Tim Cook won't get fired by Apple's board of directors -- and is likely to be chairman soo...

AppleInsider

A new report claims that despite a series of alleged issues to do with Apple Intelligence and lack of new hardware, CEO Tim Cook can weather any issue because of how dramatically he has grown the company.

Apple CEO Tim Cook

Tim Cook is pretty continually criticized for issues ranging from stumbles over the launch of Apple Intelligence, to how he isn't a product person, and also how he just isn't his predecessor, Steve Jobs. At times, there are calls from pundits and analysts saying that Cook must be fired, but he never is, he never will be -- and now according to Bloomberg, that's also the firm opinion the opinion of Apple's board.

Specifically, it's because although Apple's shares are down 16% in 2025 -- chiefly due to Trump's whim-based tariffs -- they are overall around 1,500% higher than when Cook took over as CEO. The report notes that Apple's board of directors contains what it describes as Cook loyalists, such as Arthur Levinson, Susan Wagner, and Ronald Sugar, who have rarely interfered with the running of the company.

Bloomberg does exaggerate the degree of difficulties Apple is facing, and is doing so to make a case that other CEOs in other firms would have been fired. As well as missteps with Apple Intelligence, Cook is accused of eroding the company's design-focused culture.

Apple overall is also criticized for "a decade-long drought of breakthrough mainstream hardware." That conveniently ignores AirTags, which were launched in 2021 and immediately became ubiquitous worldwide.

At around the same time that AirTags came out, Cook suggested that he would probably retire from Apple before the end of another ten years. If he cannot be fired, then the implication is that he will go when he chooses -- and if the new report has no opinion on when it will happen, it does think it knows what he'll do.

It suggests that the current chair of Apple's board, Arthur Levinson, will himself step down -- since he is already older than the board's recommended retirement age. Tim Cook could then take over as chair, which it's claimed would give him "an even tighter grip on the iPhone maker."

That last seems a stretch given that the same report says that Levinson and the current board have not interfered with Cook's running of Apple. But at least in theory, it's possible that Cook could exercise more of the chair's authority.

Cook succeeding Levinson has been suggested before. A report in June 2025 noted that Levinson and Sugar are now both over the board's recommended age of 75.

It was because of their reaching 75, that both Al Gore and James Bell stepped down from the board in 2024.



Read on AppleInsider

9secondkox2

Cook heading the board is not a bad idea so long as he keeps an open mind regarding leadership ideals. He’s been an awesome ceo and a one in a million home run as the successor to Steve Jobs. No one could have done what he has done. 

Apple is at its best and most focused when it’s focused on the mission of simply making the best computing devices on earth. 

Don’t choose the leader you like the best for whatever personal, political, or such reason. Choose the ine thst will sable apple to innovate and continue making the best stuff on the planet. Do that, and Apple will continue to be the top in its industries as long as it exists. 

mikethemartian

The more often I read stories like this the more likely it seems to me that he is going to be pushed out as CEO. I start getting the sense there is a PR campaign going on.

macxpress

mikethemartian said:

The more often I read stories like this the more likely it seems to me that he is going to be pushed out as CEO. I start getting the sense there is a PR campaign going on.

 Well I think he only has about 5 years left anyways before he'd want to retire. The company is doing just fine right now and I don't see any reason to make Tim leave. I think Apple would be worse off if Tim left right now. Sometimes you don't know what you had until it's not there anymore. 

mike wuerthele

mikethemartian said:

The more often I read stories like this the more likely it seems to me that he is going to be pushed out as CEO. I start getting the sense there is a PR campaign going on.

Not one that we're aware of.

chasm

Tim's performance as CEO has been world-class, and proves that Steve was very, very right about where Apple was headed when he tapped Cook to succeed him.

Steve knew with the iPhone that Apple was on a trajectory to become a household brand, making a wide variety of products that are mostly sold to the mainstream of consumers. Even people who are "scared" of Macs because they are so used to Windows will still buy iPhones, AirPods, AppleCare for those products and music/video/apps from the stores. (Nearly) pure profit for a company that used to primarily sell Macs and music 20 years ago.

Steve picked IMO the perfect person to lead Apple for the next 20-25 years. We'll be insanely lucky if Cook picks Ternus to succeed him, or finds someone with Ternus' passion and fundamental understanding of what works in the mainstream arena without completely selling out. I mean, the man made the Mac mini and the iMac (and the MB Air) into popular mainstream computers you can find at retailers other than Apple!

Remember the lead-balloon attempt to put Macs in Sears? I do! Those of us who were around and aware back then were VERY concerned about a future without Apple.

I think the company is in excellent hands and has some promising prospects for the future, though I do acknowledge that more change (and yes, diversity!) in the executive ranks is coming.

coolfactor

Tim has done an exceptional job running Apple. I wish he was a bit more flexible in terms of creative designs like the early iMac days and iPod days. They really had fun with some of the designs, but it's become very conservative now.

I, for one, don't think Apple has bunged up the Apple Intelligence release. Many of the feature are released, and their operating systems are stable. AI tech evolution is moving so fast right now, it's smart of Apple to continue refining their integrations before releasing to the public.

What many critics forget is that many consumers of AI from *any* company are accessing it on a Mac or iPhone, so Apple has already reaped the benefits of a sale to that consumer.

blastdoor

Becoming chair could be part of a sensible transition plan. As chair, cook can oversee the new guy to make sure they picked the right person and provide guidance/mentorship for the new CEO. 

dewme

coolfactor said:

Tim has done an exceptional job running Apple. I wish he was a bit more flexible in terms of creative designs like the early iMac days and iPod days. They really had fun with some of the designs, but it's become very conservative now.

