The problem is finding that person and having both high enough and accurate enough confidence in that choice.

confidence is self reinforcing, that's why it's impossible today. Eventually, the replacement may earn the confidence, but it's not today.

The only problem is, how much risk are Apple ready to assume for that decision?

Classic counterexample being Tim’s predecessor, Steve Jobs who took Apple from the brink and changed it into the most successful company of all time.

> most successful company of all time

I think the Dutch East India Company still holds that crown.

Tim’s run at the company has been about building out services and not innovation.

Maybe it makes more sense to hire a designer like Ive as CEO.

Building out hugely profitable services as the lifecycle of technology refresh slows has been a huge part of Apple’s recent success.

Also making huge gambles on things like M1 / Apple Silicon show that Apple is still innovating and leading the way - even in spaces that were starting to be stagnant.

Let’s also not forget hugely profitable hardware lines under Tim such as Apple becoming the number 1 biggest watch retailer by revenue, and dominating the wireless earphones market (which it pretty much established itself too).

I think the bigger challenge in this case would be finding someone credible. There's lots of people who could do as good a job or better than Tim Cook but how do you know? And not just a fear of the risk but also the difficulty of putting in someone with the credibility to make decisive decisions

Steve Ballmer enters the chat

Steve Ballmer joining Apple would do for Microsoft's stock price what Steve Ballmer leaving Microsoft did for Microsoft's stock price.

i think that was more the function of the macro market. much of the foundation for microsoft’s second coming was laid by balmer. basically, i think he gets somewhat of an unfair rap ;-)

No one who worked at Microsoft under Ballmer & Satya believes this. I’m curious as to why people believe that Ballmer who missed every major tech trend, threw good money after chasing competitors and had zero idea how to build build good products “laid the foundation” versus acknowledging Satya’s significant success?

I interned at Microsoft when he was CEO and he gave us a lunch q&a.

The man is the most charismatic person I've ever seen speak in person. Given just how badly he ran Microsoft, I really think his ability to convince people of stuff is some kind of superpower.

Balmer extracted profits out of the established businesses while failing at everything else.

i never said satya wasn’t an incredible leader. i’ve heard as much from friends who work at microsoft.

i just don’t think it’s fair to look at the stock price of microsoft during ballers tenure at microsoft without applying the lens of the broader market.

Do you think Microsoft stock would be even near what it is today if it was led by Ballmer?

This is an extremely hard to imagine scenario...

It's certainly true that he was instrumental in their success. If someone else had been in post, it would've happened ten years earlier.

The risk is, can his replacement not fuck up the profits that apple generates ever quarter.

Any change or lack of action can take years to hit the bottom line.

Apple's biggest problem is that there is probably no one at Apple today who can replace Tim. The only person with the skillset to replace Tim is Elon, but Elon's temperament is a poor fit for Apple's shareholders.