Views: Apple fading, still have jobs back-jobs, Apple shares-IT information

Yesterday, Apple suffered a historic moment, the record of 51 consecutive quarters of growth to a halt. 2016 1 Apple is extremely ugly quarter: revenue and profit both fell for the first time in 13 years. But the culprit may not be the current CEO Cook.

Six years ago, when Samsung launched its first 4-inch large-screen mobile phone, jobs said, who's going to buy a big-screen phone? But it turns out he was wrong, while one hand big-screen phone is big, but you soon get used to the two thumbs at the same time starts. Successor experienced Cook struggled from jobs and in the end of the "two Whatevers" liberated, launched the iPhone6, otherwise Apple's decline is likely to come much earlier.

Jobs ' God exists-the product of accurate grasp and good taste, as well as arbitrary character, portraying a phenomenal company Apple, once occupied by the world's largest company by market capitalisation list not only the first, more Apple products became a spiritual identity. However, in the beginning of the story, Apple building gives birth to two cracks in the Foundation.

First visit – the first cracks under charismatic leaders. This kind of genius supermen-leader of any institution and organization, from a long-time, was a disaster.

Published in more than 70 years ago by management guru Peter Drucker's concept of the Corporation when it was mentioned, a company can survive and successful business lies on three interdependent issues: leadership, fundamental policy issues, as well as the standards of the actions and decisions. Is one of the most decisive leadership, "Organization of companies must make it to ordinary people, under the leadership of sustainability. No one under the management of the institution forever. "For large companies, in particular.

Apple's framework itself is not set up for ordinary people, it is born for genius.

Among the outstanding entrepreneurs, jobs has rare artist's aesthetic tastes, psychologists insights into human nature, as well as data and research are inherently dismissive and confident of their intuition, in his eyes, consumers are used to guide rather than to cater for. More importantly, he also succeeded in turning these intuitions, and brainstorm ideas into product details, market orientation and company strategy.

Jobs are also not in the typical sense of "good", he was not humble, not thoughtful, not devolution. In business management, jobs is dictator and ultra vires. Steve advocating micromanagement, he insisted on an individual's perfectionism and rejected an offer from numerous subordinate ideas, he personally released new products, and prepared a speech. From chips to store him in every possible way, personally.

Apple employees are thousands of miles of one. When Steve Jobs was CEO, priority hiring outstanding employees that "average person could accomplish work compared with the best of them can complete the work, a dynamic range of 50 or 100:1. By a group of employees can easily exceed the b and c grades extra team consisting of employees. " From the early business, jobs are dedicated to finding the best of the elite to form a team.

Characteristics of jobs such a collection of talent and of dictatorship, leading to internal potential of Apple executives did not get a born Commander in charge of the full experience. Even Cook, jobs considered "recruiting the best employees" is in its death before he replaced CEO in charge of the case globally. Before Steve Cook and its management's closing advice: "don't ask ' what would Steve do? ’“

Although under Cook Apple and jobs have been very different. But Apple inevitably grow into traps. All of this, Drucker's concept of the Corporation predicted that the factional split within the corporate dictatorships will inevitably lead to institution, and, in the case of personal dictatorship, company members could not be trained and tested personal leadership opportunities. So agencies no longer through a rigorous examination, rational choice of successor is a familiar, but desperately pinning their hopes on future does not automatically generate suitable candidates from the power struggle.

Second crack, big companies are naturally has a tendency to self-destruct. All major companies, including Apple, are facing four inescapable questions:

First, the leading force, company boss over generations. Development company from personal dictatorship. Because only the Chairman or President has no limit of sectoral fragmentation, understand the overall running of the company, which leads to generation of leaders after retirement, successor is often the Deputy or a big business bosses to take his place, there is a lack of experience is not enough grasp of the global situation, leading to generation than the last. A similar phenomenon, is not uncommon in large domestic companies, such as a well-known IT manufacturers.

Secondly, the big companies are born have a tendency to stifle innovation, and to promote compliance. Moreover, every large organization faces the same risk: older heads are always smart, enterprising subordinates wary, suspicious. They sometimes fear staff gain the throne, leading to loss of subordinates engaged in innovative business initiative, either directly to vote with their feet.

In addition, the corporate culture is increasingly plagued by increasingly bureaucratic, management. For large companies, individuals contributed negligible, it is difficult to separate calculations, so other than executives, no one can be evaluated according to market performance. In Drucker's view, large companies there is a risk that it can only rely on individual subjective impression evaluation of employee's capability and performance, no matter how good the intention of managers, this will also cause the nepotism within the Organization and moral decay. Even appears in a lot of big companies "because competent, so much to do, so wrong, so the resignation of" bad money drives good money more and more.

Finally, the big companies cannot achieve balance between professionals and generalists, and generalist is the essence of leadership. Drucker in the 1940 's the GM study found that even in enterprises under the system of promoting decentralization, large company Division of fine make anyone thinking across sectors are so unrealistic. Finally, the promotion also tend to raise professional level results. Therefore, employees of large businesses, if not, on the whole to grasp and take into account the company's situation, also may take the positions.

Charismatic and authoritarian leaders, big business--this is Steve jobs left Apple's great legacy, but also planted two mines, and Apple's future, get Cook dynasty resurgence, or become the next Nokia, depends to a large extent how to mine.

Nokia is a river, Apple is a fruit.

