Piper believes leadership shift at Apple is underway

[AppleInsider]

Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, one of the most outspoken figures on all things Apple, told clients on Wednesday that Steve Jobs' absence from this year's Macworld Expo signals "the beginning of a shift in leadership roles" at the company.

"Steve Jobs remains CEO of Apple, however, yielding this year's Macworld keynote to Phil Schiller, along with the participation of Tim Cook and Phil Schiller at the October event is, in our view, a clear message that a leadership shift is underway," he said.

In addition, Jobs' decision not to deliver his high-profile speech has rekindled speculation on the part of some industry watchers and investors that his health may be deteriorating -- a scare which has sent Apple shares into a mini spiral, shedding more than 7 percent of their value since the news became public.

The Apple co-founder is a cancer surviver, having undergone successful surgery in 2004 to remove a malignant tumor from his pancreas. His company, however, remained secretive about the matter until the operation was complete and he was forced to take a leave from his daily duties as chief executive.

While Munster believes that Apple could have easily diffused speculation over its leader's health by having him keynote next month's expo, he doesn't believe the move is necessarily a sign Jobs' condition has taken a turn for the worse. However, "we do believe that it is a sign that we are in the early stages of changing roles in Apple's management structure," he told clients.

Like many Apple watchers, the analyst acknowledged that Jobs is the "irreplaceable face of Apple." That said, he argues that the company's product innovation has come from an entire organization of dedicated people spearheaded by an executive team "who share a collective track record of consistently outpacing their competitors in terms of hardware and software innovation coupled with robust product marketing and financial discipline."

"We believe that Apple's executive team is one of its competitive advantages," he added. "This management team, along with Steve Jobs, has been responsible for Apple's product innovation."

With Phil Schiller delivering this year's Macworld keynote, Munster and his team are no longer expecting the event to reveal any revolutionary products. Some remaining possibilities may include an updated iMac or redesigned Mac mini, he said.

"We continue to expect a new form factor iPhone in the March quarter," the analyst told clients. "We initially thought there was an outside chance that a new iPhone could be announced at Macworld, the news regarding the keynote leads us to believe that a new iPhone at Macworld is less likely.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Object-X]

These analysts don't have a clue. You know, the one upside to these idiots, for people who understand Apple, is that they give us great AAPL buying opportunities. I'm getting rich off of these morons.

There sure is a leadership change happening, but it will extend over a long period of time. Phasing out MacWorld and moving Apple's marketing into the Apple Store makes a lot of sense. It's just the fist step of many to come. Apple can simply announce a media event, host it themselves, and still get great news coverage.

Apple can de-emphasize Jobs' role by having others do the smaller announcements, product refreshes, and demos while reserving the new product category announcements for himself, which happen infrequently. Thus over time, Jobs showing up or not becomes a non-issue because no one will expect him too, unless Apple has a huge new product announcement to make; the added benefit of that is it gives Apple more secretive control - no will know when to expect such an announcement. And when he finally does leave or becomes a behind the scenes advisor, it will have little affect on the stock.

[mjtomlin]

Jesus F#$%ing Christ!

Why do people listen to ANALysts?

[Wakashizuma]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

Jesus F#$%ing Christ!

Why do people listen to ANALysts?

Because analysts are not bunch of fanboys who'd say something because of their subjective opinion. What do you expect people to listen to? The enthusiast Mac evangelists on mac forums?

[Shogun]

Jobs doesn't need the ego boost any more. Better for everyone if the individual is de-emphasized and the team is brought to the fore. The same products will come out, but the company will be more mature.

[bubba451]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, one of the most outspoken and trusted experts on all things Apple...

Outspoken? Yes. Trusted? Yeah, right.

I'm not saying that Gene Munster is necessarily wrong. I actually wouldn't know what to disagree with: I generally stop reading once I see his name.

[fraklinc]

Originally Posted by Object-X

These analysts don't have a clue. You know, the one upside to these idiots for people who understand Apple is that they give us great AAPL buying opportunities. I'm getting rich off of these morons.

There sure is a leadership change happening, but it will extend over a long period of time. Phasing out MacWorld and moving Apple's marketing into the Apple Store makes a lot of sense. It's just the fist step of many to come. Apple can simply announce a media event, host it themselves, and still get great news coverage.

Apple can de-emphasize Jobs' role by having others do the smaller announcements, product refreshes, and demos and reserve the new product category announcements for himself, which happen infrequently. Thus over time, Jobs showing up or not becomes a non-issue because no one will expect him too unless Apple has a huge new product announcement to make; the added benefit of that is it gives Apple more secretive control - no will know when to expect such an announcement. And when he finally does leave or becomes a behind the scenes advisor, it will have little affect on the stock.

