Apple's week December 5: departures

There's been a lot of movement with Apple's leadership this week, some expected, some out of nowhere. The reality is, regardless of whose leaving, retiring, or seeking new opportunities, Apple will still be Apple at the end of the day.

Let's all take a deep breath and stop inhaling the DOOM™ fumes.

Here's the news of the week:

• Apple owes its greatest strength to Giannandrea
• Newsom sees Cook's dealings with Trump as part of the job
• Alan Dye defects to Meta
• Lisa Jackson and Kate Adams retire
• Insanity wins ask clickbait about Cook's succession plan spreads
• Employees leaving Apple is only a tiny part of the story
• Apple chip chief Johny Srouji rumored to consider his own exit

Apple isn't a single person and never has been

This past week in particular has been interesting as an observer of Apple. It seems nearly every week in recent history has had some story about some person that was "important" to Apple's design or engineering has left the company.

It's an interesting story, though I'm not sure why. Either the source of these departures has gained new access to the employment database, or we are truly seeing more departures than usual in select spaces, but whatever the case, I'm certain Apple is fine and will continue to be fine.

This past week in particular has had legitimate Apple news setting a fire and rampant speculation and rumor acting as an accelerant. By Saturday, I was seeing discussions asking if Apple was falling apart from the inside.

Of course, this is ridiculous, and other tech news seems to slide by without consequence. For example, Mark Zuckerberg spent $77 billion on the failed Metaverse project and that's barely a footnote in this news cycle.

Make it make sense.

Shuffling the deck

John Giannandrea's retirement might seem related to Apple's AI rollout, and for all we know, it could be. But, all signs point to Apple embracing Giannandrea's mindset of on-device being the target, especially with their choice for successor.

Alan Dye leaving was apparently a surprise for Apple, which, sure, if Apple knew this was coming before June, he would not have been so heavily featured in a keynote. Either way, I'm not sure how much this really affects Apple in the short term, though people seem excited at his departure.

Then there's Lisa Jackson and Kate Adams. Sure, they're both important figures, especially Jackson, but retirement comes for us all. There's nothing to see here except for unfortunate timing for the announcement.

An idiotic story about Tony Fadell apparently telling some random people he wants to be Apple CEO apparently deserved coverage. That felt like the breaking point for this news cycle, but of course, we had to top it one more time.

Not to be outdone by The Information, Mark Gurman shared a story about a supposed conversation overheard by some random anonymous figure between Jony Srouji and Tim Cook. Allegedly, Srouji told Cook he was "seriously considering leaving in the near future." We weren't told the method of this discussion, what "near future" means, or the context of the discussion.

For all we know, the 61-year old Srouji could be talking about years from now. How can we even define "near future" when discussing a man nearing retirement age?

Liquid Glass isn't going anywhere

As far as Dye's team and some LinkedIn posts suggesting some number of Apple folks were leaving, whatever. There's a regular turnover at the company, and just because there are people paying attention and reporting on it now, doesn't make it noteworthy in any respect.

Apple is a big, secretive company. In the past few decades, there has always been some kind of figurehead in charge of the company, design, or whatever aspect everyone could point to and celebrate, or blame, depending on your feelings at the moment.

At the end of the day, these executives like Dye do have a lot of pull, and their departures do affect the company, but there's also a built-in mentality that's harder to change. One single person, even Ive, doesn't change Apple overnight by leaving for other pastures.

We'll see how Apple evolves in the next decade, but expect it to be slow and steady. Even Cook isn't going to go anywhere for another three to four years, at least until after the next presidential election. In the meantime, Liquid Glass will be refined, the visionOS platform will evolve and grow, and iPhone will continue to dominate the market.

This has all happened before

I really don't understand why there's so much attention on Apple's executive team. Sure, executives are important and drive the direction of the company. We've seen how much damage an individual like Musk or Zuckerberg can do to a single entity.

However, Apple has almost never been a figurehead company. Even with Jobs, he didn't invent the iPhone or iPod, but he played a role in ensuring Apple was heading in the right direction. Jobs' role in Apple was building a mindset that would be difficult to erode, which has proven true so far.

Cook's Apple is a different Apple from the one under Jobs, but its essence hasn't changed, not its core. The time under Cook has given us many innovations, some mistakes, and several reforms. Ultimately, Apple is still Apple, and it is better than it has ever been.

There will always be some users complaining about something. The humanity behind Apple as a corporation is flawed and can never be perfect. Perfect is boring, unachievable, and honestly, undesirable. I'd be out of the job if Apple were perfect.

Jobs died, and Cook had to prove he could continue pushing Apple from being the underdog to being the richest and most powerful company on Earth. Some don't like Apple not being an underdog, as it forced the company to be creative in some of its endeavors.

The company has become more careful thanks to its success, and that bothers people. So, even as we're about to see the most profitable quarter ever for the company, there's somehow a lot of speculation about Apple's future being in danger due to departing 60+ year-old executives.

I remember when Apple was doomed because it didn't have a diverse enough lineup and relied too much on the iPhone. It was months away from going bankrupt as soon as one "iPhone killer" arrived. It was then that the tech press ran with "iPhone killer" every time any Android OEM crapped out some new gimmick.

Then Apple diversified with services, wearables, and more. But Apple was doomed again at that point because "Apple forgot about its developers." The butterfly keyboard was a disaster, the trash can Mac Pro was a thermally limited failure, and the iPad was getting "too much attention," to the point of "Apple is abandoning the Mac."

Well that was all nonsense. It was a tumultuous period, and Ive left during all of that mess. It wasn't long after that there was a new Mac Pro, the introduction of Apple Silicon, and a new commitment to the Mac Platform.

Apple wasn't as doomed as tech journalists and pundits thought, I suppose. Maybe next time.

Oh, and the next inevitable DOOM™ for Apple is a doozy. An emerging technology arrived, and Apple wasn't first to the finish line – artificial intelligence. That's an ongoing and silly controversy I've already spilled too much ink on. But of course, Apple is doomed yet again if it can't release a better slop generator than the grifters.

Even as all these doomcasters cry out about Apple being irreparably behind and losing relevance by the second, consumers are having a very different reaction. They're buying Apple products and services consistently, increasingly, over time. It's to the point now that Apple's biggest quarter in history is about to take place.

Everything in this world seems to be getting increasingly controversial at a faster pace. So of course, while the doomers are calling for Apple's destruction due to being "behind" in AI, there's a new controversy brewing that Apple has a brain drain problem.

Every departure from engineers and team leaders to executives is being treated as a failure that will result in the ultimate unraveling and destruction of the company. I won't pretend these various people leaving have zero effect, but I'm not worried either. Apple will continue being Apple.

I think it is a mistake to cling to these people like they're some kind of god-like visionaries. Sure, Srouji has been amazing for Apple's chip team, but he didn't single-handedly build Apple Silicon.

There's no way of knowing what's next or how these moves will affect Apple, but I wouldn't count them out. Every DOOM™ predicted by analysts has not come to pass, and this one won't either. Apple has done a lot to ensure its teams are made up of diverse people and ideas while seeping its ethos into every corner.

It would take quite the personality to change Apple in any significant way. And if someone tried to do something too different, the pushback, internal and external, would likely squash it.

But let's also not forget, change can also be for the better.