Piper believes leadership shift at Apple is underway
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.
"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.
Comments
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.
Why do people listen to ANALysts?
Jesus F#$%ing Christ!
Why do people listen to ANALysts?
Because analysts are not bunch of fanboys who'd say something because of their subjective opinion. What do you expect people to listen to? The enthusiast Mac evangelists on mac forums?
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, one of the most outspoken and trusted experts on all things Apple...
Outspoken? Yes. Trusted? Yeah, right.
I'm not saying that Gene Munster is necessarily wrong. I actually wouldn't know what to disagree with: I generally stop reading once I see his name.
These analysts don't have a clue. You know, the one upside to these idiots for people who understand Apple is that they give us great AAPL buying opportunities. I'm getting rich off of these morons.
There sure is a leadership change happening, but it will extend over a long period of time. Phasing out MacWorld and moving Apple's marketing into the Apple Store makes a lot of sense. It's just the fist step of many to come. Apple can simply announce a media event, host it themselves, and still get great news coverage.
Apple can de-emphasize Jobs' role by having others do the smaller announcements, product refreshes, and demos and reserve the new product category announcements for himself, which happen infrequently. Thus over time, Jobs showing up or not becomes a non-issue because no one will expect him too unless Apple has a huge new product announcement to make; the added benefit of that is it gives Apple more secretive control - no will know when to expect such an announcement. And when he finally does leave or becomes a behind the scenes advisor, it will have little affect on the stock.
Agreed lol, most of these morons are coming to these conclusions cause Apple is not going to Macworld after this year not knowing that Macworld was never a Apple held event, Apple was invited and did use the event to deliver a keynote there but the entire thing was put up by a separate company
All the best to Apple and Mr. Jobs
Jesus F#$%ing Christ!
Why do people listen to ANALysts?
Better them, than analrapists!
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).
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?
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.)
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.
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...
-> 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?