Apple Needs an Editor 2

There's a scene in Danny Boyle's 2015 movie Steve Jobs where Jobs (played by Michael Fassbender) checks in on his Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogan),¹ who just had an outburst ahead of the big event to unveil the NeXTcube. Jobs is condescending in his comments to Woz, which sets him off:

While the movie itself is frustratingly average, there are a handful of scenes like this one that are memorable thanks to the pithy dialogue – as one might expect in a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin.² And while it's obviously a fictionalized version of reality, it also sort of perfectly captures both a criticism and a strength of Jobs. He didn't code. He didn't manufacture. He didn't design. What he did was push the people who did those jobs to master their disciplines through iteration and refinement in order to make something great. He was, in a sense, a conductor. But also, in a way I'm far more familiar with, an editor.

I found myself thinking of this scene and notion after writing my initial take on Apple's iPhone 16 event a couple days ago. As I concluded in the post entitled "Apple Needs an Editor":

Apple, of course, would counter that they needed to go into detail about all the amazing new features. I'm sure plenty of them are amazing. AirPods fully becoming hearing aids – that's amazing. The new camera shutter button seems amazing. But you need to leave the audience wanting more, not less. Many of us left wanting less today. That doesn't mean the iPhone is going to sell less or that Apple is doomed. It just means that they need an editor. Today, "a thousand no's for every yes" felt a bit more like "a few hundred no's for every yes".

Ostensibly I was talking about the event, critiquing its length and cadence. But really, I was also talking about the company as a whole.

This is not a new critique. In a way, it's a version of the always uncomfortably morbid, "this would never happen if Steve Jobs were still alive". That phrase has been thrown around, often casually, basically since Jobs' untimely death 13 years ago. In just about every respect, Apple is now a far more successful company than it was when Jobs left. Revenue. Profit. Market cap. There's simply no comparison. And the scale at which Apple now operates under Tim Cook is just beyond. There's a reason this is nearly a $3.5T company – the most valuable in the world.

At the same time, you can certainly make the case that nearly all of the original innovation that led Apple to their current state was put in place by Steve Jobs. Or, as it were, edited by him. The Mac. The iPhone. The iPad. Even Apple's now all-important Services business started, essentially, with iTunes, which eventually morphed into the App Store under Jobs. And iCloud – the last product Jobs unveiled on stage. That all-important and now imperiled Google search deal? Yeah…

Yes, the Apple Watch is a huge success now. But that started as very much an offshoot of iOS and the iPhone – it even needed the latter to operate. And undoubtedly at least talk of it started on it under Jobs. The AirPods are amazing, but they're also wireless EarPods. They're a technical achievement, that were also in many ways inevitable. The Vision Pro seems to be fully of the Cook Era, for better, but mostly for worse, so far. The Apple Car? Too soon?

My point isn't Apple under Cook is stuck – or, if you prefer Phil Schiller's more colorful phrasing, "can't innovate anymore, my ass"³ – it's that they're still too stuck on the ideas and products that Apple berthed under Jobs. I made this same basic argument back in May, right after Apple unveiled the new iPad Pro. It's a beautiful device – super svelte and insanely fast with its state-of-the-art M4 chip – but it's also beyond bending over backwards to remain true to Jobs' ideal of what an iPad should be. In noting that Apple has essentially created a less functional laptop with the iPad Pro + Magic Keyboard case that they refuse to let run macOS, I wrote:

But Apple won't do this because it not only blurs but basically erases the line between the iPad and the Mac. Users want this, Apple does not. Why? Again, legacy. These are two separate products, as told by Steve Jobs.

I feel like at a high level this has long been an issue for Apple – being wedded to the past. When I look at what's going on in Apple's ever-growing regulatory battles, it's the same story to me: Apple, and in this case, longtime SVP and now Fellow, Phil Schiller is absolutely locked into the notion that the App Store should run as it did when it started. As if the rules around it were handed down on stone tablets from Jobs atop the mountain. Nevermind that the world was a very different place in 2008. And nevermind that many of those rules come from humorous wrinkles in time that have nothing to do with apps, let alone smartphones. These are the rules! We must protect them. We must protect this house!

Apple would have benefitted long ago from changing with the times a bit more. And I suspect the regulatory heat would be considerably cooler today had they done so. Certainly they'd have more developers on their side in such fights, which feels critical. Instead, it's Apple's way or the highway. And again, that often means the Steve Jobs' way – even though the Apple co-founder passed away almost 13 years ago.