I, for one, don't think Apple has bunged up the Apple Intelligence release. Many of the feature are released, and their operating systems are stable. AI tech evolution is moving so fast right now, it's smart of Apple to continue refining their integrations before releasing to the public.

What many critics forget is that many consumers of AI from *any* company are accessing it on a Mac or iPhone, so Apple has already reaped the benefits of a sale to that consumer.

I totally agree. In my opinion AI represents the next industrial revolution. Getting it right is far more important than getting something half-assed out there quickly for the sake of expedience or to placate the critics. The critics have no skin in the game but Apple has the future of one the most successful companies ever on the line. 

applezulu

Since the day he took the job, Tim Cook has weathered the peanut gallery chorus of Apple is doomed and Tim's not Steve, and built Apple into a hugely successful company while still holding tightly to its core ethos and business model. No one is going to push him out, and he's not likely to retire until he does what Steve Jobs did and identifies a successor who can take a hand-off with the confidence that he or she will continue to hold on to that core ethos and business model. 

jem101

dewme said:

...snip....

I totally agree. In my opinion AI represents the next industrial revolution. Getting it right is far more important than getting something half-assed out there quickly for the sake of expedience or to placate the critics. The critics have no skin in the game but Apple has the future of one the most successful companies ever on the line. 

Yes, I do believe you are right. Far too many commentators think that AI is at the same as a chatbot that you can talk to and it pretends to be your friend - no it isn’t. It’s a range of technologies which helps you, ‘understand’ context and can make suggestions or run actions based on that.

Last month, it was my Mother-in-Law’s birthday, so I sent her a message wishing her ‘Happy Birthday’, I then got a pop-up message offering to make a calendar appointment and reminder for future reference. I hadn’t asked for any of this, but it does strike me as something that is genuinely useful, maybe trivial but a genuine use of AI.

If I were rich and had a PA and had asked them to send a message to.... and they had asked if I wanted to do the same next year (based on the context of the message) and they will make a note of it - we would think, yes fine, please do. Apple’s implementation of AI can do this now. Is it that bad?

I suppose it depends on your definition of AI. Yes compared to Gemini, Grok (the claims to be MechaHitler notwithstanding), Perplexity; it does seem lacking. But what exactly do you want, what are you expecting?

Maybe, if anything, Apple has, oddly, a marketing issue. Maybe they haven’t made a good enough case that ‘their’ vision of AI is this..... It’s not just blindly following what everyone else is doing.

Maybe, maybe, maybe ‘Tim Apple’ made a terrible mistake and didn’t buy Perplexity when they could and jump on the same bandwagon; or maybe they are right and the way forward is not what everyone else is doing?

Only time will tell!

9secondkox2

Interesting. I feel like I missed something. 

Was there some concern that cook wa in any kind of hot water?

the guy has been golden. 

randominternetperson

In general, having the same person be chair and CEO is a mistake. It's a mistake I don't think Apple will make. The purpose of the board of directors is to provide strategic oversight of management (including the CEO). I see no reason why Cook would feel he needs to be CEO (Jobs wasn't) or why the board wouldn't find a new independent chair. Time will tell.

mike wuerthele

9secondkox2 said:

Interesting. I feel like I missed something. 

Was there some concern that cook wa in any kind of hot water?

the guy has been golden. 

He isn't really. A few stock analysts who don't have the first clue and only see Apple as a money piñata are calling for his ouster.

randominternetperson

blastdoor said:

Becoming chair could be part of a sensible transition plan. As chair, cook can oversee the new guy to make sure they picked the right person and provide guidance/mentorship for the new CEO. 

Oh, I could see that. Chair after his stint as CEO.

On the other hand, the new CEO might not want the former CEO as his boss.

In any case, the Cook transition, when it comes, will be a big deal. Succession is hard,

macxpress

dewme said:

coolfactor said:

Tim has done an exceptional job running Apple. I wish he was a bit more flexible in terms of creative designs like the early iMac days and iPod days. They really had fun with some of the designs, but it's become very conservative now.

I, for one, don't think Apple has bunged up the Apple Intelligence release. Many of the feature are released, and their operating systems are stable. AI tech evolution is moving so fast right now, it's smart of Apple to continue refining their integrations before releasing to the public.

What many critics forget is that many consumers of AI from *any* company are accessing it on a Mac or iPhone, so Apple has already reaped the benefits of a sale to that consumer.

I totally agree. In my opinion AI represents the next industrial revolution. Getting it right is far more important than getting something half-assed out there quickly for the sake of expedience or to placate the critics. The critics have no skin in the game but Apple has the future of one the most successful companies ever on the line. 

Totally agree and people are too concerned with being first than being best. Apple is almost never the first to things but when they do enter a space they generally do it quite well. People are also confused as to what Apple is doing with AI I think. I think a lot of people are assuming Apple is making a chat bot competitor with every other AI and thats the opposite way Apple is going with AI. They're finding ways to make it useful in everyday life without even asking it....and doing it all on device without reaching out to an AI server farm for better security and privacy. This is no easy feat and those who are criticizing I don't think have a clue as to what AI can truly do, how powerful it is and how dangerous it is or can become. I for one are glad Apple is taking a step back, pumping the brakes a little and making sure it's done the way they intend it to do, even if it's a year or so late. That doesn't mean Apple isn't innovative anymore just because they weren't first. Again, they've really never been first. First doesn't mean better.