categories. But when the founders left, esp Morita, this stopped, though of course they remain successful to this day - they just aren't creating new product categories.
Cook, as an operations guy, will keep things running. But can Apple lead new product categories under him? The Apple Watch seems to be showing he can... If so, it's something even more impressive than biggest cap etc. Something Sony didn't manage.
The iPad is dying not because of longer upgrade cycles, but for the same reason desktops are: it's less convenient than a phone (or watch).
Sorry are you trying to say that sending an email from a watch or a phone is more convenient than an iPad?
I personally think its the novelty factor that wore off. I bought on of the first net books when they came out, but realized after a while, that a full sized keyboard outweighed the size benefit.
Some are arguing that the death of the iPad means that Apple is now basically a one-product company which could be an achilles heel no matter how many phones are sold.
Is it really dying? Just curious as I love mine and I am not familiar with the numbers. I remember speculation some time last year, but the article I had read didn't cite any hard data.
I don't think it's "dying". Tablets are in the same situation as flat-screen TVs: the market is more-or-less saturated, they last a long time, and there is no compelling reason to upgrade. In contrast, phones have a fairly short replacement cycle, because they are subject to significant wear and tear, and there are compelling advancements in power utilization, communications, etc.
And I think Apple managed to avoid the same happening to the iPhone by introducing a new size category.
It's actually incredible just how fast and new the iPhone 5 feels even today. I was perfectly happy to stick with it until the new sizes came out (admittedly I haven't bought a new iPhone yet because it costs money, but a lot of my peer group has).
The subsidization by networks is key in keeping people in a short upgrade cycle, and reducing the likelihood of switching to a cheaper Android phones. It's no doubt Apple people would upgrade much less often if they to shell out $600+ for unlocked phones every couple years.
as another comment says, this is now five straight quarters of YoY declines for ipad revenue. It's definitely in decline. I think it's wrong to say it's dying though - iPad has simply achieved saturation.
