Apple elevates Indian executive Sabih Khan to #2 after Tim Cook
TOI correspondent from Washington:
Tech giant
Apple
on Wednesday elevated Moradabad-born
Sabih Khan
as its
chief operating officer
(coo), often considered the #2 in a company's leadership hierarchy, putting yet another
Indian-American executive
on track to lead a major tech global corporation.
Khan, 59, a 30-year veteran of Apple, and currently its senior vice president of Operations, will succeed Jeff Williams as part of a long-planned succession, the company said, highlighting his expertise in supply chain management. His elevation comes at a crucial time when Apple is transitioning a significant portion of its iPhone manufacturing from China to India.
Apple's move comes in the teeth of opposition and even threats from MAGA supremo Donald Trump, who is virtually coercing the tech giant to forgo India and bring back manufacturing to the US. There is also profound distrust of foreign-born executives in more nativist sections of MAGA. Two of the top five US corporations Microsoft and Google/Alphabet are currently led by India-born execs Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai.
As of fiscal year ending March 2025, approximately 20 percent of Apple's global iPhone production now comes out of India, with a production value of around $22 billion, up from 14 percent in 2024. Much of the India operations involves assembling the phones, with China still having a stranglehold on component manufacturing and reluctant to cede its dominance in the area.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
Describing Sabih as a "brilliant strategist who has been one of the central architects of Apple's supply chain,' Apple CEO
Tim Cook
, carefully avoiding any reference to India, said while overseeing Apple's supply chain, he has helped pioneer new technologies in advanced manufacturing, overseen the expansion of Apple's manufacturing footprint in the United States, and helped ensure that Apple can be nimble in response to global challenges.
A separate factsheet from Apple underscored his role in the company's global supply chain for the past six years, ensuring product quality and overseeing planning, procurement, manufacturing, logistics, and product fulfillment functions.
"He has advanced our ambitious efforts in environmental sustainability, helping reduce Apple's carbon footprint by more than 60 percent. Above all, Sabih leads with his heart and his values, and I know he will make an exceptional chief operating officer," Cook said.
Born in 1966 in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, Khan moved with his family to Singapore during his school years. He later relocated to the US for his higher education, earning dual bachelor's degrees in Economics and Mechanical Engineering from Tufts University and a master's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), the oldest engineering school in the US (est 1824), predating IIT Roorkee (est 1847).
Before joining Apple in 1995, Khan worked at GE Plastics (now SABIC) as an applications development engineer. He rose through the ranks at Apple, becoming a central figure in the company's global supply chain.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 minutes ago
- First Post
Why India must reject US demands to cut Russian oil
Energy security is a core national interest. Surrendering it under coercion risks weakening not only India's negotiating position today but also its sovereignty in the policy choices of tomorrow read more India's position in the post-Ukraine war energy order has been pivotal. Since 2022, it has emerged as one of Russia's top two crude buyers, importing 1.7 to 1.9 million barrels per day at sustained discounts to Brent. These flows have been central to stabilising domestic energy costs, containing inflation, and protecting fiscal space. Yet this strategic advantage is now directly under attack from an explicitly political campaign by Washington. On August 7, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, citing that India 'directly or indirectly' imports Russian oil. The tariff, which will take effect 21 days later, is not a marginal measure. It targets a strategic partner in a manner no other major Russian oil buyer—notably China—has faced. Trump's framing is unambiguous: India's energy decisions are being weaponised in the broader US campaign against Moscow. This is the first time a U.S. president has linked trade penalties so explicitly to India's crude import mix, making the move as much a test of Indian sovereignty as of its economic resilience. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The irony is that this pressure comes amid fluid US–Russia negotiations. Trump has publicly claimed 'great progress' in talks between his special envoy and President Vladimir Putin, while simultaneously preparing secondary sanctions. Market reaction to this ambiguity has been sharp. Brent futures fell to $66.89 per barrel, their lowest since June 10, and U.S. WTI settled at $64.35, marking five consecutive days of losses. Traders are now caught between two signals—the threat of harsher sanctions on Moscow and the possibility of a sanctions rollback if a ceasefire deal materialises. In this environment, India's crude sourcing is being politicised at a time when the market itself is in flux. The selective nature of U.S. pressure is difficult to ignore. In 2024, the European Union's bilateral trade in goods with Russia reached €67.5 billion, with an additional €17.2 billion in services trade in 2023—figures far exceeding India's total trade with Russia. European imports of Russian liquefied natural gas reached a record 16.5 million tonnes in 2024, surpassing the previous record of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022. Yet these LNG flows, which are strategically significant and directly revenue-generating for Moscow, are not a sustained bone of contention for Washington. This disparity reinforces the perception that India is being singled out for political leverage while Western allies are afforded a wider berth in managing their own energy