So Who's Running Apple Now? 399
An anonymous reader writes "With Steve Jobs stepping down from heading Apple for at least six months who's running the company that he resurrected? This article names the three people who will try to keep things running. But you have to wonder whether they'll have the charisma needed to keep Apple cool..."
Did I miss the news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did Steve Jobs die?
What's that? He didn't?
With all the breathless coverage about whether Apple can survive, you could have fooled me.
Just because he's not releasing hourly reports of his health doesn't mean he secretly has a recurrence of cancer with a vengeance, or that he's on his deathbed.
At some point, though, Apple will have to overcome the (incorrect) perception that "Steve Jobs is Apple", and that without him, Apple will most certainly fail (though the Apple haters have the gloat machine in full swing). No doubt he's a visionary and apparently an effective CEO, but Apple can survive without Jobs...as long as they keep concentrating on things they're good at, and not wandering aimlessly into dozens of disparate and mundane product areas, as was the case under Amelio.
The main thing Jobs did was streamline the business to a few things Apple is good at. Sure he's got charisma by the truckload, cachet as a Silicon Valley luminary, and sway with media heavyweights in Hollywood and elsewhere. But arriving at a sensible business model was his main achievement -- and one that has worked remarkably well for Apple, with nearly all metrics breaking records for several years now.
That said, Jobs' condition -- not being able to absorb protein from food -- is an extremely common result for the type of procedure that he had. In the Whipple procedure [wikipedia.org], part of the pancreas and duodenum are removed. As a result, enzymes required to allow the body to digest proteins and fats are reduced. Thus, the weight loss that is extremely common in persons who have had this procedure.
Unfortunately, Jobs' first course of action is to do things like eating raw vegetables and consulting Eastern practitioners, rather than actually getting medical care that can solve this issue. (I also think he meant "enzyme imbalance", not "hormone imbalance", given what we know about his condition.)
Apple will continue to be successful, with or without Steve Jobs as CEO, as long as it doesn't lose sight of doing what it's good at.
The main issue Apple will have to overcome is the perception issue surrounding Jobs. Case-in-point: on the NBC Nightly News last night, Brian Williams talked for several minutes about dismal news about the economy, devastating job losses, thoughts from economists about how this won't end in 2009, dreary report after dreary report, a ceaseless drumbeat of doom and gloom...until he said (paraphrasing, here) this: by far the most shocking news, shocking I tell you, was that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would be stepping down for a medical leave of absence, and a dedicated story segment followed, complete with Maria Bartiromo from the Exchange floor.
When you've got a cult of personality like that, how can you escape it?
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as Apple makes products that work for me, I'll keep buyin' em, no matter who they trot out to talk about it.
Why did Jobs wear the black turtleneck when doing the keynotes? Style? Hardly. He blended better into the background. That way whatever he was holding would show up better.
If you're a company selling products, it's all about the products. To me, Apple products do everything I need and more; this is why I'm a fan of the company.
Re:It's not charisma (Score:5, Interesting)
Where Jobs is not liked and even hated was his perfectionism and abrasiveness in getting what he wanted. I think that after he was forced out of Apple, he didn't so much learn hubris as he understood that idealism aside, a company has to make money and that idealism has to be compromised sometimes for practicality.
Take for instance the G4 Cube [wikipedia.org]. Rumors has it that was Steve Job's personal favorite. But it didn't sell well at all and was replaced by the Mac mini. The former Steve Jobs might have kept it in the market longer despite poor sales. The newer one allowed it to be retired.
Re:Did I miss the news? (Score:3, Interesting)
I accept your point that Steve Jobs is not the be-all end-all of Apple. But your prescription for Apple's continued success does not jive with Apple's actual history.
Apple was once just a computer company. They sold over-priced proprietary machines with one-button mice to graphic designers. That company was pretty much moribund.
Now they sell music and phones and they do it better than anyone else in the market. They are a media darling and are rolling in cash. Jobs has received much of the credit (probably rightfully so).
The question is, without Jobs' mystical ability to divine the next big thing, will Apple be able to follow up on the iPhone (as the iPhone followed up the iPod)? Or will they stagnate by continuing to merely focus on what they've been good at in the past?
Disney & Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing reminds me of how Walt Disney's passing affected his company.
Basically Disney lost direction, stopped making new animated movies, and hoped that revenues from merchandise and attendance at Disneyland kept the bills paid.
All of this changed of course with Michael Eisner's taking the reins. How did he do it? Aside from his business savvy (something that shouldn't be minimized) he looked back at the way Walt ran the show and continually asked himself what would Walt do.
It didn't last forever, but as everyone mac fan knows the cult of personality around Steve has a basis in the fact that Steve has vision and ruthlessly pursues that vision until it is achieved.
Apple is going to either need someone with a vision and business acuity equal to Jobs, or someone who is able to channel Jobs like Eisner did Disney. ;-)
I'm not seeing that in any of the people listed in the article.
BTW - isn't Steve on Disney's board?
Re:How is Apples "cool"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do the people on the street buying Apple really know who Jobs is?
Yes, absolutely. Not all of them, but the ones drooling over Apple's latest products, certainly. Steve Jobs is the man who announced those products to the public.
Is he the cool factor for Apple?
Not entirely. The cool factor is inherent in the products themselves, and Jobs has a lot to do with that; internally he's directly responsible for a lot of the design decisions that result in a "cool" product, and externally he's the charismatic figure that enthusiastically shows the world how cool it is. Plenty of other people can do the latter, but the former is a rare gift.
I think once we get outside the little geek and nerd demograph of Slashdot you'll find that a majority of Apple's cashflow has less to do with Jobs and more to do with that little logo.
This is true, but the logo is "cool" because Jobs pushed the company to make "cool" products which have become associated with the logo. That alone will bring them success in the next several years, but beyond that, they have to keep doing "cool" things, or the logo will lose its meaning. Personally I think Apple will still be able to do some very cool things without Jobs at the helm, and there's a chance they might even be able to do more cool things (things that Jobs didn't think would be cool enough, but the rest of us might like). Some people disagree. Time will tell.
Apple lost its way when Steve left the first time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure doesn't explain the iTunes lock-in when it's far, far, far easier to just drag-and-drop. I'm quite amused that you said people don't give a flying fuck about a particular PC software player when I hear iTunes can be quite the bitch to use.
Removable SD cards? People actually do care about the amount of stuff they can put on their mp3 player, believe it or not!
And while voice recording is more a bonus, FM tuners are a big plus to people who might want to listen to radio on the go. If ipods had FM tuners and the competition didn't I would bet you'd be trotting that out as a reason Ipods are superior.
Believe it or not, you really can have extra features and not miss out on usability. Hell, what's all this talk about Macs being so easy to use *and* having all sorts of great features doing "everything I want and more" with other Apple fanboys contradicting that when it's convenient?
My Fuze, for example, is incredibly easy to use despite having more features... and a much lower price.