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.
Unfortunately the premise is wrong. Steve was kicked out of Apple in 1985 because he was unfocused, undisciplined, and distructive. It's questionable whether Apple could have survived two more years of Steve. The remarkable thing is how much he'd learned during his absence. I think Apple can have many good years post-Steve, but this artificial suspsense they are creating is distracting and distructive to the company's reputation. I posted the opinion of the NYT on this issue because I think it's wise and correct.
Unfortunately the premise is wrong. Steve was kicked out of Apple in 1985 because he was unfocused, undisciplined, and distructive. It's questionable whether Apple could have survived two more years of Steve. The remarkable thing is how much he'd learned during his absence. I think Apple can have many good years post-Steve, but this artificial suspsense they are creating is distracting and distructive to the company's reputation. I posted the opinion of the NYT on this issue because I think it's wise and correct.
You're trying to compare Steve now with Steve 25 years ago? If we look at what Steve has done in the past 10 years clearly he has done much better this time round and indeed he appears to have changed and learned much.
As for the artifical suspense, what more is expected? Either he can continue, or he can't. In any case whatever time he is not proactively involved at Apple is, shall we say, a not-fully-inspired time at Apple.
Personally he may indeed be rude, overbearing, etc. as some people say but he can't be all that horrible in comparison to the rest of the business world if he's led the company to its best product portfolio, highest market cap, earnings, etc.
Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.
I was concerned with how Steve's cancer was hidden and the late-to-announce liver transplant.
At this stage however, it's well known he had cancer and a liver transplant. Common sense dictates all we need to know from here on in. Best case, he's back in a few months. Worst case, Tim Cook takes over. Pretty simple, actually.
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.
Oh, I doubt it. Whatever "Golden Era" we see in 2011-2013 will be because of what Steve has led throughout this time (and the team under him, of course). From then on, I doubt things will be the same, or even, better. Just my feeling.
You're trying to compare Steve now with Steve 25 years ago? If we look at what Steve has done in the past 10 years clearly he has done much better this time round and indeed he appears to have changed and learned much.
As for the artifical suspense, what more is expected? Either he can continue, or he can't. In any case whatever time he is not proactively involved at Apple is, shall we say, a not-fully-inspired time at Apple.
Personally he may indeed be rude, overbearing, etc. as some people say but he can't be all that horrible in comparison to the rest of the business world if he's led the company to its best product portfolio, highest market cap, earnings, etc.
No, I wasn't. I was responding to the theory that Steve was kicked out of Apple during the '80s by the "bean counters." He was dismissed because he was screwing up the company.
I refer back to the NYT piece posted above. That's what I expect.
Well, I pretty much agree with the article. It's rather spot on. And I agree with Munster.
No one expects Apple to suffer in the short term, as the company has a long product cycle. But some raise questions as to what will happen over the long term if Mr. Jobs does not return.
?The problem here isn?t the operations of Apple and their ability to execute and keep doing what they?ve been doing,? Mr. Munster said. ?As far as what they?ve got in place, no doubt they can deliver, but as far as inspiring products you haven?t thought up yet, that?s what you?re going to lose.?
?The problem, really at the core,? he said, ?is that Steve Jobs?s inspiration is irreplaceable.?
No, I wasn't. I was responding to the theory that Steve was kicked out of Apple during the '80s by the "bean counters." He was dismissed because he was screwing up the company.
I refer back to the NYT piece posted above. That's what I expect.
The way the story was discussed/reported in Silicon Valley, at the time:
Technically, Steve was relieved of management responsibility and told he would hold no future management position at Apple.
He was not fired.
Some time later Steve quit to form NeXT -- taking some key Apple employees with him.
Unfortunately the premise is wrong. Steve was kicked out of Apple in 1985 because he was unfocused, undisciplined, and distructive. It's questionable whether Apple could have survived two more years of Steve. The remarkable thing is how much he'd learned during his absence. I think Apple can have many good years post-Steve, but this artificial suspsense they are creating is distracting and distructive to the company's reputation. I posted the opinion of the NYT on this issue because I think it's wise and correct.
