Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months.
Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet) and others to just how different Gruber is from other tech writers, even apple-related-tech writers like Andy Ihnatko, Jason Snell, etc. He throughly thinks about the topic with tremendous insight and unique points of view.
This post is an interesting view on the world of tech, finance and journalism.
It's a solid post but this is batting practice by Gruber. Anyone following Apple would bet the farm on Gruber's shortlist and the only serious candidate I'd entertain besides Cook would be Ive. Notably, Gruber missed a chance to link back to the Apple University effort which is another huge giveaway that a successor will almost certainly come from within.
Glancing over the archive, imho Gruber's best posts in the last few months have been his iPad 2 review (custom benchmarks!); taking All Things D, Engadget, et al. to task for weak attribution; and taking non-Apple tablet reviews to task for grading on a curve.
Cook was palatable to both Wall Street and Apple employees while SJ was on medical leave. IMO, he's passed the test already. Everyone was willing to accept him then, back when there was serious doubt about whether Jobs would return after his leave. So there's no reason why they wouldn't be willing to accept him in a genuine succession event.
Seems to me that the post doesn't fully address the most important fact: "He cannot be replaced..." Gruber takes the paragraph to points about what Jobs' absence will do to the stock, and then takes the rest of the post to talk about the sourcing of the story and who might eventually replace him, but those strike me as ancillary issues at best.
Jobs can't really be replaced, can he? Certainly Apple will continue to make heaps of money for the forseeable future, but without Jobs, the company will lose its essential nature. How can it not?
There is a better chance of Apple choosing its next CEO through a raffle of ten golden tickets hidden inside iPad boxes distributed around the globe than that they’d give the job to Eric Schmidt.
I imagine that's why he even mentioned him. Though I don't understand why he mentions Ellison and Bezos. This is like the King of France giving up his position so he can be the King of England. Gates? Ballmer? Padding the list I guess.
Who on that list would want to succeed Steve Jobs? I agree, for once, with Gruber that Apple's best bet is to change as little as possible. Don't fix what ain't broken.
And conversely, there's virtually no upside for any high profile CEO to take this job. You'll get none of the credit for keeping the company on a roll, and take all the blame if it begins to turn downwards.
With that said, Apple w/o Steve Jobs and MS w/o Bill Gates just aren't the same companies. They're the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird of my generation. You have to pick one to cheer for, but you respect them both.
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... I like all the guys that surround Jobs, Philip Schiller, Scott Forstall, Jonathan Ivy even Bob Mansfield are a good candidates, there is no reason why Apple should look elsewhere for CEO candidates.
This also goes back to how News Corp has changed the Wall Street Journal since it's acquisition. The quality has deteriorated. And it's shows what News Corp real focus is - it's not news, and it's not really conservative or liberal issues either - it's sensationalism, in any form. Because thats what gets peoples attention.
Historically, there were probably more gays and such in public life than the history books would suggest. One American president (never married) is thought to have possibly been gay. Lots of historical figures who were very successful were minorities of some sort and hid it and tried to blend: Jewish, Hispanic, etc. They altered their names, dyed their hair, learned to dress more "white" and so on. (Rita Hayworth comes to mind -- half Spanish, dyed her hair blonde and made her name more anglo.)
I wear my health issues and alternative medicine approach to them on my sleeve when online but have gone out of my way to downplay it without lying when at work. There is just not enough time in the day to explain my situation to everyone I interact with for five minutes and it is too distracting. It's not important.
This is indeed something memorable, but considering main stream America's view on homosexuals, I don't think this is something that should be mentioned too often.
Imagine you're dying of cancer and you have raised a few intelligent children to a certain age. Now you have to ask others to raise your children in your image. Not in their image, but yours. You might not trust anyone with your children, moreover, expect them to see the same vision you had for your children - which is based on the progressive iteration of your children's development.
Can anyone raise Apple like Jobs? Probably not. Does that mean Apple is doomed? No, it doesn't. Anything beyond is speculation.
I think Tim Cook would be a mistake as awesome as he is (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181). Tim is too operations-focused, and that will bleed over into the products.
Apple needs a design-oriented CEO. Tim can balance that and make the company amazing from an operations-perspective. I don't know who the person is, but I do think he (or she) exists.
One other reason Apple will make Cook the CEO -- it will make the least waves. No one at Apple will quit if Cook becomes CEO. If Apple were to hire anyone from the outside I think there's a decent chance that they lose Cook for starters (Cook can write his own ticket anywhere he wanted).