Agreed lol, most of these morons are coming to these conclusions cause Apple is not going to Macworld after this year not knowing that Macworld was never a Apple held event, Apple was invited and did use the event to deliver a keynote there but the entire thing was put up by a separate company

[knightlie]

This guy's ramblings seem to be somewhat undermined by the reports that Apple left MacWorld for political reasons rather than anything to do with leadership. But hey, the analysts have to earn their money somehow. I wish I got paid for talking out of my arse.

[htoelle]

If the Apple Computer Company rises and falls on the presence of Steve Jobs at the helm. That would be a sad commentary on the company he has worked so hard to build. Nothing could be further from the truth, yes there will be changes, some may even be not so good. However an organization built on a foundation of so many talented people will survive just fine. Apple has proved over the years that by and large its ideas are very carefully thought out and planned, then executed step by step. When this comes about as it must eventually it shall be carried out in the Apple Style barring unforeseen events.
All the best to Apple and Mr. Jobs

[Galley]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

Jesus F#$%ing Christ!

Why do people listen to ANALysts?

Better them, than analrapists!

[ElectroTech]

I think Steve Jobs is creating the change in helm by not showing but you have to give the Apple team more credit. There likely will be a new product unleashed soon by the new management team to give the optics that they too can run the company. I think Steve Jobs has set the tone for innovation for years to come and as long as a sales person takes the helm, Apple will continue to innovate or perish.

[bwik]

I agree with this.

There is no reason why Apple can't confidently push ahead and have Phil give the keynote at Apple's next major event. The new iMac introduction and Mini introduction might normally be given by Steve. But these rituals have become tyranny. Apple can certainly launch such products using a number of top executives.

For analysts to declare "If Steve is not giving the talk, either he is dying or there is no big product," is a startling lack of creativity on their part. Do they suppose Apple is not creative?

Apple actually can, and probably should, embark on these intros without Steve in the same building. For analysts to suggest that Apple is boxed into this product-release ritual of Steve Jobs, or else the company collapses, is a conventional-think theory that can easily be smashed by forward action. At this point, it would be a show of strength, not weakness for Apple to put some other executives onstage (not just Phil).

[WiggyWack]

They're just getting ready to take over the world with their Draconian Reality Distortion Field! IT'S A TRAP!

[8CoreWhore]

I suspect that Apple and it share holders don't appreciate Macworld Expo being a huge blip on the Apple radar - and them being held to it in a way. Stock goes up before the event, if it's a "let down" or Steve looks thinner, the stock price drops. There's too much expectation that Apple's product line is tied to the event schedule. They may simply want to break away from that time line. If a new product is anticipated - but they can't get it ready in time for the show - they are screwed, in a sense. I think they just want more flexibility regarding product launch time lines. On the one hand, using Steve as a cheerleader for product launches has been a huge asset, but there's two sides to that coin and it doesn't always play out in a way they want - for a company that wants total control of public perceptions, etc. There's a difference between leadership (CEO) and public appearances.

[GQB]

Ok, so here's a little thought experiment for you.
Instead of this, Steve walks on stage, announces very little, and the 'one more thing' is "And by the way, this is my last Keynote."
Can you say 'Titanic' for the stock?

As I've said before, this is the downside to the cult of Steve. There's no avoiding the hit to be taken as the company transitions to the post-Steve era.
If they have their fundamentals in place, we'll be fine. If not, then investing in a company based on one man was a bad idea in the first place, wasn't it?

[GQB]

People also forget that Macworld has really only been a big deal in the non-Mac consciousness since the iPhone keynote that flipped the world upside down.
Since then, that very scrutiny and level of expectation has been a detriment to Apple, not a plus. Macworld is not Apple, and Apple is pulling back control of its announcements and produce release cycle.
And using the opportunity to transition past the church of Steve. (No offense meant to steve.)

[sequitur]

In the event that SJ does step down, there is an upside. Whoever takes the helm may not be as prejudiced against some of the items that SJ is.