Today's Apple is stubborn. Perhaps because Jobs himself was famously stubborn. But he also had this great ability to change his mind. Perhaps the single greatest trait in business. Jobs could rail on something non-stop and dig in his heels while berating what he thought was a bad idea. And then, on a dime, he would change his mind. Perhaps taking the point of view of the person he was so adamantly arguing with. This must have been incredibly frustrating, but also, oddly, refreshing. Because what really matters is making the right call.

Increasingly, it feels to me as if Apple prefers to make no calls. Certainly not hard ones when it comes to product lines. As such, we have SKU bloat galore – do we really need two different versions of the AirPods 4? – and, more glaringly, product names that are starting to sound like barcodes.

Apple's website right now is headlined with the following:

Introducing iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16, built for Apple Intelligence. All‑new Apple Watch Series 10 and AirPods 4. Apple Watch Ultra 2 and AirPods Max in fresh new colors. And AirPods Pro 2, with hearing health features coming this fall.

Meanwhile, presenters during the event this week were doing oral gymnastics so as not to verbally trip over talking about the iPhone 16 powered by the A18 and the iPhone 16 Pro Max powered by the A18 Pro running iOS 16. Which can now be paired with the AirPods 4, powered by the H2 chip. But they also still work with the AirPods Pro 2, which remain more premium than the AirPods 4, despite the naming scheme and also having the H2 chip. Both are also less premium than the AirPods Max – not the AirPods Max 2, which don't yet exist – even though it only has the H1 chip. Meanwhile, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 also isn't the Apple Watch Ultra 3 this year, but is now available in black. Sorry, 'Satin Black'. Not to be confused with 'Jet Black' or 'Space Black' or 'Space Gray' (which is basically black) or 'Midnight'. That premium smartwatch still features the S9 chip, while the Apple Watch Series 10 features the S10 chip. Both of these will soon run watchOS 11.

16 Pro, 16, Series 10, 4, Ultra 2, Max, Pro 2, A18, 16 Pro Max, A18 Pro, 16, H2, H1, S9, S10, 11. What the hell is goin on? This all reads like a riddle that Desmond on Lost must not forget.

Close your eyes for a moment. Imagine the year is 2034. Apple has just held their event to unveil the iPhone 26 and the iPhone 26 Pro and the iPhone 26 Pro Max. They are powered by the A28 and A28 Pro chips. Perhaps an A28 Turbo Bionic for the iPhone 26 Pro Max Ultra. That chip is similar to the M14, but different. All of these devices run iOS 26 featuring Apple Intelligence X. Also new this year: the AirPods 14 and the AirPods Pro 11 and the AirPods Max 7. Most of these have the H8 chip, which can run Apple Intelligence 7, but some have H7 which runs Apple Intelligence 6. And we have the Apple Watch Series 20. And the Apple Watch SE (6th generation). And the Apple Watch Max 8. These all either run on the S20 or S19 or S18 chips. And they run watchOS 21, which features Apple Intelligence 8.

This is a joke but it also feels pretty likely to be true! And it's illustrative of my point. It's great that Apple has hit a groove with such wonderful products. But hit that groove enough times and it wears down and out. I'm not saying Steve Jobs would have killed the iPhone 16, I'm just saying he would have figured out a better way to package it and market it and present it.

At some point, Apple needs to stop focusing on pushing out iterative updates at marquee events that people will tire of – some already are. At the very least, they need to stop focusing on too-slick video presentations and focus on the energy of live events again. There's a reason the Steve Jobs movie was built around three separate live events, not video demos.

Apple needs to not only focus on what's next, but also potentially cull the various product lines. Pull back to focus on making sure everything they do is the best, not just everything. They need a point of view. An editor.

¹ This scene is especially good since Jobs is poking fun at Woz for his computer wristwatch that Jobs contends that any flight attendant would think is a bomb. The Apple Watch is now a $15B - $20B business for Apple.

² While Woz tried to put Jobs on defense with the question, Jobs immediately turns the table and shifts back to offense. "And you're a good musician, you sit right there, you're the best in your row." The fact that the scene plays out in an orchestra pit just adds to it all.

³ Also not ultimately a successful product, I should add.