I expect this to announced about 6 months after his return from this LOA. When you add in the rumors that Apple is searching for a CFO (even though Oppenheimer says he is happy at Apple), I think you can see that there is an effort to adjust the management team. It appears that Oppenheimer will be slotted into the COO spot upon Cook's elevation to CEO. I have some concerns about moving a finance guy into running operations but I am sure they feel he will be the best "cultural" fit. Steve will assume the role of a very active board chairman - working out the big strategic moves and keeping careful watch that the "Apple DNA" continues to inform future product decisions.
From my perspective, Apple has been laying the groundwork for this transition for the past two years. Steve has included more presenters at Apple events not only to help them improve their presentation abilities but also for the media and others to get used to announcements coming from someone other than Jobs. Press releases that once quoted only Jobs now frequently include quotes from Cook or other senior staff.
Maybe, I wonder. Apple has been astonishingly silent about any succession plans, which doesn't fit well with your theory.
The guy has had two major surgical procedures...one the ghastly "Whipple procedure" and the other a liver transplant. It's amazing he has survived these to stand up in front of people at keynotes since then.
Maybe, I wonder. Apple has been astonishingly silent about any succession plans, which doesn't fit well with your theory.
Are you suggesting that you think they have no succession plan in place? I find that view very naive. They don't need to publicly announce their plan just to prove they have one.
Are you suggesting that you think they have no succession plan in place? I find that view very naive. They don't need to publicly announce their plan just to prove they have one.
We simply don't know, and all questions on this subject are rebuffed. Considering the importance of Steve to Apple, and his health history, it makes sense for the company to be more clear about their post-Steve plans. The uncertainty doesn't serve any good purpose that I can see. I'm hardly the first one to comment on the mystery that Apple has deliberately created around this issue.
We simply don't know, and all questions on this subject are rebuffed. Considering the importance of Steve to Apple, and his health history, it makes sense for the company to be more clear about their post-Steve plans. The uncertainty doesn't serve any good purpose that I can see. I'm hardly the first one to comment on the mystery that Apple has deliberately created around this issue.
I think Apple's succession plans are obvious, even if unspoken: Cook succeeds Jobs as CEO.
The question then is who fills the COO position. Do you fill the position from within or do you find an outsider who is exceptionally strong in operations (much like when they hired Cook away from Compaq). I doubt they would bring in an outsider at this point since I think they would want their COO to be inculcated to the "Apple Way".
In terms of product vision, I think this is sometimes overplayed. Products don't spring from Steve's mind fully-formed. In fact, they often start as someone else's vision. We know that Tony Faddell was responsible for the iPod. We know that some engineer dreamt up the new iMovie while on vacation. Apple is loaded with talent at many levels.
Steve's real ability is as a marketer, a presenter and the fact that he could keep people on the same page. There is no doubt in my mind that Cook can keep people focused (he's already done so). Schiller seems a capable marketer. What would be missing is that public face that introduces new products which is a serious issue.
I'm confident they have a plan, but as an investor it would be good to know what it is. That said, unless it can be demonstrated that concealing such information from investors is a violation of FTC regs, I'm okay with whatever the Board decides.
Whomever steps into those shoes, I suspect they'll walk more softly. It's hard to imagine anyone else feeling as free to use labels like "evil", "lazy" etc. to describe people who might actually be useful to the company if appropriately managed.
For all that Steve has accomplished bringing the product line this far, we may see a new Golden Era in 2011-2012 as whomever takes over the reigns capitalizes on those products most fully with healthier relationships throughout the industries Apple has a role in.
I agree with you.
A company's founder can say and do things that are antithetical to how "hired help" would behave.
The bean counters dictated Jobs removal in the '80s because no single person is a corporation and that decision nearly ruined the company. Now the bean counters want to dictate terms because apparently one man is the corporation. When large amounts of money are involved there will be no shortage of experts insisting that their opinions are representing the "adults in the room" view. Apple has been run pretty uniquely in the corporate world to unbelievable results. There are plenty of quotes from Steve about marching to the beat of a different drum and that is certainly seen as a major factor to apples success. Real artists ship. Money managers want assurances and it's tough to blame them, but not impossible. I hope Steve and the other executives at apple hold the dogs at bay and handle this transition in their own way. He announced he had cancer in '04 (?), needed a new liver in '09 and now announced a medical leave. Change is coming. If you are an apple stock holder and are concerned then you should sell and be grateful for the money you made in the worst economy in generations. Buy stock in toothpaste or underwear, but I say let Apple be Apple.
?I was with Tim Cook last week in New York and I walked away from that thinking, ?This guy is more in charge and more in control of Apple than I think people understand,? ? said Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies who has followed Apple for nearly three decades. ?He clearly is the guy that if Apple needed additional leadership at the top, could actually carry it.?