[paxman]

People seem to be reacting as if this is not true. My immediate reaction was "well, DUH. This has been going on for years". I think everybody knows that Steve has not been well and by his own admission got exhausted by his bout with cancer. He is getting older and a near death experience changes your outlook and desire to be married to the job. For the last couple of years he has been inviting other people on stage to take over ever greater parts of his presentations. Apple has grown up and is now officially main stream. The importance of SJ appearing at every even is diminished, witnessed by Apple's decision to step away from MW. I first realized that Apple was changing its ways when the first solo iPod introduction was announced. It seemed so un-Apple like at the time. Still SJ but little fanfare. I imagine SJ will still be around and still voice his opinion, but the machine has a pretty strong momentum. The rumor mills will continue. It was nice while it lasted but Apple is a different beast now. We've all wanted it so now that it is happening we'll just have to move on. The world is changing and personally I don't think for the worse. I'm getting an iPhone for xmas. I'll be one of MILLIONS. That's what we want isn't it?

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by bwik

I agree with this.

There is no reason why Apple can't confidently push ahead and have Phil give the keynote at Apple's next major event. The new iMac introduction and Mini introduction might normally be given by Steve. But these rituals have become tyranny. Apple can certainly launch such products using a number of top executives.

For analysts to declare "If Steve is not giving the talk, either he is dying or there is no big product," is a startling lack of creativity on their part. Do they suppose Apple is not creative?

Apple actually can, and probably should, embark on these intros without Steve in the same building. For analysts to suggest that Apple is boxed into this product-release ritual of Steve Jobs, or else the company collapses, is a conventional-think theory that can easily be smashed by forward action. At this point, it would be a show of strength, not weakness for Apple to put some other executives onstage (not just Phil).

I have to agree. Regardless of the state of Jobs' health, allowing more people to become prominent in the company can only lessen the inevitable blow of wild speculation.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by paxman

People seem to be reacting as if this is not true. My immediate reaction was "well, DUH. This has been going on for years". I think everybody knows that Steve has not been well and by his own admission got exhausted by his bout with cancer. He is getting older and a near death experience changes your outlook and desire to be married to the job. For the last couple of years he has been inviting other people on stage to take over ever greater parts of his presentations. Apple has grown up and is now officially main stream. The importance of SJ appearing at every even is diminished, witnessed by Apple's decision to step away from MW. I first realized that Apple was changing its ways when the first solo iPod introduction was announced. It seemed so un-Apple like at the time. Still SJ but little fanfare. I imagine SJ will still be around and still voice his opinion, but the machine has a pretty strong momentum. The rumor mills will continue. It was nice while it lasted but Apple is a different beast now. We've all wanted it so now that it is happening we'll just have to move on. The world is changing and personally I don't think for the worse. I'm getting an iPhone for xmas. I'll be one of MILLIONS. That's what we want isn't it?

I have a feeling we won't see AAPL back up in the 200 range anytime soon. Maybe 5 or 6 years from now after a transition has been announced and everyone calms down...

[davesmall]

-> Has Steve had some serious health problems?
-> Would it be a good idea for Apple to demonstrate that the company is not a one man show?
-> Should we worry that they're going to bring back Gil Amelio or John Sculley if something happens to Steve?
-> Do you think trade shows are a cost effective way to spend big money? Better than spending to open more retail stores worldwide? Better than running more "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads? Better than the developer conference?
-> Do you think trade shows are: (a) A thing of the future, or (b) a thing of the past
-> Do you think Apple has some negative experiences through their MacWorld participation? Does the stock get hammered if they fail to introduce a new game changing product? Does that make them happy?
-> From what you know about Steve Jobs, do you think he likes having the biggest Apple event of the year controlled by another company that they've frequently disagreed with?
-> Who's more likely to do something crazy? Apple? or the analysts who cover Apple?

[Bobo Decosta]

Is Piper the new madame Soleil?

[Foo2]

The new leadership is a ravaged economy and employees who are sick and tired of 25 years of not being able to spend the holidays with their families.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by sequitur

In the event that SJ does step down, there is an upside. Whoever takes the helm may not be as prejudiced against some of the items that SJ is.

Exactly.

Until analysts can access not only Jobs' strengths but his weaknesses as well and articulate these there's no reason to fear.

Apple's not the only company to become resurgent. I'm staring at an IBM banner add as I type this knowing that at one time "Big Blue" was thought to be a dinosaur that would not survive.

Apple has done very well and quite honestly I don't have the same fear that other have. The Executive staff at Apple seems to be stellar for the most part.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by Foo2

The new leadership is a ravaged economy and employees who are sick and tired of 25 years of not being able to spend the holidays with their families.

