As a software dev that started at a hardware focused company... I don't think it need be in jest, nor need be offensive? Hardware and software are different disciplines, even when they do overlap in embedded. It just seems to me - having been at a hardware company that failed to pivot to software, and went out of business (while a new competitor, software first, became Zoom), that the mindset is too different. Hardware requires far more planning; software far faster iteration. In software too much planning is a death sentence. In hardware insufficient planning is a death sentence. I think a single person absolutely could do both well but in my relatively basic estimation, I don't see it being a common trait. Hardware is cool and impressive, but I could never do it. And in my experience, many of the hardware folks I know don't seem to like how software development works either.

I don't think it means anything for this particular move; good leaders know what they know and what they don't know; they know how to motivate and select the right people, they know what to delegate and what to control. Having a track record of success of any kind is IMHO always the best start. I'm excited to see what kind of changes the transition from an operations person to a more technical leader may bring. Especially given how awesome Apple's hardware has consistently been.

Generally speaking, I think both are true. Most people seem to have an affinity for either hardware or software, but rarely for both. Those who do are extremely unique. I don't mean that as an insult to anyone, just as an observatin having worked in both (and personally am much better at software than hardware, even though I enjoy both).

I am deeply aware of software people being crap at hardware having worked in embedded for much of my career.