←back to thread

148 points methuselah_in | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
827a ◴[] No.46184236[source]
IMO: Cook is going to announce his retirement by the end of Q1, they've already selected a CEO (probably Ternus), the incoming CEO wants leadership change, and some of these departures are because its better that this purge happens before the CEO change than after. I think this explains Giannandrea, Williams, and Jackson.

Dye may have also been involved in that, given how unpopular he was internally at Apple. But more likely just personal / Meta offered him a billion dollars. Maestri leaving was also probably totally uninvolved.

Srouji is the weirdest case, and I'm hesitant to believe its even true just given its a rumor at this point. Its possible he was angry about being passed over for CEO, but realistically, it was always going to be Ternus, Williams, or Federighi. If Ternus is the next CEO, its likely we'll see Apple combine the Hardware Technologies and Hardware Engineering divisions, then have Srouji lead both of them. I really do not see him leaving the company.

The other less probable theory is that they actually picked Fadell, and this deeply pissed off many people in Apple's senior leadership. So, what we're seeing is more chaos than it first seems.

Generally, as long as Srouji doesn't leave, these changes feel positive for Apple, and especially if there's a CEO change in early 2026: This is what "the fifth generation of Apple Inc" looks like. I don't understand the mindset of people who complain about Apple's products and behavior over the past decade, then don't receive this news as directionally positive.

replies(9): >>46184720 #>>46185324 #>>46187369 #>>46187473 #>>46187494 #>>46187950 #>>46188238 #>>46188497 #>>46192791 #
this_user ◴[] No.46187494[source]
Cook is denying that he has any current plans to step down. There was also a Bloomberg article about this a couple of days ago.

What they point out is that a lot of Apple's senior leadership are of a similar age and are simply approaching retirement now. But they are also losing younger rising stars they desperately need to fill the ensuing void. At the moment, they are simply losing talent left and right, and that is unsustainable if they want to maintain their competitive edge and avoid completely turning into Microsoft.

The more likely explanation is that a certain amount of internal rot has set in. They haven't really launched a successful major new product category in years, and a lot of their initiatives have either stalled or failed. Something is clearly not right, and top tier talent doesn't will only tolerate that sort of thing for so long before moving on.

replies(8): >>46187753 #>>46187754 #>>46187793 #>>46188093 #>>46188163 #>>46188213 #>>46188237 #>>46188618 #
majormajor ◴[] No.46188093[source]
> They haven't really launched a successful major new product category in years

How frequently do you expect a new major product category across the industry? Is there any company who launched one that wasn't ChatGPT in the same time frame?

replies(3): >>46188206 #>>46188928 #>>46189629 #
1. asdff ◴[] No.46189629[source]
Apple used to put out new or interesting products. E.g. they just up and released Time Machine routers when no one was really doing that in the home router industry like at all, maybe a clunky usb ftp solution but this was first party apple white glove treatment of the issue. They had great software too in many different niches e.g. Aperture coming after Adobe's pro photo pie.

It was amazing how much diversity in really well thought out hardware as well as software was happening at apple years ago, when it was a far smaller company in terms of manpower and resources than it is today. I guess when the business model is selling ongoing subscriptions instead of compelling new products in order to get money, you stop getting the compelling new products coming out.