I guess there won't be a 25th Year Anniversary Mac either

[1984]

Originally Posted by Object-X

Apple can de-emphasize Jobs' role by having others do the smaller announcements, product refreshes, and demos while reserving the new product category announcements for himself, which happen infrequently. Thus over time, Jobs showing up or not becomes a non-issue because no one will expect him too, unless Apple has a huge new product announcement to make; the added benefit of that is it gives Apple more secretive control - no will know when to expect such an announcement. And when he finally does leave or becomes a behind the scenes advisor, it will have little affect on the stock.

I think they should do the exact opposite. Have others such as Phil Schiller do the big groundbreaking announcements. Only that will show people that it is a team effort. Sadly I think they will announce only minor refreshes at this last Macworld keynote which will only serve to strengthen the whole "only Steve Jobs can deliver" belief.

[JeffDM]

I thought the "tag team" approach with SJ as the "moderator" was best, it seems like they should have done that again. Oh well.

Originally Posted by fraklinc

Agreed lol, most of these morons are coming to these conclusions cause Apple is not going to Macworld after this year not knowing that Macworld was never a Apple held event, Apple was invited and did use the event to deliver a keynote there but the entire thing was put up by a separate company

Most people don't know that Macworld isn't put on by Apple.

Originally Posted by Foo2

The new leadership is a ravaged economy and employees who are sick and tired of 25 years of not being able to spend the holidays with their families.

I thought MWSF was a week after the New Year's.

[vinney57]

Originally Posted by Wakashizuma

Because analysts are not bunch of fanboys who'd say something because of their subjective opinion. What do you expect people to listen to? The enthusiast Mac evangelists on mac forums?

Wrong! Analysts are storytellers for their company's clients. Its fantasy land for fools and their money. They are a running joke inside the trading rooms. You are far more likely to reach enlightenment listening to fanboys since by definition they know the company and its products inside out.

Think again new boy.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by Wakashizuma

Because analysts are not bunch of fanboys who'd say something because of their subjective opinion. What do you expect people to listen to? The enthusiast Mac evangelists on mac forums?

People should be researching these companies using their own reason, and when that doesn't satisfy your questions contact a broker and talk to friends, colleagues and family to get more feedback.

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I thought MWSF was a week after the New Year's.

Oh, you're right. I forgot, it only takes a couple days to finalize new products and put together the presentations. That leaves plenty of time to relax, just like all the fabs that close down over the holidays.

[Ireland]

Drug binge is underway at PJ

[bwik]

Originally Posted by GQB

Ok, so here's a little thought experiment for you.
Instead of this, Steve walks on stage, announces very little, and the 'one more thing' is "And by the way, this is my last Keynote."
Can you say 'Titanic' for the stock?

Maybe this is a crackpot theory at this stage, but I don't believe Steve will be giving any more keynotes. He has only been punished for giving them recently. So why do it?

Instead, the next rung of leadership at Apple will be giving the keynotes from now on. This will familiarize us with the new leaders. Once we are familiar with the other leaders, I think the market would be less apprehensive. Market apprehension (steve's health) is becoming a problem for AAPL, a corporate problem that demands changes.

AAPL is not dangling over the precipice of defeat. They are a solid company. Steve has already made his core contributions. Time to shake things up. While Steve is still healthy and looking good, which I hope he will be for many years..... JMO

[MacJello]

I'm a long time Apple fan. I've always said that one thing I like about Apple is that it's not merely a money-making endeavor. I really believe that Steve Jobs doesn't put money first. Instead, he's motivated by certain ideals. He's concerned about changing the world by creating innovative, user-friendly technology.

I'm not saying that Jobs doesn't recognize the importance of money. Apple has to make money to survive. But I really believe that he figures that as long as Apple excecutes all aspects of it's mission to provide quality products, the money will follow.

People roll their eyes when I say such things; they think I'm hopelessly naive. They think every company is just like Microsoft at heart. Apple can't really be different.

How does this fit in this thread? Apple demonstrates its lack of concern for stock holders on a regular basis. We lost over six percent of the stock value today. It happened in a way that was both predictable and avoidable. If Jobs had merely made an appearance on CNBC and said a few words about the reason for dropping out of MacWorld the stock would be fine.

I'm a bit disgusted with Apple today. But I remind myself that the underlying explanation for Apple's pig-headedness on this issue, is the same explanation for so many of the qualities that I admire about the company.

Long term, this announcement means nothing, and the stock will eventually soar again. Long term the company is in phenomenally good shape, and it will continue to innovate and change our relationship with technology. I have to remind myself of these things on a day like today.

However, I do wish I could say to Steve, "Don't forget that many of your best customers are also shareholders. And we're not billionaires. Give us a thought sometimes, eh?"

