Under his leadership, Apple hasn't entered any new markets. It's only done one radical overhaul of a product, the ultra-high-end Mac Pro, which represents only 4% of all Apple sales. The most aggressive new product features it has introduced—Siri, Apple Maps, and Touch ID—have had very mixed results.

Wow. Just because they have not entered into markets that either are controlled by content creators (TV) or where the technology is not quite ready (smart watch).

To say Tim Cook hasn't taken any big swings, Jason Hiner hasn't been paying attention. Apple just overhauled their mobile OS, called iOS 7, has he not heard? iOS runs the hardware that is responsible for most of Apples profits. It was very decisive. If that wasn't aggressive, I don't know what is. To aggressively move to 64-bit on hardware and software a year before anyone thought possible is very ballsy.

The boldest thing Cook has done during his two-year tenure as CEO was to fire Scott Forstall, one of Apple's most talented executives. That's not a great sign. While Forstall was legendarily difficult to work with, he was also one of Apple's most creative and innovative leaders and had a lot to do with the success of the iPhone and iPad. He was rumored to be one of Apple's future CEO candidates, so his departure clearly smells like a battle for control and influence in the post-Jobs era.

These are not moves by someone that is holding innovation back at Apple. Firing Scott Forstall, while seemingly a political move, is something that needed to be done. Steve Jobs is a different type of leader. He was the alpha dog and people like Forstall understood that. Tim Cook has a more easy demeanor, he will never be Steve Jobs. Under Tim the organization has to make up for what Steve brought to Apple, innovation. To do that, there needs to be a cohesive team. Sometimes in organizations there are leaders that drive an organization to do amazing things, but can't take it farther into greatness because to get to the place they are they had to ruin many relationships on the way. That was Scott Forstall. It was probably the best move for Apple. Scott Forstall is great, but Craig Federighi will take them a lot farther now.

ZDNet’s most recent Great Debate raised the question whether Apple needs to innovate more rapidly. The answer is a definite “yes” and here’s why.

I love when writers and analysts talk about other peoples businesses and come up with blanket statements like this. What's even more amazing is to use the stock prices of two companies as your argument.

Wall Street is the killer of innovation. Innovation happens over time, you can't rush it. It happens through iterations. If Apple were to have hurried their innovation in the past they would have released the iPad first, which would have been a flop because it would have cost much more than it did when they introduced it. Instead, they took their time and iterated and introduced the iPhone first, which allowed them to build up more buying leverage to reduce prices for the iPad.

Apple will show us what their next innovation is and analysts and tech writers won't be the ones dictating the timetable.