I can't help but see similarities. Back then apple went from a garage operation to a company worth a couple billion dollars. You and apparently the experts on the board at the time think he was destructive at a time when he should be responsible. And the same opinion seems to hold true again. If experts or people in general think apple and Steve are being destructive to their reputation I say let them think that. Cause then the iphone5 and ipad2 will come out. If the stock price takes a hit in the short term they can buy back some stock to award to engineers that work the long hours needed to keep apple ahead in a fast paced industry. Beyond that from what I've read the experts don't seem to doubt that apple is set for their direction and have a very capable team to execute. What would be nice is if apple had a replacement visionary ready. On that, everyone including the experts are silent.
Expert opinions would hold more sway with with me if they would have used their skills to examine the companies whose CEOs and top "earners" made incredible amounts of money bankrupting their companies and dragging the entire country into a recession worse than anything since the great depression.
I did read though that he is a bastard to the nth degree. Apple makes cool stuff but I heard Apple is a nightmare company to work for.
Reply
Although some of what you say (May and only may) be true. But Mr Jobs has always struck me as someone who demands the highest standards from all those who work for him (Apple). It starts with himself. He does not ask of others what he is not willing to do himself.
Look, like others I also wish SJ a speedy recovery.
I am also well aware that USA is a religious country, however can we stop using words like pray.
I for one hate religion, so don't like reading anything to do with it, why should it show up on a tech blog site, perplexes me.
So please STOP USING RELIGIOUS WORDS/PHRASES.
Isn't it our basic human right to free speech to use religious or non-religious words as we please? What's next, ban saying "Merry Christmas"?
Extremes are not very helpful, I think. On one hand for example Christian schools that ban Harry Potter, etc. On the other hand not being allowed to use the word "pray". These extremes do not move us forward as humankind.
Pray and God can be used in a spiritual context, not necessarily a religious one. And one's personal spirituality, I believe, is a basic human right too.
Isn't it our basic human right to free speech to use religious or non-religious words as we please? What's next, ban saying "Merry Christmas"?
Extremes are not very helpful, I think. On one hand for example Christian schools that ban Harry Potter, etc. On the other hand not being allowed to use the word "pray". These extremes do not move us forward as humankind.
Pray and God can be used in a spiritual context, not necessarily a religious one. And one's personal spirituality, I believe, is a basic human right too.
Right on, well said.
(I would however, ban Harry Potter at the drop of a hat, not that anyone would notice! )
I would love to be positive here. But I can't. I think Steve is dying, either from his cancer coming back, or other complications. This is not good news at all. I won't start the Apple is Doomed? talk, but the company will be different in the case that he's not involved.
Apple May Not Need to Reveal Details of Steve Jobs Medical Leave
Dolmetsch and Burrows report, "'They don’t have to say any more than the fact that he’s taking a leave, it’s indefinite, if that’s what it is,' James Cox, a Duke University law professor, said yesterday. 'Then they can express lots of generalized optimism which is not going to get them into trouble because that’s the kind of expected puffery for which there’s no actionable claims to speak of.' ... '
The SEC hasn’t provided any guidance on this,' said Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and a former federal prosecutor. 'The last time this happened they did announce that they were going to investigate the disclosure and then we heard nothing else from them.' ... '
It’s in a company’s interest as well to limit its disclosure so that it does not create for itself a duty to update,' said Jacob Frenkel, a former SEC enforcement lawyer and now a partner at Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker in Potomac, Maryland.
'In this day and age, shareholders want to know everything,' Frenkel said in a phone interview. 'As a practical matter, in terms of Mr. Jobs’s personal health condition, they’re entitled to know very little.'
Comments
"OMG Applew is doomed" comments may start now.
"Just don't get cancer that way."
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.
Unfortunately the premise is wrong. Steve was kicked out of Apple in 1985 because he was unfocused, undisciplined, and distructive. It's questionable whether Apple could have survived two more years of Steve. The remarkable thing is how much he'd learned during his absence. I think Apple can have many good years post-Steve, but this artificial suspsense they are creating is distracting and distructive to the company's reputation. I posted the opinion of the NYT on this issue because I think it's wise and correct.
