Apple is not Apple anymore, is not the company which under Steve Jobs created innovative products which moved the world. Where is under Tim Cook an Apple II, a Macintosh, a Lisa (highly advanced, but commercially a flop though), an iPod, iPhone?

And more. Apple lost other features which made it unique and differentiated it from the others, see here:

wired.com - Book excerpt mutiny noam scheiber apple vision pro

Why is Apple under Tim Cook still commercially so extremely successful? Not because of innovative products. Only because as Andy Hertzfeld, chief engineer of the revolutionary Macintosh team, said: "We created a monster".

What does he mean? Hertzfeld said it in the context of the most famous ad of all times, "1984", the ad Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner) created for Apple which was shown exactly once, 1984 at the super bowl.

It shows a dystopian world in monochrome (Ridley Scott´s template must have been Fritz Lang´s "Metropolis"), with uniform people, controlled by a dictator. Suddenly a rebel runs to the huge screen from which the dictator indoctrinates them, hunted by guards. The rebel destroys the screen which implodes. The ad ends "1984 won´t be like that 1984. On 16.Jan Apple will reveal the Macintosh".

The dictator represented IBM and the rebel Apple. With "We created a monster" Hertzfeld might say that today Apple is the dictator, with people imprisoned in it´s closed ecosystem. Or, more likely, Apple´s last great invention, the iPhone, which clearly IS a monster, a dictator which imprisons the masses who look on it´s glowing screen.

I think the world would be a better place if someone invented a time machine, went back to before Steve Jobs came with the iPhone and .... him. Would at least have delayed the monster.