Apple CEO Cook says succession planning is a priority

“Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook told shareholders at the company’s annual meeting to expect higher dividends and stressed that succession planning is a priority,” Mark Gurman reports for Bloomberg. “The CEO said he’s ‘not a fan’ of special dividends but said the company’s board remains ‘committed’ to annual dividend increases. Directors will discuss the issue in April, as in previous years, he noted.”

“Cook also made some of his most explicit comments on succession planning, saying that one of his most important roles as CEO is properly ‘passing the baton’ to a new leader,” Gurman reports. “Every Apple board meeting in recent years has had succession planning on the agenda for all key executive roles, he said.”

“The comments were prompted by a question on Cook’s succession and that of Jony Ive, the company’s chief design officer. Cook, 57, was named CEO in 2011, succeeding Jobs,” Gurman reports. “Ive returned to his management role in December.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Succession planning is only prudent.


  1. Prudent? Necessary?

    Tim Cook has a golden parachute and will leave Apple with hundreds of millions of dollars. He is rewarded with $250,000 per day.

    I won’t shed a tear for Timmy.

    1. Tim Cook built a foundation of execution that is easy to overlook, but created the Apple we have today. Before Tim Cook Apple could dream up all sorts of brilliant ideas and products, but couldn’t profit from them. Tim Cook’s Apple can take game-changing technology and churn out world-changing product lines that make billions in profits each month.

      Is he a Jobs? Nope. Never will be. Could we use a few more visionaries at the top of Apple? Yes. Could Apple afford to take a few more risks? Absolutely. Should Apple apply their winning approach to more areas? I’d like to see it, so long as they don’t spread themselves thinner than they are (how many moonshots have crashed and burned at the other tech giants, while they take their eyes of their knitting?)

      Tim is a keeper, and worth every penny. A replacement iwould be a very risky proposition with more down side than up.

      1. I don’t think that Tim Cook is planning for an imminent exit by him or any of the other top people at Apple, but any well run company needs to have contingency succession plans for all key people.

        We all know how the passing of Steve Jobs was planned for, but in his case, it was known for some time that his health was failing. There are illnesses, accidents or incidents which can happen without warning. Those sorts of circumstances need to be anticipated and planned for too and Apple has clearly done that and will continue to do so.

        One thing you can be pretty sure of is that Apple won’t be making public announcements about specific details but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if people try asking questions about who might be passed certain batons.

    2. You must be a lefty liberal…Believing in a flat society where those who do and dont are entilted to the same..
      Jealous of those who Acchive beyond you..
      Rather than respect and stive!

      Thats not how nature works.. at any level..
      Flat leads to Death.. in any realm.
      Flat =dead

      Think before u bash Fred….

  2. I don’t have a serious problem with Tim Cook as I’ve made plenty of Apple share gains with him as the CEO. My only problem is why Tim Cook isn’t able to boost Apple’s P/E to any degree. Maybe it’s just how Apple’s business is run and no CEO would be able to do it. It’s just that every day when I look at Amazon, the P/E is growing by leaps and bounds. I honestly can’t figure out why Amazon is worth so much more than Apple.

    Amazon’s P/E of 230 to Apple’s 16 is just crazy. Either Jeff Bezos is a genius or Tim Cook is an idiot. Something just doesn’t make any sense. Apple has all the cash and profits and yet it’s always Apple that’s doomed. So, maybe I shouldn’t be cursing Tim Cook and should just be praising Jeff Bezos for being able to excite investors to such a high degree.

    There are some things I can’t seem to grasp in my little brain, so I’m just left confused. P/E values are something I really can’t figure out and they seem so vague. They must be based on confidence alone. Tim Cook and Apple don’t seem to evoke much investor confidence at all. Even when Apple increases revenue, all the P/E does is compress and that’s so odd. Wall Street sees any gains in Apple revenue as a fluke. Why is that? I have no idea.

      1. AAPL has been treated like a gamble since Steve returned.
        Like magnificent, “I don’t get it” either. Though I also don’t get TC’s consistently dropping elemental balls (shipping/producing), I agree with many of disposa’s comments about TC. I think his efforts and successes in creating a broader foundation, via “annuity-type” incomes, that in time will lessen the perception of AAPL as a gamble and raise P/E. To the unfounded Amazon levels, no…I hope not.