Despite Anxiety Over Leave at Apple, a Deep Bench of Leadership
It is high time that Steve Jobs retires for medical reasons. The New York Times article quoted above highlights 2 obvious reasons for concern:
1- A recurrence of cancer which is favored by anti-rejection drugs;
2- Infections brought about by anti-rejection drugs and/or the need to adjust their selection, combination or dosage.
We should all be thankful for the immense contribution Steve Jobs has made at Apple, but now is the time to retire so that a real succession plan can take place.
No, Steve Jobs is not eternal. Investors should take notice and cash in their profits while they exist. Hedge funds are sure to leave the Apple ship and leave it in a worst shape than before they invested in it for the unmatched "double digit returns".
From now on, shareholders, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the NASDQ authorities will decide whether Steve Jobs can stay on, pretend that he is still the Apple CEO, and refuse to discuss the health problems that force him to take an indefinite medical leave of absence.
Really, only fools would fail to understand what is happening.
You haven't given up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
08-11-2007, 12:20 AM
As for Steve Jobs' 10 year tenure as Apple CEO, he has given Apple everything that he could give it (and more so, because he has only a high school education and a blue collar family background). Staying on will only stall the company and induce talented administrators to leave.
Goddess, may you bless Steve Jobs on his path, whatever is best for him. I understand most reality we perceive is but a shadow of true Creation. We and Apple will miss him but we all have our journeys in life, although it is definitely made smoother and more meaningful by Apple, no doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaryMG
Jesus Christ ....
We were all led to believe Steve'd had really turned the corner on this ....
And with the Dow's day off today plus a day's worth of newscycle build-up/panic, AAPL's gonna China Syndrome tomorrow ....
It's times like these where I really wish I weren't an athesist so I can say:
"My prayers are with Steve & his family."
But since that stupid superstion will net ZERO results, I can't.
But the sentiment's there, all the same.
Get well supersoon, Stev .
The world needs more Steven P. Jobs, for we shall not gaze upon His like again.
Whatever the outcome, I'm glad he got to live long enough to see his dreams come true. I know the iPad was a big deal for him.
He has achieved well beyond mere mortals. If it is his time to move on to a bigger and better Universe (note: doesn't mean he has to pass away he may have to simply step down from Apple and pursue something else which is less stressful, next phase of his ability, etc), I cannot hold him back for my own selfishness. In any case, I pray for what is best for him and his family as that will be what is most important right now.
Two things I would need to mention. Firstly, it will not be the same without him. iPhone4 and iPad is nothing short of the most amazing digital devices/gadgets/computers ever made in the history of the modern IT era (ie. 90s onwards). I am generally a technology enthusiast most of my 30 years of life, although in the past 10 years I definitely moved from time-wasting rubbish pointless gadgetry to Apple stuff - technology, simply done right, essential, meaningful, purposeful, elegant, *powerful*. I was looking at Linux distros today because I am bored of Windows on my gaming PC, and I was shaking my head at both how hideous they still look and at the fragmentation. How do you even pick a distro to start with? Yes Tim Cook is a very capable person in his own right. But there is only one Steve. Yes we will have to cope, but that fact remains - there is only one Steve in our universe right now.
Secondly, we have to admit that when he went for a liver transplant no matter how advanced medical technology is today, organ transplants have many risks associated with them, and once you do not have your own organ in you, the body's systems become very different particularly with the intense medication regime you are put on. That it has only been two years since his last leave of absence and the sudden announcement is concerning.
The bean counters dictated Jobs removal in the '80s because no single person is a corporation and that decision nearly ruined the company. Now the bean counters want to dictate terms because apparently one man is the corporation. When large amounts of money are involved there will be no shortage of experts insisting that their opinions are representing the "adults in the room" view. Apple has been run pretty uniquely in the corporate world to unbelievable results. There are plenty of quotes from Steve about marching to the beat of a different drum and that is certainly seen as a major factor to apples success. Real artists ship. Money managers want assurances and it's tough to blame them, but not impossible. I hope Steve and the other executives at apple hold the dogs at bay and handle this transition in their own way. He announced he had cancer in '04 (?), needed a new liver in '09 and now announced a medical leave. Change is coming. If you are an apple stock holder and are concerned then you should sell and be grateful for the money you made in the worst economy in generations. Buy stock in toothpaste or underwear, but I say let Apple be Apple.
Good post. The more I understand business the more Apple seems really amazing, although of course they are not perfect. Yes with the momentum and talent they have Apple can still go strong another 5 years were Steve not to return. But the "magic", for lack of a better term, may slowly ebb as Apple gradually becomes more mainstream in philosophy, angle, approach, whatever. Not to say that they won't be successful, just more mainstream.