dependencies. If India were to sharply reduce its intake of Russian crude, the global oil market would tighten almost immediately. Brent prices could rise by three to seven dollars per barrel in the short term, with eight to twelve dollars possible if Russian redirection of cargoes falters and OPEC Plus delays the release of spare capacity. Domestically, India would face higher procurement costs for Middle Eastern grades, higher freight rates, and refinery yield penalties as plants shift away from Urals and ESPO blends. This would increase retail fuel prices or require fiscal subsidies—either of which would place upward pressure on inflation and reduce budgetary space for development spending. If China were to make a similar move, the market impact would be more severe. Chinese imports of Russian crude are in the range of 1.8 to 2.0 million barrels per day and are critical to Moscow's export revenues. A cut of this magnitude would strand more barrels for longer, as rerouting flows from China is more complex and costly than from India. Brent could rise by eight to fifteen dollars per barrel under typical market conditions and by as much as fifteen to twenty dollars if sanctions enforcement, insurance restrictions, or maritime bottlenecks reduce the flexibility of the shadow fleet. The impact would also be felt in refined product markets. China's large-scale refineries supply diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel to the region, so even modest run cuts would tighten global product balances and lift refining margins across Asia and Europe. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A simultaneous reduction by both India and China would constitute the largest disruption to Russian oil flows since the imposition of Western sanctions in 2022. In this combined scenario, the market could face an effective supply outage of three million barrels per day or more. Brent prices could spike well beyond twenty dollars per barrel in the short term, with sustained double-digit increases for months if OPEC Plus maintained production restraint. Freight rates would surge, the Dubai–Brent spread would narrow sharply, and refined product cracks would remain elevated. The shock would also spill into LNG markets if China sought to replace crude with higher gas imports, potentially tightening European gas supply and driving up benchmark prices in both Asia and Europe. The geopolitical asymmetry in Washington's approach remains striking. China faces no comparable public censure or tariff penalties, despite its imports being of equal or greater significance to Russia's revenue stream. The United States has limited leverage over Beijing and therefore concentrates its pressure on New Delhi, assuming greater compliance. Accepting such treatment would set a precedent that could extend beyond energy policy, inviting similar interventions in other areas of strategic importance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's capacity to purchase discounted Russian oil is not merely a tactical advantage—it is a structural pillar of its macroeconomic stability. In 2024 alone, the discount on Russian grades saved India billions in procurement costs and helped keep consumer inflation within manageable bounds. Abandoning this under external pressure, particularly when major Western economies continue substantial trade with Russia, would be strategically counterproductive. The choice before New Delhi is about whether India will allow its energy policy to be dictated by another country's geopolitical agenda, even when that agenda is applied inconsistently across partners. A policy anchored in strategic autonomy means engaging with all partners, including the United States, from a position of equal respect, not asymmetric compliance. At a time when the global energy order is fragile, OPEC Plus is signalling potential supply increases, and markets are reacting sharply to diplomatic uncertainty, India should resist moves that compromise its economic and strategic flexibility. Energy security is a core national interest. Surrendering it under coercion risks weakening not only India's negotiating position today but also its sovereignty in the policy choices of tomorrow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Aditya (X: @adityasinha004) writes on macroeconomic and geopolitical issues. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's tech hiring ban: India's chance to redefine global innovation
By doubling down on its strengths—its people, its problems, its potential—India can turn exclusion into empowerment read more US President Donald Trump has urged American tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Apple to stop hiring foreign workers, including those from India, and focus instead on creating jobs in the United States. His words sent ripples across the global tech landscape. At an AI Summit held in Washington on Wednesday, Trump said that American companies should now put national interests first in the fast-growing field of artificial intelligence. Although there has been no official policy announcement, this adds to the growing uncertainty for Indian professionals, as India plays a key role in the global operations of U.S. tech firms. Recent reports indicate that major U.S. tech firms are lobbying against strict hiring bans. For many, it felt like a betrayal—a nation that has long powered global innovation now faces exclusion. But what if this moment is India's chance to rewrite its story? Rather than a setback, Trump's directive could ignite India's ascent as a self-reliant tech superpower, proving it can innovate not just for the West but for the world. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's remarks tap into a broader narrative of economic nationalism, one that paints foreign talent—particularly India's vast pool of engineers—as a drain on American jobs. This is no small matter. U.S. tech companies have been establishing engineering hubs in cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad for decades, and India is a vital part of their global operations. Yet Trump's statement, aimed at boosting U.S. AI dominance, signals a pivot toward insularity. One of the directives outlines a nationwide strategy to accelerate the development of AI by relaxing regulations and enticing businesses to construct data centres and other essential infrastructure within the United States. Companies that receive federal funding to develop AI tools are subject to new regulations under the second order. Helping U.S.