2026-01-10 07:58:35
The Apple executive transition speculation keeps heating up. On Thursday, The New York Times’s Kalley Huang and Tripp Mickle weighed in with a profile of John Ternus, reportedly a candidate to replace Tim Cook as CEO:
Apple last year began accelerating its planning for Mr. Cook’s succession, according to three people close to the company who spoke on the condition of anonymity about Apple’s confidential deliberations. Mr. Cook, 65, has told senior leaders that he is tired and would like to reduce his workload, the people said. Should he step down, Mr. Cook is likely to become the chairman of Apple’s board, according to three people close to the company.
I’ve expected the transition for Cook to board chair for a while. It makes too much sense, because it allows him to keep doing some work—including, probably, the more high-level political stuff that has become part of Apple’s world—while a new CEO can get their sea legs and focus on other parts of the business. And Cook may not love that political stuff, but I get the strong sense that he’s good at it.
I don’t know if Tim Cook is really “tired” (maybe it’s from all those early mornings and high-intensity workouts?), but it seems entirely reasonable to me for a 65-year-old man to consider cutting back on his workload and provide support for a CEO transition that he (sadly) couldn’t get from Steve Jobs1.
This part of the article struck me from a pure journalism standpoint:
Despite his low profile, Mr. Ternus appears to have shot to the front of the pack to be Apple’s next C.E.O., according to four people close to the company. But Mr. Cook is also preparing several other internal candidates to be his potential successor, two of the people said. They could include Craig Federighi, Apple’s head of software; Eddy Cue, its head of services; Greg Joswiak, its head of worldwide marketing; and Deirdre O’Brien, its head of retail and human resources.
Note how the attribution changes across those three sentences.
The placement of those sentences would imply that they’re all of a kind, but they actually seem to be in decreasing order of accuracy. Four people say Ternus is the frontrunner. Two say he’s not the only person being prepared. And then… there’s a list of names, which you might assume were floated by the previous sources, but the article doesn’t actually say that.
My guess: An editor at the Times got out their red pen (or modern equivalent) and wrote “Who?” next to “several other internal candidates.” So Huang and Mickle supplied some names. But did they get those names from sources? It doesn’t say so. It reads more like they got those names from Apple’s executive page and their own musings. Let’s make no assumptions about the fact that Federighi, Cue, Joswiak, and O’Brien are listed.
Also, it would be completely irresponsible for Tim Cook not to prepare several other candidates to be his potential successor. What if something happens to Jon Ternus? What if the board decides, for whatever reason, they just can’t hire him? What if the board has asked Cook to prepare several candidates for the job, in case they aren’t satisfied with his preferred choice? This seems like basic good governance to me. It doesn’t mean that the fix is in, nor does it mean that there’s a legitimate competition going on.
The more I think about this entire process, the more I reflect on the fact that Cook himself had to step in for Jobs multiple times due to his predecessor’s failing health. And when Jobs finally made the decision to move up to the job of Chairman and Cook was named CEO, he was too ill to really act as that form of mentor before he died a couple of months later.
I have to think that, above all else, Tim Cook wants to provide his successor a better transition. And it’s impossible not to look at the ongoing reports from Bloomberg, the Financial Times, and now the New York Times and not get the sense that Cook’s succession planning is kicking into gear.
2026-01-09 23:29:20
As reported by Eric Slivka at MacRumors, both Apple’s Chairman of the Board Arthur Levinson and board member Ronald Sugar are standing for re-election at this year’s shareholder meeting, despite exceeding the company’s stated age limits.
In the company’s proxy statement, it presented the following arguments:
Over the past four years, the Board has added three new members, representing over one-third of its membership, and two other, long-serving members retired. In the context of this year’s Annual Meeting nominations, the Board determined that it would be in the best interests of Apple and its shareholders to ask Art Levinson, the Chair of the Board, and Ron Sugar, the Chair of the Audit Committee, to stand for re-election, and to waive for each of them its guideline under which directors generally may not stand for re-election after attaining age 75. In making this determination, the Board considered several factors, including the significant experience and expertise that each of Dr. Levinson and Dr. Sugar brings to the Board, their deep insight into the Company’s business and operations, and their individual contributions as highly engaged members of the Board. The Board also considered the benefits of continuity among the Board’s leadership positions.
I admit, I found this decision surprising, if not shocking. It would seem to put paid to the idea of Tim Cook imminently taking over the role of chairman, though it does support the idea that will happen sooner rather than later—otherwise it seems as though the company would have considered nominating an entirely new chairperson. As it is, the composition of the board remains exactly the same.
However, it doesn’t mean that the company won’t announce transition plans in the near future, as rumors have suggested. It’s most likely it simply wasn’t ready to do so at the point at which it needed to submit this document to the SEC. The New York Times just ran a profile of John Ternus, which further elevates his profile as Cook’s successor, especially in the nearer term.
Ultimately, the move to stay the course is a conservative one from a company that these days has become more conservative when it comes to matters of corporate governance.
2026-01-09 07:33:10
Jason helps guest Casey Liss figure out what his cord-cutting strategy might be. We also discuss his Callsheet app, touch on the rise of CanCon including “Heated Rivalry,” and offer some very nice TV picks.
2026-01-08 23:05:41
Scharon Harding, writing at Ars Technica:
Bose released the Application Programming Interface (API) documentation for its SoundTouch speakers today, putting a silver lining around the impending end-of-life (EoL) of the expensive home theater devices.
More like this, please. There’s nothing more frustrating than a useful piece of tech turning into e-waste because the manufacturer doesn’t want to support it anymore.
Jason’s made this point recently with another great example, the iMac and current lack of a Target Display Mode. This past week I ran into a similar issue with the Logitech Harmony remote that I set up for my parents: while Logitech’s mobile app for it still technically works, options are extremely limited for adding new devices.
To me, this feels like it goes hand-in-hand with Right to Repair for hardware devices. If a company decides it wants to stop making a device, that’s fine—that’s its business. But to be responsible stewards of not only their products but the environment, they ought to seriously consider enabling the community to support it themselves.
2026-01-08 06:13:37
Robovacs growing limbs, tech for getting the new year started right, tech we covet but can’t justify, and discontinued tech we still use day-to-day.
2026-01-08 05:11:35
AnnaMaria Andriotis and Gina Heeb at the Wall Street Journal reporting (paywalled; News+ link):
“JPMorgan will issue Apple credit cards for both new and existing cardholders, the people said. The transition from Goldman, as is the case with most card deals, will take time.
JPMorgan is planning to launch a new Apple savings account, according to people familiar with the matter. Consumers with existing Apple savings accounts at Goldman will decide whether they want to stay there or open an account with JPMorgan, the people said.
It’s been widely known that Goldman Sachs wanted to unload its end of the partnership, which, when it launched in 2019, was one of its major forays into consumer lending, but which ended up costing it a lot of money. Apple’s discussion with potential partners have been taking place for almost two years now, including the likes of American Express and Capital One.
JPMorgan Chase, of course, already has a wide range of existing credit card lines and is well versed in this business. It’ll be interesting to see what, if any, changes get made. It seems like Apple will remain in the driver’s seat in terms of perks and the like—and I wouldn’t expect there to be any significant changes from the technology side of things.