观点：苹果衰落的锅，还得乔布斯背 - 乔布斯,苹果股价 - IT资讯

昨天，苹果遭遇了历史性一刻，连续51个季度的增长纪录嘎然而止。苹果2016年1季度财报可谓难看至极：营收和利润十三年来第一次双双下跌。但罪魁祸首未必是现任CEO库克。

六年前，三星推出第一款4英寸大屏手机时，乔布斯不以为然地说，谁会去买一个大屏手机？但事实证明乔布斯错了，虽然单手操作大屏手机确实很麻烦，但用户很快习惯了两个大拇指同时开工。接任者库克经历挣扎，最后还是从乔布斯的“两个凡是”中解放出来，推出了iPhone6，否则，苹果的下坡路可能会来得更早一些。

乔布斯神一般的存在——对产品的精准把握、良好的品味、还有独断的性格，把苹果塑造成了一家现象级公司，不仅一度占据了全球最大市值公司排行榜第一，更让苹果产品成为一种精神认同。但是，在故事的开头，苹果大厦的地基里就生出了两道裂纹。

先考察下第一条裂纹——魅力型领导人。这类天才超人型的领导人，对任何一家机构和组织来说，从长时段看，都是一场灾难。

管理学大师德鲁克在70多年前出版的《公司的概念》一书时就曾提及，一家公司能否长久生存和成功运营主要取决于三个互相依存的问题：领导问题、基本政策问题、以及行动和决策的标准问题。其中最具决定意义的是领导问题，“公司的组织形式必须使它能够在普通人的领导下持续运作。一个人管理之下的机构不可能长存。”对大公司而言，尤其如此。

苹果公司的架构，本身就不是为普通人设立，它是为天才而生。

在优秀企业家之中，乔布斯罕见地拥有艺术家的审美品位、心理学家对人性的洞察，以及对数据和调研天生地不屑和对自己直觉的自信，在他眼里，消费者是用来引导而非迎合。更重要的是，乔布斯还能成功地把这些直觉、个性和灵机一动的念头转化为产品细节、市场方向和公司战略。

乔布斯同样也不是典型意义上的“好老板”，他不谦逊、不体贴、不放权。在企业管理中，乔布斯既独裁者又越权。乔布斯崇尚微观管理，他为坚持个人的完美主义而拒绝无数个下属提出的创意，他亲自发布新产品，并精心准备主题演讲。从芯片到专卖店，他无微不至，亲历亲为。

而苹果的员工也是千里挑一。乔布斯担任CEO时，把雇佣优秀员工作为首要任务，认为“平均水平的人可以完成的工作和最优秀的人可以完成的工作相较，动态范围是50或100比1。由A成绩员工组成的小组可以轻易超过由B和C成绩员工构成的特大团队。”从早期创业起，乔布斯就致力于寻找精英中的精英来组建团队。

乔布斯这种集天才和独裁于一身的特点，导致苹果内部有潜在帅才的高管并没有得到掌控全局的充分历练。哪怕是库克，被乔布斯视为“招聘到的最优秀的员工”也是在其病逝之后才接替CEO一职掌控全局。乔布斯生前对库克及其管理层的最后忠告：“不要问’如果是史蒂夫会怎么做？’“

尽管库克治下的苹果与乔布斯时代已经大不相同。但是苹果还是无可避免地陷入增长的陷阱。这一切，德鲁克在《公司的概念》中有所预言：企业独裁必将导致机构内部的派系分裂，而且，在个人独裁的情况下，公司成员不可能得到训练和检验个人领导能力的机会。于是，机构不再通过严格审核、理性地选择一个熟悉的继任者，而是孤注一掷地把未来寄希望于不合适的人选从权力斗争中自动产生。

再来看第二条裂纹，大公司天生就有自毁的倾向。包括苹果在内的所有大公司都面临着四个无法回避的问题：

首先，领导力衰减，公司老板一代不如一代。大公司容易向个人独裁方向发展。因为只有董事长或总裁才有不受部门条块分割的限制，了解公司到总体运行，这导致第一代领导人退休之后，继任者往往是副手或者某个大事业部老总接替，会出现对全局掌握不足、历练不够的情况，进而导致现一代不如一代的情况。类似的现象，在国内大公司中并不鲜见，比如某知名IT厂商。

其次，大公司生来就有抑制创新、提倡服从的倾向。而且，每一个大型组织都面临着同样的危险：年长的首脑总是对聪明、进取的下属心存戒备、疑虑重重。他们有时会害怕下属谋权篡位，导致要么下属丧失从事创新业务的积极性，要么直接用脚投票。

此外，公司文化日趋饱受、管理日趋官僚化。对大公司而言，个人对贡献微不足道，难以单独计算，所以除高管之外，没有一个人能够根据市场业绩来进行评价。在德鲁克看来，大公司确实存在这样一种风险：它只能依靠个人的主观印象评价员工的能力和表现，无论管理者的本意多好，这也必将造成组织内部的裙带关系和道德败坏。甚至在很多大公司还会出现“因为能干、所以多干、所以犯错、所以辞职”这样劣币驱良币现象越来越多。

最后，大公司无法达到专业人才和通才之间的平衡，而通才才是领导本质所在。德鲁克在1940年代对通用公司的调研中就发现，即便在提倡分权的企业制度安排下，大公司分工之精细使得任何一个人跨越部门的思考都变得如此不现实。最后，升职往往也是专业水平提高的结果。所以，大企业的员工即使不能从整体上把握和考虑公司的情况，也有可能跃居要职。

魅力型的独裁领袖、大企业——这既是乔布斯留给苹果的重大遗产，同时也埋下的两颗地雷，而苹果的未来，是迎来库克王朝中兴、还是沦为下一个诺基亚，很大程度上取决于如何排雷。

诺基亚原本是一条河流，苹果原本也是一种水果。