Tim Cook, the man who grew Apple by trillions of dollars


Tim Cook on stage at Apple Park- image credit: AppleTim Cook on stage at Apple Park- image credit: Apple

He was a businessman instead of a designer, but as Apple CEO, Tim Cook also had to become far more of a politician than any of his predecessors. Here’s how he started at Apple, ran the company, and will end his career.

Tim Cook was Apple’s seventh CEO, he was the longest-serving, and he was only the third who wasn’t fired. Then it’s true that like every Apple CEO before him, he was white, male, and a similar age, but in business terms, he was also the most transformative of them all.

That includes being more business and financially transforming than Steve Jobs. Where Cook will never be as much remembered for products as Jobs still is, he was more of a businessman and, latterly, vastly more of a politician.

It is because of Tim Cook that Apple became the most valuable company in the world. It is because of him that Apple’s valuation topped $4 trillion.

And it is also because of both his politics and his logistical skill that Apple weathered Trump’s tariffs.

Rehearsal for success

Arguably Mike Markkula effectively had the role and responsibilities of a chief executive officer while he was recruiting Michael Scott to be the first official CEO. Following that, Markkula became Apple’s second CEO, while he was recruiting John Sculley.

Two middleaged men stand close together indoors, conversing; one faces forward with arms crossed, the other in glasses and dark clothing holds a white mug, background slightly blurred

Tim Cook (left) with Steve Jobs- image credit: Apple

But Tim Cook was officially acting CEO twice before getting the role full time. That’s because he filled in for Steve Jobs on at least the two extended periods when Jobs was on sick leave.

Then once more with the arguable exceptions of Markkula and Jobs, Tim Cook was the first Apple CEO to be promoted from within the company. He came in hot, then, knowing the company, and having been a key part of its success in the Steve Jobs years.

What Cook brought to the CEO role

Just as with John Sculley before him, Tim Cook needed no persuading to meet with Steve Jobs. And just as with Sculley, Cook had no intention of actually joining Apple afterwards.

Both men were just interested to meet with the near-legend who was Jobs. Then just as Sculley hadn’t planned to leave Pepsi, this was now 1998 and Cook was too well established as vice president of corporate materials for Compaq, after years being with IBM.

Two middleaged men with short gray hair sit onstage against a dark blue background, one speaking while holding a cup, both wearing glasses and dark casual tops

Tim Cook (left) with Steve Jobs- image credit: Apple

Professionally and financially, Cook was heading to what looked like the top of his field. It sounds now as if the sole person telling him he should join Apple was Steve Jobs, and it’s certain that everyone else Cook asked advice from winced at the idea.

Yet once more there was the allure of Jobs’s powers of persuasion. Jobs presumably wouldn’t have been thinking ahead to his successor as CEO yet, but still he managed to make Chief Operating Officer sound irresistible.

Apparently, the key to that was how strongly Jobs was directing Apple and conveying the kind of company he was making it into.

“[So] I was never going to find my purpose working some place without a clear sense of purpose of its own,” Cook said in a commencement speech in 2017. “I tried meditation, I sought guidance and religion.”

“I read great philosophers and authors,” he continued. “In a moment of youthful indiscretion, I might even have experimented with a Windows PC, and, obviously, that didn’t work.”

It’s easy to say now in hindsight that he made the right choice because of what Apple did become, and what he became within Apple. But it didn’t take years for hindsight to kick in, as a suddenly struggling Compaq was acquired by Hewlett-Packard in 2002.

Perhaps if Cook had stayed, Compaq might have better managed the price war it got into with Dell. But whether he could have mitigated against Compaq’s dark days, he joined Apple when it was only just out of its own worst time.

Steve Jobs had got Apple into safer waters by cutting away at costly niche products. Then Cook cut away at what he considered to be unnecessary expense.

Three men sit on stools on a stage; the middle man gestures while holding a water bottle, and all wear casual clothes with jeans and microphones attached

L-R: Tim Cook, Steve Jobs, Phil Schiller- image credit: Apple

Most specifically, this is the point when Apple moved away from owning its own factories. That itself was a risky move because you’re only deferring costs by renting, and the new owners need to make a profit too.

But in Apple’s case, relying on third-party factories meant that it was no longer tied to its own expensive plants and facilities. It could change suppliers incredibly quickly, if necessary, and also order only what it needed, when it is needed.

This Just in Time manufacturing system puts the onus on these third-party firms to deliver components. That in turn meant that suddenly Apple no longer needed to hold stock, either of components or finished devices.

It was dependent on those suppliers, certainly, but before Apple, only Dell had seen the real benefits of this. “If I’ve got 11 days of inventory and my competitor has 80,” said Michael Dell in the late 90s, “and Intel comes out with a new 450 megahertz chip, that means I’m going to get to market 69 days sooner.”