    1. “Either Jeff Bezos is a genius or Tim Cook is an idiot.”

      No, both.
      Apple’s present revenue level is because:
      1. They are into a mass market item (the iPhone), which is selling like a hot cake.
      2. And they are priced high, very high.
      3. But the smartphone marketing is definitely reaching a plateau and soon becomes a commodity market, while more than 70% of the Apple revenue depends on the phone.
      4. It’s going to be interesting to see how Apple might make a transition to (or back to) non-phone company. Tim Cook’s usefulness is nearing the end. There are other individuals more suitable for the Apple’s true value.

      1. Wrong, Apple has a OS, Engineering, and chip making ability, Amazon, Facebook and Google do not, Apple’s biggest problem is letting those parasitic companies camp out in iOS and complete with them at the same time.

        1. Yes, that’s the point. If someone very capable is given the resources of Apple, will s/he might bring Apple to even a higher (and sustainable) level? That’s the question. I believe SJ appointed Tim Cook more as a caretaker to keep Apple going with available products. But one of the first jobs Cook did was to fire person (s) who was intended to be a true successor.

    2. Ya know, I scratched my head on this too long before realizing AAPL has become a game played by “players”. Even the Bears and haters know the innate trajectory of Apple’s deep rooted qualities yet instead of trading on fundamentals, it’s flipped, kicked, pushed then flipped again, repeatedly, not unlike many pinks. I don’t know of another, more reliable stock for this type of play. The result is longs are in great shape yet no where near not as great as the “players” are and anything between the two is futile. j/s

  3. Yeah, I know, the armchair CEO comment, but Tim Cook’s job could be delegated to any number of competent peanut counters (Apple must have hundreds of them), maybe even better one than Cook. But Apple need someone who has a technical prowess, flare of genius and ability to execute what seems to be a dream or impossible task, the one who has an ability to see where the puck is going to be, rather than chasing where it has been. Apple is increasingly becoming a follower than an innovator. No fun…

        1. Of course I knew he had an engineering degree. But look into his career, particularly in Apple. He is no engineer or has engineering flare obviously. That’s not he was trained in the actual job. It shows in his management style and where Apple is going. Shareholders know.

          1. Sorry.. but he is more of an engineer than Jobs, at least by credentials…. ..Jobs he was was a dropout.. with amazing Vision and Charisma and salesmanship!
            But he did not invent or engineer apple products… the Team did.

            1. That’s exactly right. All these guys with engineering flares (which we are talking about here) did not even complete their education. Two Steves of Apples, or even Bill Gates. I am an engineer but know that the flare would not come from the engineering eduction alone. Sometimes, it hinders a free and out of box thinking. It does give a training for looking at things with open minds, and think logically. But think “differently”? You need a natural born talent for that. Cook might be pleasing those who buy Apple stocks, but only for now. Is he thinking things more strategically, and say 5 to 10 years ahead? I do not know. But those who actually “built” great businesses tend to be “driven” by their natural ability, enthusiasm and instincts. Bezos, Mask and Google founders come to my mind. SJ was obviously one of them, although he might not be suitable for running already established company. He may not be a good manager in the size of Apple now. But Mr. Cook totally unimpresses me, although a great caretaker of ongoing business (for now, because of iPhone). YMMV.

            2. Kent T… of course YMMV… yet only in the rational universe….
              I hear you..
              But respectfuly disagree about your take on Tim.

              Apple is 3x the size from what it was when Steve Passed.

              This a ruthless realm of competion, fueled by massive potential for profit. Its not a vacuum for Apple to strive.

              Who brought it to 3x from Steves times.. … Tim!

              All critiques of Tim seem to forget that he had to deal with passing of an icon (to religious levels) …and also deal witn Apple growing 3x…and remaining the most profitable entity in its realm.

              Yes mistakes were made… and so many were made at Steves time too.

              Tim’s thankless job is to confront Steve’s Cult status following…… and on top the lack of the massive charsima Steve had …. despite arguably being an A-hole…and a genius in some sense (but not engineering or programing ) ….

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.