Ok, Gruber's answer is probable, maybe even correct. But what exactly is Jobs responding to[1] here? Not the ramblings of a tabloid magazine, but the reporting of a world-class newspaper. And before we band together behind a blogger it's worth at least considering exactly why (or if) his position is better.
Where the WSJ seems to have black-box-trusted someone else's expertise, Gruber seems to depend only on facts that he has a good command of. In other words, yes, it's easy to side with Gruber here (I know I do), but the problem is that even if he has actually named the correct successor, in at least one crucial aspect of the debate, he is still wrong: it is a disservice to the transformation Apple will have to undergo to simply name the CEO. Who's next is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact.
One thing to notice here is that Apple is a huge and complicated machine, and from the perspective of the CEO who knows all of this, it must seem absolutely precious that people like Gruber, and organizations like the WSJ believe they have a firm grasp on what's going on internally. In a lot of ways, this seems to have inspired the "Hogwash" comment, and on a darker note, it suggests something about the discussion as a whole: that the important bits, the descriptive and interesting bits, the more useful bits, lie in a discussion about what Apple should decide to be post-Jobs. What goals are realistic? What can and can't it be?
The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are clear objectives. THIS is the discussion worth having; points about who the next CEO are subsidiary, and only useful insofar as they give us information about these important questions.
Why do you imagine that the WSJ writer or Gruber feel that they have a firm grasp on the matters? They are just speculating, nobody is calling it here. As much fun as it is to deride these articles, you seem to be missing the point.
To better understand the role of Steve Jobs, I recommend reading this excellent article from Technologizer (that got buried on HN as some good submissions do) about Edwin Land of Polaroid and the innovative product of the time, the SX-70.
"Edwin Land was brilliant, prescient, prickly, and demanding, and hounded his employees into doing great things they might never have accomplished otherwise. That sounds like Steve Jobs. Land described photography as “the intersection of science and art.”
Jobs likes to cite Land’s quote and says that Apple’s work sits “at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology,” a location which is surely in the same neighborhood. Land demoed new Polaroid products himself at corporate events that were famous for their hypnotic effect. Jobs carries on the tradition.
And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two of the more preposterous decisions in business history."
I think a bigger problem is that there is still no competition to Apple in the market in terms of design and the drive.
Dell, Samsung and others could have learned something already but amazingly they keep manufacturing crappy hardware locked to crappy software, probably just a tiny bit better than before the MBP era, but overall their approach and philosophy hasn't changed.
Sony looks good compared to them, but unfortunately it's too expensive (you'd rather buy a Mac for that money, wouldn't you?) plus Sony has never been a company that designs stuff with users in mind. Their hardware can be solid looking but there is usually nothing new or exceptionally well executed for the user.
Now that's the saddest part of the story for me, rather than when and who will replace Steve Jobs.
I hate all of this talk because it's disrespectful to the man who has given his all and is very much present (and a man who certainly reads the Wall Street Journal). It's interesting to note that prior to this meme of "who an replace Jobs" the #1 meme was always "when is Apple going to die?" For my money on both accounts you'd be foolish to write off Steve Jobs until the fat lady sings.
The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs on "medical leave" is doing a much better job of managing Apple than quite a few other tech companies where the CEO shows up each day and is in perfect health.
Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me:
>I can’t see how a speculative and sketchily-sourced story such as this, published 30 minutes before Apple announced overwhelmingly positive financial results, was not intended to dampen, to some degree, the positive effect of those results on Apple’s stock.
What interest does the WSJ have in manipulating Apple stock? This is effectively what Gruber claims.
The WSJ doesn’t, but they like scoops because scoops draw traffic and thus, ad revenues. And lots of competitors have an interest in manipulating Apple stock, and they also know that a publisher like the WSJ likes scoops.
Jonathan Ive - He's creative and brilliant similar to Jobs. Apple needs an unconventional leader - Tim Cook is too convetional to lead and inspire from the top.
"Put another way, the obvious structure for a post-Jobs Apple is simply Apple as we know it, without Steve Jobs."
Steve Jobs is as unique as it gets and if that wasn't already obvious - the one line summation was more than enough to express everything written in preceding lines. "Proving" other people as not being Steve Jobs was optional.