Bold choices

Whether you rate Tim Cook or not, he doesn’t tend to come across as someone who makes wild decisions as CEO. But he did gamble as COO.

Specifically, when the iMac was being developed, it was Cook who booked an enormous amount of space on freight aircraft. He spent millions when conceivably the iMac might not have been finished in time.

Smiling man in glasses and dark turtleneck sits cross-legged on a table, holding a colorful translucent CRT desktop computer against a dark background

Steve Jobs (pictured) and Jony Ive are the nest-known reasons for the iMac’s success, but Cook was also integral – image credit: Apple

It was, and the iMac was also a hit, so even at first glance, it looks like Cook’s gamble paid off. Apple had a huge success and also had the ability to ship that device to people.

Yet there was more to it. Cook had gambled on securing all of that freight space, true, but he also did it early enough that he shut out rivals.

Consequently, even if a PC maker had created a true iMac rival, they would not have been able to get it to customers. This was specifically because of Cook’s grasp of what could sound like a dull and insignificant topic, his expertise in business.

Apple had previously had CEOs who technology visionaries such as Steve Jobs, and it had also had business CEOs like John Sculley. During the 2000s, it looked as if Apple would have the partnership of visionary CEO Jobs and businessman COO Cook forever.

But then by the time of WWDC 2008, Apple was having to reassure people that Steve Jobs had just been feeling a little under the weather.

Not a product person

Now, of course, we know that Jobs was succeeded by Cook, but at the time, there were years of speculation. It was also different to today in that this time Apple seems to have managed announcing the handover from Cook to incoming CEO John Ternus, very well.

Back in the late 2000s, the change from Jobs to Cook was much more startling. Or at least, it was for everyone outside of Apple.

Middleaged man with short gray hair and glasses speaks onstage, wearing a dark buttondown shirt, against a plain dark blue background.

Tim Cook presenting at WWDC- image credit: Apple

Jobs had continued to be visibly ill for some years, but accounts at the time were frustrated with how Apple appeared to have no plan. Of course it did, and that plan was surely always to have Tim Cook take over permanently.

It was only as he actually took over, though, that the plan was revealed, and later we learned of Steve Jobs’s assertion that Cook “can do everything.”

Yet that quote from Jobs was said to his biographer, who reports that it wasn’t all the Apple co-founder said about Cook. Most significantly, Jobs is said to have been concerned that Cook “is not a product person.”

Jobs meant this in the way that someone like himself or Jony Ive would obsess over the details of a product. By all accounts, Cook certainly wasn’t like that, and it may well be that John Ternus is.

Yet arguably, Ternus can now be like this — and towards the end Jobs could be too — because of Cook’s business acumen. Clearly he wasn’t alone, and a 2025 estimate put the number of people working on logistics and operations at 7,895.

But where Jobs had grown Apple enough to make it safe from bankruptcy, when Cook was Chief Operating Officer, he grew it still further. Then when he became CEO, Cook drove the company to the unimaginable size it is today.

It’s that size and that bank balance that means, for instance, that only Apple has been able to even briefly ride out the current shortages of memory and processors without raising prices.

The time will come when it has to, and Apple has already cut various configurations of Macs as a result of the shortages. But it has been weathering this storm, and right before it, Apple also weathered Trump’s illegal tariffs.

We may never know even a fraction of what Apple did to minimize the impact of those tariffs that were so steep, and so changeable. But we do know that in the first few months of the situation, Apple spent $900 million revamping its supply and delivery chains around the world.

That’s a staggeringly low sum for a global reorganization, especially when the situation was one that would change at Trump’s whims. But of course it is also a staggeringly huge sum that would and probably did mean the end for other firms.

Under Tim Cook, if Apple never sold another device, it would still run at full capacity with its 164,000 employees, for around five years.

But if it is Cook’s leadership and expertise that meant Apple has escaped a lot of costs, it’s Cook’s leadership that has left it with reputational damage.

Cook and Trump

When Tim Cook steps down in September 2026, he is officially going to become Apple Executive Chairman. But really the job title should be Executive in Charge of Trump.

Steve Jobs never supported politicians or gave them random trophies, but then he never needed to. We can only guess how Jobs would have worked with Trump, if he even would.

Several men in business suits tour a busy electronics factory, examining a large metallic device while workers and computer equipment appear in the background

Tim Cook (left) shows Trump the Mac Pro – image credit: Apple

Whereas we know that Tim Cook, in the main, has been willing to work with the administration more than some. He’s also been able to work with it more than most, to the extent that Trump has praised him for coming to “kiss my ass.”

Your opinion of how Cook works with Trump depends greatly on your opinion of both men. But if there’s any question over how differently things could have gone for Apple, there’s at least one clue.

In May 2025, Trump visited the Middle East, and reportedly told Cook to come with him. Because Cook didn’t, Trump announced a 25% tariff on every iPhone imported into the US.

