FRIEZE NEW YORK 2013
INTERNATIONAL HOME + HOUSEWARES SHOW 2013
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2012
BEIJING DESIGN WEEK 2012
In a surprising article from yesterday, Forbes contributor Peter Cohan, an author, former management consultant and former venture capitalist, has suggested that Apple's Tim Cook should step down. Falling profits, Cohan writes, suggest Cook is not up to the task of helming the company; he goes on to suggest that Jonathan Ive would be a good replacement. "Now it's time," Cohan writes, "for Apple's board to put the person with design skill in the CEO job."
My first thought was no. And I say that out of appreciation for Ive and his skill set. Ive's impact on the current product landscape cannot be underestimated, and he was able to do those things because he was doing his thing—designing.
The late Steve Jobs made it clear, in his Walter-Isaacson-penned biography, that he had set things up so that Ive would have uncontested design power following Jobs' departure; that is to say, no one, not even Cook, would have the power to challenge Ive's designs. So why on Earth would we want to tie the man up in a managerial position?
With the current headaches Apple faces—patent trolls, a market nearing saturation—they'll surely need a new generation of innovative products to break out of their profits slump. They're going to need good design, and they've already got the perfect man for that job.
Your thoughts?
Comments
I think in Cook, you have the man with the expertise required to make sure that the next generation of devices experiences little to no lag in supply and production. What he doesn't do is inspire the public. He is undoubtedly wildly capable, intelligent and successful - but an awful lot more people on the street know what Ive looks like. They know his name; they know what he's made. I think a double team of Cook and Ive is the way to go...if the role could actually be shared. Taking either out of their core business is going to have a negative impact. Giving Ive more sway over the direction of the whole company makes a lot of sense to me.
sounds like a good decision to me-
when are they gonna release the iTV and iCar?
I don't know if Cook and Ive have a good communication between themselves inside the company, but the strong point in Apple are good design (Ive) and a business mind (Cook). If they discuss together how to reach the company goals but at the same time focusing on their respective places, Apple is going to be 100 % successful.
Jobs' dying wish was that no one would be able to tell Ive what to do. And the only reason Jobs' wanted the CEO position was for the very same reason. So let's Cook run the rest of the business, he did anyway.
NO f'n way. But Ive could do the keynote speeches.
Being the CEO would be a complete waste of the man's talent.
Apple may not want to encourage as big of a cult of personality around Ives, but I agree with slippyfish maybe have him do the keynote speeches.
Bloomberg suggesting profits may dip 2% in the coming months (mind you, "may did", not "did dip"), and Forbes is already calling for Cook to step down? Hack journalists just cannot waste an opportunity to take a hot steamy shit all over Apple, can they?
I do recall someone suggesting, possibly Jobs himself, that all of his SVPs would be equipped to take on the role of CEO if such a need would arise. So I'm sure Ive could be up to the task.
That said, if Cook would ever retire or move on, Phil Schiller would probably be next up, given his role in marketing. I don't see that kind of shakeup happening any time soon, though. I expect Cook to be in control and keep things under control for the foreseeable future.
Ive and Mansfield, if they would ever be looked at for the role, would probably be considered for their rapport with manufacturers and their deep understanding of what goes into an Apple product. But their roles aren't business-focused, so I can't see them being the first choices for the board of directors.
I have watched this site for a while now and have loved reading it. The information it provides is very helpful to me and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the last paragraph. Unless you have inside information that no one else has (and can verify it), you cannot state that Apple is in a "profits slump" as fact. That being said, I don't think Ive is a good front man for the company, and agree with the sentiment that if he already has carte blanche when it comes to design, then why weigh him down with other duties outside of his focus. Focus being the key word, seeing that such good design requires a lot of it.
As a relatively great, inventive designer & horrible people person & coordinator, I can't say no loud enough. Ive is no Jobs. And he's too great at what he's great at. Why hobble him like that?
Apple is a bit of a broken clock, unfortunately it's the downside to Steve Jobs philosophy. Keeping everything proprietary or in house, makes it less likely to diffuse into the mainstream. When the glamour wears off, Apple is stuck within a niche market again.
They can only make so many variations of the iPhone and iPad, before the public moves on. If they really want to stay relevant, they should hire someone who understands the "Apple Way" but isn't a strict adherent. They need new blood, with new ideas and applications.