Unfortunately the premise is wrong. Steve was kicked out of Apple in 1985 because he was unfocused, undisciplined, and distructive. It's questionable whether Apple could have survived two more years of Steve. The remarkable thing is how much he'd learned during his absence. I think Apple can have many good years post-Steve, but this artificial suspsense they are creating is distracting and distructive to the company's reputation. I posted the opinion of the NYT on this issue because I think it's wise and correct.
You're trying to compare Steve now with Steve 25 years ago? If we look at what Steve has done in the past 10 years clearly he has done much better this time round and indeed he appears to have changed and learned much.
As for the artifical suspense, what more is expected? Either he can continue, or he can't. In any case whatever time he is not proactively involved at Apple is, shall we say, a not-fully-inspired time at Apple.
Personally he may indeed be rude, overbearing, etc. as some people say but he can't be all that horrible in comparison to the rest of the business world if he's led the company to its best product portfolio, highest market cap, earnings, etc.
Wouldn't we like to believe that? But since when have his health issues been less serious than what was disclosed? Fundamentally this is the problem with Apple's approach to this issue. Investors will have to assume the worst because Apple and Steve refuse to say anything more. No oil on the water whatsoever.
I was concerned with how Steve's cancer was hidden and the late-to-announce liver transplant.
At this stage however, it's well known he had cancer and a liver transplant. Common sense dictates all we need to know from here on in. Best case, he's back in a few months. Worst case, Tim Cook takes over. Pretty simple, actually.
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.
Oh, I doubt it. Whatever "Golden Era" we see in 2011-2013 will be because of what Steve has led throughout this time (and the team under him, of course). From then on, I doubt things will be the same, or even, better. Just my feeling.
You're trying to compare Steve now with Steve 25 years ago? If we look at what Steve has done in the past 10 years clearly he has done much better this time round and indeed he appears to have changed and learned much.
As for the artifical suspense, what more is expected? Either he can continue, or he can't. In any case whatever time he is not proactively involved at Apple is, shall we say, a not-fully-inspired time at Apple.
Personally he may indeed be rude, overbearing, etc. as some people say but he can't be all that horrible in comparison to the rest of the business world if he's led the company to its best product portfolio, highest market cap, earnings, etc.
No, I wasn't. I was responding to the theory that Steve was kicked out of Apple during the '80s by the "bean counters." He was dismissed because he was screwing up the company.
I refer back to the NYT piece posted above. That's what I expect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/te...k.html?_r=1&hp
Well, I pretty much agree with the article. It's rather spot on. And I agree with Munster.
No one expects Apple to suffer in the short term, as the company has a long product cycle. But some raise questions as to what will happen over the long term if Mr. Jobs does not return.
?The problem here isn?t the operations of Apple and their ability to execute and keep doing what they?ve been doing,? Mr. Munster said. ?As far as what they?ve got in place, no doubt they can deliver, but as far as inspiring products you haven?t thought up yet, that?s what you?re going to lose.?
?The problem, really at the core,? he said, ?is that Steve Jobs?s inspiration is irreplaceable.?
No, I wasn't. I was responding to the theory that Steve was kicked out of Apple during the '80s by the "bean counters." He was dismissed because he was screwing up the company.
I refer back to the NYT piece posted above. That's what I expect.
The way the story was discussed/reported in Silicon Valley, at the time:
Technically, Steve was relieved of management responsibility and told he would hold no future management position at Apple.
He was not fired.
Some time later Steve quit to form NeXT -- taking some key Apple employees with him.
Unfortunately the premise is wrong. Steve was kicked out of Apple in 1985 because he was unfocused, undisciplined, and distructive. It's questionable whether Apple could have survived two more years of Steve. The remarkable thing is how much he'd learned during his absence. I think Apple can have many good years post-Steve, but this artificial suspsense they are creating is distracting and distructive to the company's reputation. I posted the opinion of the NYT on this issue because I think it's wise and correct.
