Even when it's boring, Apple is still at the top of the world

FForget Christmas. For Apple Enthusiasts, the most magical time of the year is September, when the latest products are announced. And just like Christmas, there is a keen sense of anticipation, everyone trying to predict what new toys Apple will unveil.

Except this year, many have reacted to new product announcements as if they had just received grandmother's socks. Of course, there were three new iPhone X models and an Apple Watch that can alert emergency services when you have a heart attack. But there was a certain lack of surprise.

Cue nostalgia for the era of Steve Jobs, where "One more thing" meant that something big was going to happen. But should Apple really worry about it? Not even two months have passed since he became the first US company to break the $ 1 trillion market capitalization. Complain about the lack of product design of the era of employment all you want; whatever Apple does works clearly.

Today's apple is a very different company from what it was under Jobs' leadership. His style of leadership "in my own way or on the road" extended to the design of products – some devices chosen in a certain way – without exception. It was not quite from Ford "You can have it in any color as long as it's black" but there was little room for the deviation of the singular vision of Jobs.

I wonder what he would have thought of Apple's Tim Cook era, where one can buy pink gold iPhones? Jobs would he have approved the iPhone XR cheaply, which will be available in funky colors? Now there's even an Apple stylus, something Jobs was known to be dead for.

Misunderstanding of the market, as well as the role of your organization, is not something you can not afford to do, like Jobs, Bezos or Buffet.

It can be said that Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. In some approaches, it is even anti-jobs. Yet no matter what Cook does, $ 1 trillion in data is a good approach.

So what does it give? What does Cook know who made him throw the Jobs playbook? And why does it work?

So much time has been devoted to Jobs' singular leadership style, which seems to be the fourteenth sequel to a tired movie franchise. Yes, we know that he was fired and rehired ten years later to trigger a miraculous recovery. Yes, he was an obsessive design genius and a brilliant trader. Yes, he was responsible for some of the most influential products of 21^st century.

Cook's story is not so explosive. He did not really start from scratch when he was named CEO of Apple, inheriting an incredibly popular and successful brand. And he can not boast of having a category-changing product on the iPhone's scale, although the Apple Watch is getting closer.

Instead, Cook chose to focus on Apple's organizational strengths and the development of existing product packages. He is not as involved in innovation as Jobs, but devotes much more attention to creating a collaborative and sustainable work culture. From Wall Street to other appliance manufacturers, it's policy to look for strategic partnerships.

More importantly, he may have invested in services like Apple Music, paving the way for the next phase of the brand's life. The hardware space becomes more and more competitive each year and Apple will not always be able to differentiate itself on the quality of its physical products.

Looking at its strengths as a platform gives Apple a huge advantage. The number of people using services such as Siri and iCloud means that Apple has a wealth of data on the behavior of its users and market preferences. People – or at least their user data – have spoken, and they want pink gold iPhones and customizable Apple Watch faces.

Jobs took up the challenge at a time when Apple needed to prove itself, take bold steps, practice a disruptive innovation, deliver on its promise to "think differently." He was a turnaround CEO when the brand needed a major overhaul, to get rid of his old luggage that was not working and accept the change. But the Apple of today does not need a turnaround CEO. He needs someone who can support growth.

Cook is the right leader for this moment, practicing lasting disturbances where it counts. It's not the creative genius of Jobs, but does anyone really care? It understands how to analyze the product and customer ecosystem that Jobs has built so well. Adapting to the changing market forces, it's being able to read them, and Cook has the gift to assist and analyze the data available to make smart decisions to long term.

He knows what to do to support the growth and relevance of an established brand. And this is not an easy task, especially since the competition is catching up.

If there's a lesson to be learned from Apple's trip to a trillion, it's not that you should try and be like Steve Jobs, because let's face it, you're getting ready for it. 39; failure. This is as your business enters different life cycles, your approach to leadership needs to evolve with it.

The trick is to know when this point of change comes; when a start-up enters a phase where it should consolidate its growth or when an inherited organization is losing momentum and must radically realign itself. Misunderstanding of the market, as well as the role of your organization, is not something you can not afford to do, like Jobs, Bezos or Buffet.

In the end, it does not matter if Jobs does better than Cook, or vice versa. The only way to replicate one or the other of their successes is to devote the same attention to the knowledge of your business, your industry, your customers and your competitors.

What do you think? Is it time to put aside the character of Steve Jobs and see how Apple has changed since his death? Should Tim Cook's measured analytical style be the model that business leaders follow?