I think Steve Jobs was an incredibly talented person and it's not really fair to ding Tim Cook for not being Steve Jobs. Apple is obviously not the same company without Jobs, but is that Tim Cook's fault? I don't see how.
It seems to me that a lot of the "analysis" of Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs is really just people wishing Steve Jobs was still alive. I wish he was too.
I will point out that Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 and hired Tim Cook in 1998. So Jobs' incredible 2nd run at Apple was also, to some extent, Cook's incredible run too.
This is an interesting topic for me as I find myself asking similar questions about my role at a company I founded.
I founded a company currently valued in the low-mid 8 digits. I successfully brought the company through an acquisition and have doubled revenues since.
I keep coming back to an article I read on HN years ago talking about the 4 types of CEOs: founder, growth, maintenance, death (bankruptcy). While I’ve found success in 1 and 2, I don’t enjoy 2 as much as 1 and I don’t think I’d be any good at 3 or 4.
I’m probably experiencing a form of imposter syndrome as the board & leadership are all satisfied with my performance, but the thoughts still linger.
I posited that Steve probably wasn’t the right person to grow Apple to $1T in market cap and that Tim really made it happen. My friend took the opposite side believing that Tim is just running of Steve’s ideas and that Tim had relatively little to do with making it happen.
Curious to see what HN thinks.