I can't help but see similarities. Back then apple went from a garage operation to a company worth a couple billion dollars. You and apparently the experts on the board at the time think he was destructive at a time when he should be responsible. And the same opinion seems to hold true again. If experts or people in general think apple and Steve are being destructive to their reputation I say let them think that. Cause then the iphone5 and ipad2 will come out. If the stock price takes a hit in the short term they can buy back some stock to award to engineers that work the long hours needed to keep apple ahead in a fast paced industry. Beyond that from what I've read the experts don't seem to doubt that apple is set for their direction and have a very capable team to execute. What would be nice is if apple had a replacement visionary ready. On that, everyone including the experts are silent.
Expert opinions would hold more sway with with me if they would have used their skills to examine the companies whose CEOs and top "earners" made incredible amounts of money bankrupting their companies and dragging the entire country into a recession worse than anything since the great depression.
I am also well aware that USA is a religious country, however can we stop using words like pray.
I for one hate religion, so don't like reading anything to do with it, why should it show up on a tech blog site, perplexes me.
So please STOP USING RELIGIOUS WORDS/PHRASES.
Look, like others I also wish SJ a speedy recovery.
I am also well aware that USA is a religious country, however can we stop using words like pray.
I for one hate religion, so don't like reading anything to do with it, why should it show up on a tech blog site, perplexes me.
So please STOP USING RELIGIOUS WORDS/PHRASES.
Or STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM.
Pretty simple.
I would hate to see him pass away so young.
I did read though that he is a bastard to the nth degree. Apple makes cool stuff but I heard Apple is a nightmare company to work for.
Reply
Although some of what you say (May and only may) be true. But Mr Jobs has always struck me as someone who demands the highest standards from all those who work for him (Apple). It starts with himself. He does not ask of others what he is not willing to do himself.
Look, like others I also wish SJ a speedy recovery.
I am also well aware that USA is a religious country, however can we stop using words like pray.
I for one hate religion, so don't like reading anything to do with it, why should it show up on a tech blog site, perplexes me.
So please STOP USING RELIGIOUS WORDS/PHRASES.
Isn't it our basic human right to free speech to use religious or non-religious words as we please? What's next, ban saying "Merry Christmas"?
Extremes are not very helpful, I think. On one hand for example Christian schools that ban Harry Potter, etc. On the other hand not being allowed to use the word "pray". These extremes do not move us forward as humankind.
Pray and God can be used in a spiritual context, not necessarily a religious one. And one's personal spirituality, I believe, is a basic human right too.
Isn't it our basic human right to free speech to use religious or non-religious words as we please? What's next, ban saying "Merry Christmas"?
Extremes are not very helpful, I think. On one hand for example Christian schools that ban Harry Potter, etc. On the other hand not being allowed to use the word "pray". These extremes do not move us forward as humankind.
Pray and God can be used in a spiritual context, not necessarily a religious one. And one's personal spirituality, I believe, is a basic human right too.
Right on, well said.
(I would however, ban Harry Potter at the drop of a hat, not that anyone would notice!
Apple May Not Need to Reveal Details of Steve Jobs Medical Leave
Dolmetsch and Burrows report, "'They don’t have to say any more than the fact that he’s taking a leave, it’s indefinite, if that’s what it is,' James Cox, a Duke University law professor, said yesterday. 'Then they can express lots of generalized optimism which is not going to get them into trouble because that’s the kind of expected puffery for which there’s no actionable claims to speak of.' ... '
The SEC hasn’t provided any guidance on this,' said Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and a former federal prosecutor. 'The last time this happened they did announce that they were going to investigate the disclosure and then we heard nothing else from them.' ... '
It’s in a company’s interest as well to limit its disclosure so that it does not create for itself a duty to update,' said Jacob Frenkel, a former SEC enforcement lawyer and now a partner at Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker in Potomac, Maryland.
'In this day and age, shareholders want to know everything,' Frenkel said in a phone interview. 'As a practical matter, in terms of Mr. Jobs’s personal health condition, they’re entitled to know very little.'
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...cal-leave.html"