I'm confident they have a plan, but as an investor it would be good to know what it is. That said, unless it can be demonstrated that concealing such information from investors is a violation of FTC regs, I'm okay with whatever the Board decides.
Whomever steps into those shoes, I suspect they'll walk more softly. It's hard to imagine anyone else feeling as free to use labels like "evil", "lazy" etc. to describe people who might actually be useful to the company if appropriately managed.
For all that Steve has accomplished bringing the product line this far, we may see a new Golden Era in 2011-2012 as whomever takes over the reigns capitalizes on those products most fully with healthier relationships throughout the industries Apple has a role in.
It's about providing a sense of stability. Apple is one of the world's largest corporations, and with that position comes responsibilities. The peculiar way Apple has handled these issues, I can't help help thinking that egos are involved somehow. What prevents them from doing the right thing? That's what I wonder about, and what gives me more discomfort than the thought of Steve retiring.
Comments
I expect this to announced about 6 months after his return from this LOA. When you add in the rumors that Apple is searching for a CFO (even though Oppenheimer says he is happy at Apple), I think you can see that there is an effort to adjust the management team. It appears that Oppenheimer will be slotted into the COO spot upon Cook's elevation to CEO. I have some concerns about moving a finance guy into running operations but I am sure they feel he will be the best "cultural" fit. Steve will assume the role of a very active board chairman - working out the big strategic moves and keeping careful watch that the "Apple DNA" continues to inform future product decisions.
From my perspective, Apple has been laying the groundwork for this transition for the past two years. Steve has included more presenters at Apple events not only to help them improve their presentation abilities but also for the media and others to get used to announcements coming from someone other than Jobs. Press releases that once quoted only Jobs now frequently include quotes from Cook or other senior staff.
Maybe, I wonder. Apple has been astonishingly silent about any succession plans, which doesn't fit well with your theory.
Maybe, I wonder. Apple has been astonishingly silent about any succession plans, which doesn't fit well with your theory.
Are you suggesting that you think they have no succession plan in place? I find that view very naive. They don't need to publicly announce their plan just to prove they have one.
Are you suggesting that you think they have no succession plan in place? I find that view very naive. They don't need to publicly announce their plan just to prove they have one.
We simply don't know, and all questions on this subject are rebuffed. Considering the importance of Steve to Apple, and his health history, it makes sense for the company to be more clear about their post-Steve plans. The uncertainty doesn't serve any good purpose that I can see. I'm hardly the first one to comment on the mystery that Apple has deliberately created around this issue.
We simply don't know, and all questions on this subject are rebuffed. Considering the importance of Steve to Apple, and his health history, it makes sense for the company to be more clear about their post-Steve plans. The uncertainty doesn't serve any good purpose that I can see. I'm hardly the first one to comment on the mystery that Apple has deliberately created around this issue.
I think Apple's succession plans are obvious, even if unspoken: Cook succeeds Jobs as CEO.
The question then is who fills the COO position. Do you fill the position from within or do you find an outsider who is exceptionally strong in operations (much like when they hired Cook away from Compaq). I doubt they would bring in an outsider at this point since I think they would want their COO to be inculcated to the "Apple Way".
In terms of product vision, I think this is sometimes overplayed. Products don't spring from Steve's mind fully-formed. In fact, they often start as someone else's vision. We know that Tony Faddell was responsible for the iPod. We know that some engineer dreamt up the new iMovie while on vacation. Apple is loaded with talent at many levels.
Steve's real ability is as a marketer, a presenter and the fact that he could keep people on the same page. There is no doubt in my mind that Cook can keep people focused (he's already done so). Schiller seems a capable marketer. What would be missing is that public face that introduces new products which is a serious issue.
I'm confident they have a plan, but as an investor it would be good to know what it is. That said, unless it can be demonstrated that concealing such information from investors is a violation of FTC regs, I'm okay with whatever the Board decides.
Whomever steps into those shoes, I suspect they'll walk more softly. It's hard to imagine anyone else feeling as free to use labels like "evil", "lazy" etc. to describe people who might actually be useful to the company if appropriately managed.
For all that Steve has accomplished bringing the product line this far, we may see a new Golden Era in 2011-2012 as whomever takes over the reigns capitalizes on those products most fully with healthier relationships throughout the industries Apple has a role in.
I agree with you.
A company's founder can say and do things that are antithetical to how "hired help" would behave.
?I was with Tim Cook last week in New York and I walked away from that thinking, ?This guy is more in charge and more in control of Apple than I think people understand,? ? said Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies who has followed Apple for nearly three decades. ?He clearly is the guy that if Apple needed additional leadership at the top, could actually carry it.?