Trump also took the unusual step of admitting that it would be Apple, a US company, that paid the tariff bill. Up to then he’d falsely claimed that it was foreign firms that would.

Two men in suits sit at a conference table, smiling and talking animatedly, with microphones, papers, and a glass of water in front of them and a U.S. flag behind.

Tim Cook (left) with Trump- image credit: Apple/White House

But then for all of the outcry and criticism over, for instance, Cook attending the controversial screening of the “Melania” documentary at the White House, Cook has resisted more pressures than some. Unlike very many US corporations, for instance, Apple has refused to drop its DEI program.

Cook’s products

Similarly, Cook may have accelerated or rearranged Apple’s investment in US manufacturing, but he’s refused direct orders to stop production in India. He has told Trump why the iPhone can’t be made in the US, and even convinced him of that.

Cook also showed Trump around a US factory that was assembling the Mac Pro. That isn’t an Apple product that has fared well during Cook’s time, but that’s chiefly because of something that did do spectacularly.

Under John Sculley’s time, Apple moved from Motorola processors to the PowerPC and saw a great performance boost. Under Steve Jobs’s time, Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel, and saw an even greater one.

Two men in blue sweaters stand talking inside a brightly lit textile factory, surrounded by fast-moving orange threads and large spools on complex weaving machinery

Tim Cook in Japan, visiting Inoue, which manufactures Apple Watch Ultra bands – image credit: Tim Cook

But it was under Tim Cook that Apple moved to its own Apple Silicon, and the result was dramatic. Suddenly the new Apple Silicon Mac mini, the lowest-cost Mac, was able to go up against the most costly Mac Pro, at least in certain circumstances.

But still Apple Silicon simultaneously boosted the performance of every Mac, and levelled the playing field for them all too. The Mac Pro’s true competitor, the device that ultimately caused its downfall, was the Mac Studio which Cook launched.

During his time, he also launched the Apple Watch, AirTags, and AirPods. He launched the iPhone X in 2017, which became the model for all smartphones, just as the original iPhone had ten years before.

He did also then launch the Apple Vision Pro which, for all its marvels, is not quite as visibly a ubiquitous global hit as the rest.

But then they may not appear to get as much attention as devices like the Apple Vision Pro, yet Apple’s services have grown into a gigantic part of the company’s business. Under Tim Cook, we got Apple Pay, Apple Card, Apple Music, and the superb Apple TV.

Smiling man with short gray hair in a black T-shirt sits relaxed at an outdoor cafe, surrounded by people at white tables under trees on a sunny day

Tim Cook around 2014 when he came out as gay- image credit: Apple

We did also get the reportedly struggling service of Apple Fitness+, and Apple News+ which is limited unless you’re in the US. And we also got Apple Arcade, which is fine, plus Apple Maps which ultimately became great.

For a man who isn’t into products, Tim Cook saw a lot of them launch during his time. He perhaps won’t be remembered for them as much as he will for how he worked with Trump.

But neither specific products nor particular administrations are what Cook himself believes his time will be remembered for. Describing Apple as a whole, rather than his own contribution in particular, Cook often said that it would be health that the firm will be known for.

“If you zoom out into the future, and you look back, and you ask the question, ‘What was Apple’s greatest contribution to mankind?’ it will be about health,” he said in 2019.

He said that at what would turn out to be just about the midpoint of his 15 years as Apple CEO. That’s one year longer than Steve Jobs, and Cook’s influence is not over.

Several of Apple’s previous CEOs stayed with the company after stepping down or being removed, but it was chiefly a contractual thing where they had no responsibilities. In Tim Cook’s case, the new CEO John Ternus is going to have him around as Apple Executive Chair to consult with.

Middle-aged man with short dark hair, light stubble, and a friendly smile, wearing a black crew-neck shirt against a plain light gray background

Apple’s next CEO, John Ternus- image credit: Apple

At least for the first two years of his time in that role, though, it now appears that Cook’s job will be handling Trump. He’s demonstrated that he can do it, and do it over the long term.

But then Cook has also demonstrated more altruism than might be expected from the CEO of the most profitable company in the world. He’s repeatedly donated to charities, for instance, and while his salary was far from the highest for a US CEO, he has at times asked for it to be cut.

Then while the focus of this piece has been on Cook’s role as Apple CEO, he has himself used that role for a wider purpose. In 2014, he came out as gay, saying that he did so in the hopes that it might help people struggling with their own sexuality.

“Being gay has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority and provided a window into the challenges that people in other minority groups deal with every day,” Cook wrote in an open letter. “It’s made me more empathetic, which has led to a richer life. It’s been tough and uncomfortable at times, but it has given me the confidence to be myself, to follow my own path, and to rise above adversity and bigotry.

“It’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros, which comes in handy when you’re the CEO of Apple.”

Apple at 50: How each of its CEOs shaped the company



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link