Today it's all about Tim Cook and the iWatch

in apple on 2014-06-16 16:14 (#3NW)

If you haven't heard of Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, before today then you have potentially not been reading the news. The New York Times published an introspective yesterday and the blogosphere has caught fire speculating on the implications of Cook's less hands-on approach to management , if his leadership of Apple will return the company to the hyper-growth the investors are all hoping for, and lastly, if and when Apple will produce an iWatch .

I've got to wonder if these pundits are more interested in products or profitability, but given Samsung's lackluster Galaxy Gear watch , there is at least some room for competition in the market: bring it on, Apple, let's see what you've got!

"Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 16:45 (#245)

Sorry, but his closeted status is the ONLY interesting thing about the guy. He's an apparently competent and boring manager, period.

People keep wanting him to be a showman / asshole like his predecessor. It's good that he's not.

May the cult of Apple die a nice slow slide into overpriced obscurity.

I'm not exactly sure the point of the Times' ballwashing exercise.

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-06-16 17:03 (#246)

Seriously, no one gets credit for being quiet and competent. And reading the article made me feel slightly sick that the only thing people are really interested in is either:

For the consumers: entertainment via some shiny new toy, or
For the investors: huge amounts of increased value in their stock portfolio, whatever that takes

Boring!

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 19:30 (#24A)

And while you certainly CAN polish a turd (Jobs was nothing if not that), it's much harder to polish an ordinary brick, even if in this strained analogy Cook is the capstone or cornerstone brick of the enterprise.

Gah. Analogies make me gag a but. :)

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 20:59 (#24B)

Hah, hah, it seems Gawker and I are of like minds on the subject -- they say NYT desperately wanted to "out" Cook in the piece but couldn't bring themselves to do it.

The New York Times Really, Really Wants to Out Tim Cook

"It's silly, because the world has known Apple's chief executive is gay for years now, but the New York Times is practically gnawing its own arm off in the process of writing about Tim Cook's personal life. They clearly want to mention the sexuality of capitalism's most powerful man-so why won't they?"

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-16 23:48 (#24C)

Perhaps it's because his sexuality is irrelevant? As is everybody's?

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-17 03:55 (#24H)

You must not have your Gawker reality distortion filter on.

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-17 17:15 (#24Q)

Irrelevant to what, exactly? I don't see any other substantive discussion. Which was exactly my point. He's a rich manager. There's no story without the sex angle.

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-18 15:13 (#25R)

That's pathetic, actually, but par-for-the-course with modern American media. Personal lives of leaders should have no interest at all. Show me if he knows how to run a company, has a vision for tech, or can create compelling products and services. Then let him go home and spend time doing whatever he enjoys doing.

Same goes for politicians, actually.

Re: "Intensely Private" (Score: 1)

by marqueeblink@pipedot.org on 2014-06-17 02:16 (#24F)

The subject matter is arguably tasteless but it is kind of interesting, there's something about gays being media tycoons, maybe it's a combination of artistic taste and ruthlessness. Off the top of my head we have Jann Wenner (Rolling Stone), David Geffen, and the woman who founded AllThingsD/Recode.net.

Coming in 2015 (Score: 1)

by stp@pipedot.org on 2014-06-17 14:42 (#24P)

iGlass