Despite Anxiety Over Leave at Apple, a Deep Bench of Leadership
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/te...r=yahoofinance
I truly believe the leave is not as serious as others think. I would think Jobs would relinquish CEO duties like he did in 2009.
From "Apple Says Steve Jobs Will Take a New Medical Leave" @ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/te...y/18apple.html
It is high time that Steve Jobs retires for medical reasons. The New York Times article quoted above highlights 2 obvious reasons for concern:
1- A recurrence of cancer which is favored by anti-rejection drugs;
2- Infections brought about by anti-rejection drugs and/or the need to adjust their selection, combination or dosage.
We should all be thankful for the immense contribution Steve Jobs has made at Apple, but now is the time to retire so that a real succession plan can take place.
No, Steve Jobs is not eternal. Investors should take notice and cash in their profits while they exist. Hedge funds are sure to leave the Apple ship and leave it in a worst shape than before they invested in it for the unmatched "double digit returns".
From now on, shareholders, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the NASDQ authorities will decide whether Steve Jobs can stay on, pretend that he is still the Apple CEO, and refuse to discuss the health problems that force him to take an indefinite medical leave of absence.
Really, only fools would fail to understand what is happening.
You haven't given up.
More, with actual links to the articles cited.
Did you bother to read them?
Jesus Christ ....
We were all led to believe Steve'd had really turned the corner on this ....
And with the Dow's day off today plus a day's worth of newscycle build-up/panic, AAPL's gonna China Syndrome tomorrow ....
It's times like these where I really wish I weren't an athesist so I can say:
"My prayers are with Steve & his family."
But since that stupid superstion will net ZERO results, I can't.
But the sentiment's there, all the same.
Get well supersoon, Stev .
The world needs more Steven P. Jobs, for we shall not gaze upon His like again.
Whatever the outcome, I'm glad he got to live long enough to see his dreams come true. I know the iPad was a big deal for him.
He has achieved well beyond mere mortals. If it is his time to move on to a bigger and better Universe (note: doesn't mean he has to pass away he may have to simply step down from Apple and pursue something else which is less stressful, next phase of his ability, etc), I cannot hold him back for my own selfishness. In any case, I pray for what is best for him and his family as that will be what is most important right now.
Secondly, we have to admit that when he went for a liver transplant no matter how advanced medical technology is today, organ transplants have many risks associated with them, and once you do not have your own organ in you, the body's systems become very different particularly with the intense medication regime you are put on. That it has only been two years since his last leave of absence and the sudden announcement is concerning.
The bean counters dictated Jobs removal in the '80s because no single person is a corporation and that decision nearly ruined the company. Now the bean counters want to dictate terms because apparently one man is the corporation. When large amounts of money are involved there will be no shortage of experts insisting that their opinions are representing the "adults in the room" view. Apple has been run pretty uniquely in the corporate world to unbelievable results. There are plenty of quotes from Steve about marching to the beat of a different drum and that is certainly seen as a major factor to apples success. Real artists ship. Money managers want assurances and it's tough to blame them, but not impossible. I hope Steve and the other executives at apple hold the dogs at bay and handle this transition in their own way. He announced he had cancer in '04 (?), needed a new liver in '09 and now announced a medical leave. Change is coming. If you are an apple stock holder and are concerned then you should sell and be grateful for the money you made in the worst economy in generations. Buy stock in toothpaste or underwear, but I say let Apple be Apple.
Good post. The more I understand business the more Apple seems really amazing, although of course they are not perfect. Yes with the momentum and talent they have Apple can still go strong another 5 years were Steve not to return. But the "magic", for lack of a better term, may slowly ebb as Apple gradually becomes more mainstream in philosophy, angle, approach, whatever. Not to say that they won't be successful, just more mainstream.
I'm confident they have a plan, but as an investor it would be good to know what it is. That said, unless it can be demonstrated that concealing such information from investors is a violation of FTC regs, I'm okay with whatever the Board decides.
Whomever steps into those shoes, I suspect they'll walk more softly. It's hard to imagine anyone else feeling as free to use labels like "evil", "lazy" etc. to describe people who might actually be useful to the company if appropriately managed.
For all that Steve has accomplished bringing the product line this far, we may see a new Golden Era in 2011-2012 as whomever takes over the reigns capitalizes on those products most fully with healthier relationships throughout the industries Apple has a role in.
It's about providing a sense of stability. Apple is one of the world's largest corporations, and with that position comes responsibilities. The peculiar way Apple has handled these issues, I can't help help thinking that egos are involved somehow. What prevents them from doing the right thing? That's what I wonder about, and what gives me more discomfort than the thought of Steve retiring.