Okay, I need to pick you up on this. You're rating innovators over good managers, regardless of the dollar value they bring.
No, you're making that assumption. And you're ignoring the concept of leadership that is very different to managing. Cook probably is a good manager - ticks all the boxes, doesn't scream at the employees, sets realistic targets, all corporate, corporate, corporate. I know that, I work in that world, and I'm PART OF THAT WORLD. I don't innovate, I don't lead, I'm part of a corporate team that manage, and "managers" are effectively the follow up crew who are the stewards of the assets created by innovators, and the organisations fashioned by leaders. I have known and worked with many UK large company directors, and there's barely a single leader amongst them. Some good managers, some bad managers, many mediocre, but few leaders, no innovators. The leaders don't last in the corporate world because the profile of leadership doesn't tick the boxes of the corporate world, and the innovators don't stay because they are actively held back by corporate management.
Structuring a supply chain is corporate. It doesn't need leaders, it needs little real innovation - all about contracts, KPIs, and good organisation. Apple's market success is all about brand, and about product. All the rest, everything that Cook is good at is simply a hygiene factor (there's other markets where supply chain is a critical success factor, but not for Apple - Apple customers will wait, if they have to) . Arguably the current strength of Apple's bottom line is down to the lack of clear, credible product challenge in the high-margin premium segments (for which nobody in Apple can take any credit), and the bit of Apple that can take some credit is the marketing department, who have very capably supported some good yet lacklustre products since SJ shuffled off his mortal coil. Spending more on R&D is hardly a good thing, when there's so little to show for it. I think Cook feels pressured on the innovation side, and has been throwing more at R&D, hoping that something will turn up. That won't work unless Apple can back the mavericks, which I doubt. Remember how Motorola only came out with the V3 because the people doing it kept it secret from the rest of the company? But Motorola wouldn't learn, and thus have been sold on twice (Lenovo appear to be doing a good job, so far). Likewise Nokia, who a decade ago were fighting it out with Apple is THE phone company - where did their R&D investment get them?
So, perhaps you should have some courtesy for commentards who have considerable experience in managing large complex organisations in multiple sectors, and can make a fair and reasoned judgement on the performance of other companies?