[johnmark76]

I was contemplating putting a good portion of my technology portfolio in Apple - but
decided not to. Look at how their stock reacts just on rumors alone. I'll wait for news that he's leaving then buy when the stock tanks. I think they will do well if they get into the Home entertainment area.


FYI: I am a mac user - and I'm just waiting to upgrade when the new 17" MBP comes out.

[Brendon]

Originally Posted by WiggyWack

They're just getting ready to take over the world with their Draconian Reality Distortion Field! IT'S A TRAP!

And it is a cloaking device, long live the empire!

[Brendon]

Originally Posted by johnmark76

I was contemplating putting a good portion of my technology portfolio in Apple - but
decided not to. Look at how their stock reacts just on rumors alone. I'll wait for news that he's leaving then buy when the stock tanks. I think they will do well if they get into the Home entertainment area.
_SNIP_

There are a number of roles that Steve can play and still be very much in charge but just not a spokesman. If you look at his role at Apple he is very hands on, designing the glass stairs at the Chicago Store. And then there are all of the flights he made to Europe prior to the launch of the iPhone there. Even one of the CEOs remarked that Steve knew about product placement, and lots of little details of his stores and that suggested that Steve may have spent a fair amount of time in those stores unannounced, just hanging out soaking it all in. So in light of this yes I would like for him to transition the team to picking up this stuff and product announcements. There are still lots of things to do, and while Steve is a great presenter he is a much better dreamer. So if Apple decided that they would put in a hammock and just have Steve lay around take it easy and dream, that may not be such a bad thing.

As we have seen in the past many people can run a company, few can see the future of technology like Steve can.

[ktappe]

Originally Posted by Wakashizuma

Because analysts are not bunch of fanboys who'd say something because of their subjective opinion. What do you expect people to listen to? The enthusiast Mac evangelists on mac forums?

I expect them to listen to people who have a track record of being correct, not a record of being wrong.

[Haggar]

Originally Posted by vinney57

Wrong! Analysts are storytellers for their company's clients. Its fantasy land for fools and their money. They are a running joke inside the trading rooms. You are far more likely to reach enlightenment listening to fanboys since by definition they know the company and its products inside out.

Think again new boy.

Originally Posted by ktappe

I expect them to listen to people who have a track record of being correct, not a record of being wrong.

It was Apple "fanboys" who claimed:

Apple will not a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.

Apple will never switch to Intel processors.

Apple will not make a mobile phone.

After that was proven wrong, they then started saying: There will be no iPhone SDK. Nobody needs third party native applications on iPhone. Web apps are really, really SWEET.

Ease of service doesn't matter. You can't make a laptop that's thin and easy to service. Then Apple released the unibody MacBook Pro which is thinner with much easier accessibility than the previous model.

Who needs preemptive multitasking or memory protection?

Who needs automatic memory allocation? Just click Get Info and change the memory amount by yourself.

[iPeon]

The question is, why does AI splatter these type of "opnions" (lies) around? If no one paid attention to these morons, they would become extinct. So why keep them alive?

[clickmyface]

Originally Posted by Haggar

It was Apple "fanboys" who claimed:

Apple will not a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.

Apple will never switch to Intel processors.

Apple will not make a mobile phone.

After that was proven wrong, they then started saying: There will be no iPhone SDK. Nobody needs third party native applications on iPhone. Web apps are really, really SWEET.

Ease of service doesn't matter. You can't make a laptop that's thin and easy to service. Then Apple released the unibody MacBook Pro which is thinner with much easier accessibility than the previous model.

Who needs preemptive multitasking or memory protection?

Who needs automatic memory allocation? Just click Get Info and change the memory amount by yourself.

Man, that took a lot of effort. If those people are "fanboys" then what are you?

Also, contrasting the speculative opinions of thousands of people and comparing it to the record of one person is not a very strong strategy.

Apple isn't going to Macworld because they no longer release products based on trade show dates. Trade shows elevated Apple in 90s and 00s, and the press loved it. Now, Apple can overflow it's own press theater whenever it wants. This means Apple can roll products out based on more traditional business deadlines like summer back-to-school and christmas. This is not speculative - it has been their trend lately.

This is interesting. Everyone, including this analyst, knows that Apple's stock lives and dies with Steve Jobs health (an exaggeration, but it still impacts it heavily). The logical conclusion for Steve and Apple to take is to elevate it's leadership. Apple really isnt run by one guy, but many extremely smart people. The logical and important thing would be to show that, and Apple is doing so.