There’s a piece on Apple at the New York times today.
Farhad says Apple has done very well “financially” under Tim Cook. That’s the measure of any CEO’s success. So Tim Cook according to him should be praised not criticized.
Here’s the thing:
Under Steve Ballmer, Microsoft revenues doubled and profits tripled. He was still criticized as “not a good CEO”. I disagree on that BTW.
The stock market notwithstanding, Ballmer did a great job given what he was supposed to do.
If you read Farhad’s piece on Steve Ballmer a few years ago on Slate, he was a bad CEO, because he moved from music players to XBOX to other things. He also said later, that Steve Sinofsky leaving meant the wrong Steve leaving.
So much for consistency.
So which is it Farhad? Why should Steve B be maligned for boosting profits and revenues, while Tim C be praised for the same?
<This was the Twitter conversation the two of us had on the topic>. Great to see him engage to tell his side of the story.