Should Tim Cook Be Replaced?

Many investors are beginning to question Tim Cook's ability to lead Apple  (NASDAQ: AAPL  ) , particularly when it comes to driving innovation in the manner in which Steve Jobs was so adept.

While recognizing that Jobs is irreplaceable, Motley Fool analyst Joe Tenebruso believes that Tim Cook has done a lot of things that shareholders have wanted for a long time -- and that Jobs might not have done -- such as initiating a dividend and instituting the largest share buyback in history. But can Cook drive innovation at Apple? Joe thinks we'll have the answer to that question soon. For more, check out the following video.

Apple has a history of cranking out revolutionary products -- and then creatively destroying them with something better. Read about the future of Apple in the free report, "Apple Will Destroy Its Greatest Product." Can Apple really disrupt its own iPhones and iPads? Find out by clicking here.

 


Read/Post Comments (8) | Recommend This Article (6)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 11:43 PM, DanManners wrote:

    Great question! Your articles / videos are so informative. But let me answer the queston succintly.

    Cook needs to go and now. I said this before. If Elron Musk became CEO of Apple would you think the stock would go up? I think it would go up $100 in a day. That is because Musk is another visionary and has done amazing things.

    Cook is a hohum CEO and no "insanely great" company can continue at an insanely great level with out a Jobs or Musk leader. It is inevitable that Apple will keep falling. We will get a few nice rallies as bulls think Apple is tilting towards renews success but it will keep falling back as reality sets in. By next year we will all know that Cook is never going to grow Apple again and that it will begin a slow decline at best. The decline could be much more rapid than anyone expects.

    While Apple is not the next Nokia or Blackberry, it will take a big hit. The phalet phones are replacing the small tablets. People have one account, one phone bill and one device. Older people can see things easier and gamers enjoy the decent sized screen to play games.

    Apple will probably never come out with a screen that is bigger than 4 inches. TIm Cook said it was challenging. For Apple but not for any other company selling smartphones. Even if he comes out with one next year, it is late to the game.

    iWatch and iTV could help. Some say that Apple is too big for those to matter but Apple may not be that big in the near future as it continues to lose market share on a world wide basis.

    The annual meeting will be here in February 2014 and that is less than 6 months away. If Cook says he feels our pain once more then I will feel his pain as the board removes him from the CEO position.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 12:05 AM, PeterPham88 wrote:

    Look, one year ago when Tesla was on the verge of folding down due to public pessimism on electric car, who said he is a visionary?

    Even Steve Jobs had to turn to colorful Mac as a marketing trick until ideas and visions on ipod, iphone, ... emerged and solidified.

    Tim is the same, if you do not expect Tim and Apple to be not chicken laying gold eggs every morning, you will be fine.

    It takes time to invent and gets things right.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Flabingo wrote:

    Either Musk takes over or Buffett buys some stock either will be a big winner

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Flabingo wrote:

    Musk takes over and Buffett buys Apple stock

    700 plus in a week

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 1:04 AM, Charismatron wrote:

    Cook should have been respectfully removed from his role as the sole Apple front man a long time ago. Branding is important to every company, and while Cook is profitable to Apple he's unprofitable to the brand.

    There's nothing about Cook--past or present--that says "product guy"; his tone and body language lacks enthusiasm for what's on offer. Worse, the way his voice drops off at the end of his words is the opposite of energetic: it's hard to listen to because the way we hear equates it with sadness or depression.

    Cook is good for Apple in many ways, but as head honcho representative of an innovative, edgy, cracking-with-energy brand he's simply in the wrong place being asked to do something unnatural to his character.

    Viewers of Apple keynotes are clearly aware who shows generates excitement for the brand. It's fairly unanimous that for as good as he is for Apple's bottom line, that voice doesn't belong to Tim Cook.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 8:12 AM, demodave wrote:

    Who's Elron Musk? I know DanManners is a troll, but I'm not at all sure who "Elron" Musk is.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 8:24 AM, demodave wrote:

    "Cook should have been respectfully removed from his role as the sole Apple front man a long time ago. Branding is important to every company, and while Cook is profitable to Apple he's unprofitable to the brand."

    I'll be honest: I've only been watching AAPL really seriously since about 2009. (I made my first investment in 2003.) I don't recall a lot of people other than Jobs getting much attention before his passing. I know I hear a lot more about the other people at Apple now: Ive, Schiller, Federighi, Cue, ...

    Maybe that is because Tim is more restrained. Maybe that's a change in management vision.

    As a long holder, I don't think Cook is Apple's problem. I think it's people who think they know better than Apple how to run Apple and who have no patience.

    Cook was chosen to lead Apple by Jobs himself. I'm guessing Jobs knows a *lot* more about how to run Apple than any of us here on The Fool.

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2013, at 4:46 PM, dpludwig wrote:

    Fire Tim Cook? Give me a break.

    Let's think about this for a second.

    In his final years at Apple, even Steve Jobs was stumped with coming up with a new product after introducing the iPhone and iPad, and here's why.

    Jobs could have decided to deliver the iPad sooner but decided not to for fear of cannibalizing unit sales of the iPod (this has actually come to pass if you examine YoY sales of the iPod).

    Think about it - there is nothing from an engineering and technology standpoint (touch screen, Wifi and 3G) found within the iPad that can't be found in the iPod Touch and iPhone.

    The point of this is that Apple had no new products in the pipeline to succeed the iPad and iPhone, and even Jobs couldn't do anything about it.

    He made a smart business decision by keeping iPad under wraps to maximize sales of existing units before they could be cannibalized by the iPad.

    Give Tim Cook a break.

    Seriously.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2638320, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2014 4:21:35 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement