No, Apple got to where it is due to a staggeringly gifted CEO. We don't know if they have that now (they have a staggeringly gifted operations guy who is the CEO, but that doesn't mean he'll be an incredible CEO). I hope they do, but Apple would be foolish to not at least ask the question of how they best optimize themselves post Jobs.
That said, I suspect Steve Jobs gave pretty clear guidance as to what he thought should be done.
I can't agree more with your statement that Steve Jobs was a "staggeringly gifted CEO. Let me add a few thoughts about Tim Cook, Apple's new CEO and the role of the Board of Directors.
Before Steve left a 2nd time all too suddenly, first time ostracized by Apple's board in 1985, he made sure this time to develop and build an organization and ecosystem so Apple could prosper for perhaps decades without his personal guidance. However, great companies do even better when its employees are inspired, often doing much more than they ever realized they could, through the persuasion of inspiring, highly-respected leaders. No doubt that Steve Jobs' genius and persuasive manner not only held sway over the legions of ready and willing buyers all over the world, but with Apple employees and the Board of Directors as well.
Now, Tim Cook is the new person in charge and has earned his promotion to CEO by convincingly proven over a number of years he can effectively manage complex operations and logistics of a large and wonderfully successful company.
But is Tim Cook also a leader to inspire and persuade his team and Apple's 50,000 employees to do great things as Steve has done? Time will tell but probably not to the same extend Steve did. So I feel there is now a void left by the creative genius and inspirational leadership of Steve Jobs that the Board of Directors needs NOW to pay very close attention to in filling. How will Apple best fill the tremendous void Steve leaves behind? The board needs to insure the new CEO has a convincing plan in place. That plan if executed properly, must continue to inspire Apple employees and management to do great work and continue rolling out brilliantly creative products without Steve's very close guidance that has so abruptly ended.
Steve understood one thing: Companies need to be more product-centric and less shareholder-centric. What I mean by that is that great products sell and sales means better shareholder return. Too many companies are focused on shareholder value or whatever and dismiss the product. This same type of leadership is what turned Ford Motor Company around. Alan Mulally changed the focus of the company on how to make cars cheaper and more competitive to how to produce better cars that the consumers want to buy. That's exactly what Jobs did. He produced products that people were willing to stand in line to purchase. Apple couldn't help but succeed. If only more companies had this type of leadership...
That's what Apple needs to continue. I'm not up on Tim Cook, but he seems to be less charismatic than Steve. That's okay, as long as the product is there. We'll see. I hope he doesn't end up more like Sculley and screw things up.
So don't try and fix it. It remains very unclear as to exactly the Job's and Board relationship. Job's views carried a lot of weight, but these are strong smart people in their own right. In sense they have also been training for this job and I suspect planning as well.
In 1986, the board thought they knew better than Steve how to run Apple. They canned him because he was, in their opinion, out of control. When they got Steve came after acquiring NeXT, Steve was 10 years smarter and look what he did in that time: He made Apple profitable, gave them focus, and turned them into an influence on the world.
Hopefully, the board has learned something from Steve in the 15 years he has been running Apple. Companies run by committee can fail because no one has the vision it takes to move forward. Steve had focus. Can any committee have focus?
If Steve Jobs truly was Apple, then Apple is doomed. If Apple the company has learned how to be more like Steve, then it should be ok.
Ummm......."all that cash" belongs to the shareholders.
Who would the owners of the company be in your scenario?
The cash would, in that hypothetical scenario, return to the majority of the shareholders. Companies by back stock all the time... just not all of it, usually. If they did, likely a few of the larger shareholders would retain their shares and represent the new owners, and the stock would no longer be traded publicly.
In 1986, the board thought they knew better than Steve how to run Apple. They canned him because he was, in their opinion, out of control. When they got Steve came after acquiring NeXT, Steve was 10 years smarter and look what he did in that time: He made Apple profitable, gave them focus, and turned them into an influence on the world.
Other than the very earliest beginnings before incorporation, Steve didn't actually run Apple until Apple bought NeXT. Steve never was CEO until the acquisition. Was he influential? You bet. The original Mac was one of his pet projects.
What better young visionary is out there who could continue the innovation that Steve Jobs has started?
I think Mr. Z should be a member of the board of directors and be given an opportunity to Chair one day. He is brilliant and tenacious and creative and ruthless and innovative and........
Perhaps the worst idea I've heard yet. Zuckerberg understands nothing about Apple culture.
There is a reason Steve and him had one meeting, and one meeting only. He's a prick, and Steve knew it.
....he's completely useless and detracts from the Apple brand. Why this idiot was elected to the board is beyond me. You can count this as one of Steve Jobs' failures.
I have no doubt that Apple could continue to do very well creating wonderful devices for a very long time. BUT... I am afraid that won't happen due to the greed and stupidity of the Apple Board of Directors. I expect infighting, etc. I hope this isn't true, but I truly don't expect Apple to be as great as it once was. Jobs was able to keep these people in line, but will the CEO be able to do the same thing?
In all fairness, this ridiculous idea is not actually being floated by the Apple board.
The article is based on some unknown idiot at Reuters (and Jim Post), traipsing out the generic business "wisdom" on the subject.
It's clearly a colossally bad idea and there is no evidence Apple is thinking of doing this at all. This is just more dumbass advice from the cheap seats.
Woz is an engineer and always will be. Would he be good as a consultant to a modern Apple's R&D department? Who knows. He's still on the payroll, so he could probably help out if he thought it'd be fun.
The cash would, in that hypothetical scenario, return to the majority of the shareholders. Companies by back stock all the time... just not all of it, usually. If they did, likely a few of the larger shareholders would retain their shares and represent the new owners, and the stock would no longer be traded publicly.
But Apple doesn't have enough cash to do that.
In no scenario would the cash "return" to the minority or majority of shareholders. The cash cannot "return" to someone who never owned it in the first place.
Buying back stock is not the same as returning cash. Not close.
Comments
No, Apple got to where it is due to a staggeringly gifted CEO. We don't know if they have that now (they have a staggeringly gifted operations guy who is the CEO, but that doesn't mean he'll be an incredible CEO). I hope they do, but Apple would be foolish to not at least ask the question of how they best optimize themselves post Jobs.
That said, I suspect Steve Jobs gave pretty clear guidance as to what he thought should be done.
I can't agree more with your statement that Steve Jobs was a "staggeringly gifted CEO. Let me add a few thoughts about Tim Cook, Apple's new CEO and the role of the Board of Directors.
Before Steve left a 2nd time all too suddenly, first time ostracized by Apple's board in 1985, he made sure this time to develop and build an organization and ecosystem so Apple could prosper for perhaps decades without his personal guidance. However, great companies do even better when its employees are inspired, often doing much more than they ever realized they could, through the persuasion of inspiring, highly-respected leaders. No doubt that Steve Jobs' genius and persuasive manner not only held sway over the legions of ready and willing buyers all over the world, but with Apple employees and the Board of Directors as well.
Now, Tim Cook is the new person in charge and has earned his promotion to CEO by convincingly proven over a number of years he can effectively manage complex operations and logistics of a large and wonderfully successful company.
But is Tim Cook also a leader to inspire and persuade his team and Apple's 50,000 employees to do great things as Steve has done? Time will tell but probably not to the same extend Steve did. So I feel there is now a void left by the creative genius and inspirational leadership of Steve Jobs that the Board of Directors needs NOW to pay very close attention to in filling. How will Apple best fill the tremendous void Steve leaves behind? The board needs to insure the new CEO has a convincing plan in place. That plan if executed properly, must continue to inspire Apple employees and management to do great work and continue rolling out brilliantly creative products without Steve's very close guidance that has so abruptly ended.
That's what Apple needs to continue. I'm not up on Tim Cook, but he seems to be less charismatic than Steve. That's okay, as long as the product is there. We'll see. I hope he doesn't end up more like Sculley and screw things up.
Hopefully, the board has learned something from Steve in the 15 years he has been running Apple. Companies run by committee can fail because no one has the vision it takes to move forward. Steve had focus. Can any committee have focus?
If Steve Jobs truly was Apple, then Apple is doomed. If Apple the company has learned how to be more like Steve, then it should be ok.
Ummm......."all that cash" belongs to the shareholders.
Who would the owners of the company be in your scenario?
The cash would, in that hypothetical scenario, return to the majority of the shareholders. Companies by back stock all the time... just not all of it, usually. If they did, likely a few of the larger shareholders would retain their shares and represent the new owners, and the stock would no longer be traded publicly.
But Apple doesn't have enough cash to do that.
What better young visionary is out there who could continue the innovation that Steve Jobs has started?
How about this guy?
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work...thrown-ive-wsj
How about this guy?
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work...thrown-ive-wsj
i said young
but yeah, he is the man. but i am talking bigger picture. entertainment in the home. in the office. in the air. in the water. in death. in life.
In 1986, the board thought they knew better than Steve how to run Apple. They canned him because he was, in their opinion, out of control. When they got Steve came after acquiring NeXT, Steve was 10 years smarter and look what he did in that time: He made Apple profitable, gave them focus, and turned them into an influence on the world.
Other than the very earliest beginnings before incorporation, Steve didn't actually run Apple until Apple bought NeXT. Steve never was CEO until the acquisition. Was he influential? You bet. The original Mac was one of his pet projects.
What better young visionary is out there who could continue the innovation that Steve Jobs has started?
I think Mr. Z should be a member of the board of directors and be given an opportunity to Chair one day. He is brilliant and tenacious and creative and ruthless and innovative and........
Perhaps the worst idea I've heard yet. Zuckerberg understands nothing about Apple culture.
There is a reason Steve and him had one meeting, and one meeting only. He's a prick, and Steve knew it.
Perhaps the worst idea I've heard yet. Zuckerberg understands nothing about Apple culture.
There is a reason Steve and him had one meeting, and one meeting only. He's a prick, and Steve knew it.
haha agreed! I presumed the poster was being sarcastic
Edit: Don't know the details, but I would think that Steve's estate/survivors will have quite a bit of influence in Apple's future.
I have no doubt that Apple could continue to do very well creating wonderful devices for a very long time. BUT... I am afraid that won't happen due to the greed and stupidity of the Apple Board of Directors. I expect infighting, etc. I hope this isn't true, but I truly don't expect Apple to be as great as it once was. Jobs was able to keep these people in line, but will the CEO be able to do the same thing?
In all fairness, this ridiculous idea is not actually being floated by the Apple board.
The article is based on some unknown idiot at Reuters (and Jim Post), traipsing out the generic business "wisdom" on the subject.
It's clearly a colossally bad idea and there is no evidence Apple is thinking of doing this at all. This is just more dumbass advice from the cheap seats.
Put Wozniak on the board.
Woz hates bureaucracy, business, and suits.
Woz is an engineer and always will be. Would he be good as a consultant to a modern Apple's R&D department? Who knows. He's still on the payroll, so he could probably help out if he thought it'd be fun.
Perhaps the worst idea I've heard yet. Zuckerberg understands nothing about Apple culture.
There is a reason Steve and him had one meeting, and one meeting only. He's a prick, and Steve knew it.
If Zuckerberg could do it he'd dismantle Apple just out of spite.
The cash would, in that hypothetical scenario, return to the majority of the shareholders. Companies by back stock all the time... just not all of it, usually. If they did, likely a few of the larger shareholders would retain their shares and represent the new owners, and the stock would no longer be traded publicly.
But Apple doesn't have enough cash to do that.
In no scenario would the cash "return" to the minority or majority of shareholders. The cash cannot "return" to someone who never owned it in the first place.
Buying back stock is not the same as returning cash. Not close.