That’s the shocking implication of the headline of a recent report by Financial Times. The piece is behind a paywall, so I don’t have access to the full context. Let’s come back to the question of legacy in a moment. First, the other big allegation in this piece is that Tim Cook sided with Apple’s operations team and against Apple’s design team. Here’s Macworld’s summary of the report:
The Financial Times, citing two anonymous sources “familiar with Apple’s decision-making,” reports that conflicting ideas of how and when to launch the company’s first AR/VR product led to a schism at Apple: The operations team wanted to ship as soon as possible, but the design team preferred to wait and launch a lighter and sleeker version several years down the line. Tim Cook, according to the FT, sided with operations “and overruled the early objections from Apple’s designers to wait for the tech to catch up with their vision.
I’m on record as being very skeptical of Apple’s long-rumored upcoming VR headset. It’s easy to see what benefits such a product could provide, but it’s rumored to be incredibly expensive, and with a bulky external component. VR headsets are inherently inelegant, and based on all of the rumored descriptions of the product it’s hard for me to envisage a compelling spin on the concept from Apple. That said, historic precedent tells me to trust Apple’s judgement, and I’m certainly curious to hear the story they want to tell about this product.
Getting back to the report, the whole thing is framed as a blow to the internal influence of Apple’s design team after the departure of Jony Ive. It’s almost arguing that if only Jony Ive were still here, he could prevent Apple from making a huge strategic blunder. Gee, corporate tech press, can you decide whether or not Jony Ive is an irreplaceable genius, or if he’s the scapegoat for all of your Apple design complaints over the last decade?
There’s always got to be a point with any new product where you have to decide to ship now, or wait for future refinements. Products are always all about accepting some level of tradeoffs. Could the original iPhone have benefitted for waiting for technology advances that weren’t ready in 2007? You bet. But was it the right time to ship it and radically disrupt the cell phone market? Without question.
That’s why I’m not worried about rumored internal Apple disagreement over the right time to ship this VR headset. It might well be too early. Heck, I’m not convinced it’s a good idea to release a product like this at all. But it sounds like we’ll all be able to judge for ourselves soon enough.
Later on in the Macworld recap we get this:
But perhaps most importantly to Cook, the headset is seen as something of a securing of his legacy as CEO. After launching the Apple Watch and AirPods during his tenure, the AR headset is expected to set a new direction within Apple that looks beyond the iPhone and expands Cook’s influence for years to come. With talk of his retirement never far from pundits’ minds, it’s no wonder that Apple’s immensely successful boss is keen to make sure it launches sooner rather than (even) later.
This is a terrible paragraph, and since I don’t have access to the Financial Times story, I don’t know how much of this is their fault. For instance, the first sentence in the Macworld quote above is mere assertion with nothing provided to support it. Is Tim Cook planning to retire soon? No one knows. If so is he eager to impress the corporate tech press on his way out the door and that’s what’s motivating a decision that is framed here as self-interested and rushed? Color me doubtful.
Sure, a major new product category could bolster Tim Cook’s legacy, but mishandling one could kill his reputation.
Besides, Tim Cook doesn’t really need to do anything else to improve his legacy. He already did what was deemed by many to be impossible: He significantly great the company after the untimely death of Steve Jobs and oversaw the release revolutionary market disrupters in the Apple Watch and AirPods while revitalizing the Mac through the transition away from Intel to Apple silicon.
Apple Watch shipped too early and emphasized fashion over usefulness. One could argue that the G4 cube was a too-early Mac Mini. MacBook Air shipped too early and aimed at the wrong market as a premium product versus the entry level model it became. Balance in everything. There is legit concern given the de-emphasis upon design and the loss of talent lately, but the new pro laptops have been bangers. I don’t see the market here. But I’m an old. Wait and see I suppose. Apple can absorb a flop. Steve had his share.