alt Hacker NewsIMO: Cook is going to announce his retirement by the end of Q1, they've already selected a CEO (probably Ternus), the incoming CEO wants leadership change, and some of these departures are because its better that this purge happens before the CEO change than after. I think this explains Giannandrea, Williams, and Jackson.
Dye may have also been involved in that, given how unpopular he was internally at Apple. But more likely just personal / Meta offered him a billion dollars. Maestri leaving was also probably totally uninvolved.
Srouji is the weirdest case, and I'm hesitant to believe its even true just given its a rumor at this point. Its possible he was angry about being passed over for CEO, but realistically, it was always going to be Ternus, Williams, or Federighi. If Ternus is the next CEO, its likely we'll see Apple combine the Hardware Technologies and Hardware Engineering divisions, then have Srouji lead both of them. I really do not see him leaving the company.
The other less probable theory is that they actually picked Fadell, and this deeply pissed off many people in Apple's senior leadership. So, what we're seeing is more chaos than it first seems.
Generally, as long as Srouji doesn't leave, these changes feel positive for Apple, and especially if there's a CEO change in early 2026: This is what "the fifth generation of Apple Inc" looks like. I don't understand the mindset of people who complain about Apple's products and behavior over the past decade, then don't receive this news as directionally positive.
Replies
My only worry regarding these moves (assuming Srouji doesn’t go) is that the software position is unchallenged.
I’m not sure about Federighi’s popularity inside, but it seems like Software is in need of changes as well.
Great points, this is indicative of something going on. And this point is especially spot on:
> I don't understand the mindset of people who complain about Apple's products and behavior over the past decade, then don't receive this news as directionally positive.
It's time for change. Maybe it won't get better, but I do hope it will.
> the incoming CEO wants leadership change, and some of these departures are because its better that this purge happens before the CEO change than after
Or the more common all the ones who didn’t get the crown are leaving.
> The other less probable theory is that they actually picked Fadell
"Less probable" is the understatement of the century. This rumor came out of nowhere, and it should instantly set off the BS-meter of anyone familiar with how Apple is run.
The most likely explanation for it is that Tony felt like a little boost to his profile couldn't hurt whatever his next step might be, and so he made a few phone calls to get this rumor ball rolling so that his name is in the news for a bit (hey, it worked!).
> I don't understand the mindset of people who complain about Apple's products and behavior over the past decade, then don't receive this news as directionally positive.
Short of Tim Cook being replaced, it just seems like disarray and things are falling apart at the seams, resulting in things only likely getting worse, not better.
If Tim Cook is indeed about to get replaced, then I think you might hear fewer complaints. But right now, the complaints are likely assuming a Tim Cook replacement isn’t part of the plan, or at the very least, not a guarantee.
If you’re wrong about a Tim Cook replacement, then I think the complaints may be justified.
Could be Fadell, why else would Apple put Thread in phones? Maybe iTunes Store (via Fuse) and iPhone (via General Magic) weren't the only things Fadell had pitched Jobs on when the time was right.
Cook is denying that he has any current plans to step down. There was also a Bloomberg article about this a couple of days ago.
What they point out is that a lot of Apple's senior leadership are of a similar age and are simply approaching retirement now. But they are also losing younger rising stars they desperately need to fill the ensuing void. At the moment, they are simply losing talent left and right, and that is unsustainable if they want to maintain their competitive edge and avoid completely turning into Microsoft.
The more likely explanation is that a certain amount of internal rot has set in. They haven't really launched a successful major new product category in years, and a lot of their initiatives have either stalled or failed. Something is clearly not right, and top tier talent doesn't will only tolerate that sort of thing for so long before moving on.