-made AI products compete internationally is the main goal of the third executive order. Together, they underscore a vision where global talent takes a back seat. India's tech sector risks disruption. American firms have leaned on Indian engineers for cost-efficient, high-skill labour, building software and cloud systems that power the world. A hiring freeze could shrink opportunities for Indian professionals, particularly those eyeing U.S. careers via H-1B visas. It might also chill investments in India's tech hubs, where companies like Google and Microsoft have sprawling campuses. The Brookings Institution notes that over half of top U.S. AI researchers are foreign-born, many from India. Curtailing this pipeline could slow innovation in the U.S., but it also threatens India's role as a global tech engine. The fear is real: a brain drain reversed, with talent staying home but lacking the platforms to thrive. Yet this challenge masks a profound opportunity. India can seize this moment to pivot from being the world's back office to its innovation hub. India should harness its engineers graduating annually—a massive talent pool. Instead of coding for Western giants, these minds can build indigenous platforms tailored to India's needs. Take agriculture, where AI could optimise crop yields for small farmers battling climate shifts. (Update: The Indian government recently announced a new AI mission focusing on agriculture, healthcare, and language models.) In healthcare, homegrown AI tools could diagnose diseases in rural clinics, bridging gaps where doctors are scarce. By focusing inward, India can solve local problems while creating globally competitive tech. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's digital infrastructure—think Aadhaar and UPI—already sets a global standard for scale and efficiency. Government backing could fuel AI hardware innovation. By investing in research hubs and easing startup regulations, India can nurture ecosystems where talent stays and thrives. Imagine an AI model trained on India's diverse languages, powering education or governance solutions exportable to Africa or Southeast Asia. Trump's push could catalyse this shift, forcing India to prioritise self-reliance over outsourcing. The other side has weight: global collaboration has driven tech's golden age. U.S. firms warn that restricting foreign talent could hamstring innovation, given America's own tech talent shortage. Indian professionals in the U.S. fear uncertainty, and companies reliant on government contracts may hesitate to defy Trump's rhetoric. But India's talent doesn't need Western validation to shine—it can build its own Silicon Valleys. Trump's call is a wake-up call for India. The country stands at a crossroads, with a chance to redefine global innovation. By doubling down on its strengths—its people, its problems, its potential—India can turn exclusion into empowerment. The world is watching. It's time for India to code its own future. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The writer is a columnist. His articles have appeared in various publications like The Independent, The Globe and Mail, South China Morning Post, The Straits Times, etc. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Mint
2 minutes ago
- Mint
AI startup founder blasts ex-managers for biased reference checks: ‘Many treat exits like betrayal'; netizens react
A founder from AI startup ecosystem has sparked a heated conversation after slamming the reference check culture in Indian companies, especially within the SaaS sector. He said many treat the departure as 'betrayal'. The post has stirred discussion on Linkedin about ego, power dynamics, and fairness in corporate culture. Sudhir P. took to the platform and said, 'I don't do reference checks. Especially not in Indian companies", adding, "Indian work culture has a serious problem with handling exits. Too many folks treat exits like betrayal.' He argued that reference checks, rather than providing objective feedback, are often tainted by personal grudges. According to him, ex-managers frequently let their egos get in the way when an employee chooses to leave. 'I've seen too many good folks get dragged down because a previous boss took their departure personally,' Sudhir said, pointing to how even high-performing employees can be unfairly discredited. He shared about his ordeal of being sabotaged by ex-managers. 'One CEO blocked me on every single platform the day I resigned (still not sure why). Another gave me a slanderous reference… even though we parted on a handshake, after 3 rounds of polite negotiations,' the founder recalled. His takeaway? 'Guess it's high time we gotta start trusting people for who they are today, not who someone else claims they were.' Rejecting the tradition of checking with former managers, he concluded, 'I don't care what your ex-manager thinks cause I don't need their bruised ego dressed up as feedback. Especially in the Indian SaaS ecosystem — it's rotten beyond repair.' AI Startup founder's post One of the users said, 'Even with ref checks in place, Indian companies have a critical problem with just asking people what happened in those orgs that gave them bad references. Guess it's a crowd mindset problem that we have left unchecked for a long time.' Another commented, 'Glad this is finally being talked about! The exit stage is where the chaos really shines!!' "Only SAAS ??? Entire system across Industries is rotten. Courtesy "Office Politics"," wrote the third user. 'This is so true! The funny part is that if you ask recruiters why the last person left the role, or why it's been open for a long while, they get defensive,' remarked the fourth.