Although it remains to be seen how much of Apple as we know it remains after Jobs (things may warrant a change who knows).
Speculation on Steve Jobs' successor strikes me as, well, pointless. The dynamic that drives Apple today is very much the same dynamic that drove it at the start: Woz and Jobs. We saw, in the late 80s and early to mid 90s what happens when the "Jobs" half of that dynamic is not there. The "Woz" dynamic, however, has had a good line of succession to cary it forward the entire time. Looking forward, it seems pretty clear that with a few more years of grooming and practice on stage that Scott Forestall will replace Jobs and keep that part of the company moving forward. Astute observers, however, would also be focusing on Federighi. It seems less clear to me that he will be able to carry on Woz's legacy...but I could be wrong.
Apple with Jobs, but without Woz, is just an empty suit...a really, really well hand tailored $6000 fine Italian 3-piece suit...but still just a suit
I feel as though you're assuming facts not in evidence, here.
Can you explain a little bit more what legacy you feel Steve Wozniak has left at Apple that persists to this day, along with why it has been important to the company's success?
My analysis of Apple's latter day success:
- Steve Jobs, demanding a high standard of quality and providing vision for ongoing products and strategy. Selecting and grooming smart people for crucial leadership roles. Requiring accountability and virtuous integration between product components and even different products.
- Tim Cook, optimizing industrial and business processes, ensuring high margins, protecting profits and structuring clever, unmatched deals for manufacturing and supply sourcing
- Jonathan Ive, designing the physical incarnations of Apple that create strong connections to the brand for customers
So is your position that software engineering has had an equally critical role to what's described above, and the engineering leadership has been Woz-esque? While Apple does make world-class software, I'm not sure I agree about the Woz bit, but I'm open to a persuasive argument.
edit: Especially when you consider how much of Apple's software engineering assets and talent came from NeXT.
Woz's lineage is in the overall engineering talent. Woz himself was no longer a major part of the company by the time the Mac was designed. Guys like Bud Tribble, Andy Hertzfeld, and Bill Atkinson were three of Woz's (many) successors already. It's not down to any individual exec to carry on Woz's legacy, because Woz was never an executive, not even an engineering executive. He only wanted to be an engineer. There are thousands of successors to Woz, and perhaps not a single successor to Jobs in the whole company.
[+] [-] barredo|14 years ago|reply
Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet) and others to just how different Gruber is from other tech writers, even apple-related-tech writers like Andy Ihnatko, Jason Snell, etc. He throughly thinks about the topic with tremendous insight and unique points of view.
This post is an interesting view on the world of tech, finance and journalism.
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
Glancing over the archive, imho Gruber's best posts in the last few months have been his iPad 2 review (custom benchmarks!); taking All Things D, Engadget, et al. to task for weak attribution; and taking non-Apple tablet reviews to task for grading on a curve.
[+] [-] jonnathanson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joebadmo|14 years ago|reply
Jobs can't really be replaced, can he? Certainly Apple will continue to make heaps of money for the forseeable future, but without Jobs, the company will lose its essential nature. How can it not?
[+] [-] xiaoqmaxee|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] palish|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianwillis|14 years ago|reply
Quote of the day right there.
[+] [-] temphn|14 years ago|reply
Wow. Just goes to show the power of self-promotion.
[+] [-] barredo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] napierzaza|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
And conversely, there's virtually no upside for any high profile CEO to take this job. You'll get none of the credit for keeping the company on a roll, and take all the blame if it begins to turn downwards.
With that said, Apple w/o Steve Jobs and MS w/o Bill Gates just aren't the same companies. They're the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird of my generation. You have to pick one to cheer for, but you respect them both.
[+] [-] igorgue|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaumartinez|14 years ago|reply
> If Apple is to continue, it will be with a tastemaker at the top. And there are no serious candidates besides Ive.
(He remarks on Twitter[2] to Gruber, "I think we had this debate briefly over email many years ago, but nice to revive it in long form in public".)
[1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks [2] https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425
[+] [-] dr_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] beaumartinez|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gawker_ftw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|14 years ago|reply
I wear my health issues and alternative medicine approach to them on my sleeve when online but have gone out of my way to downplay it without lying when at work. There is just not enough time in the day to explain my situation to everyone I interact with for five minutes and it is too distracting. It's not important.
Peace.
[+] [-] pagekalisedown|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomlin|14 years ago|reply
Can anyone raise Apple like Jobs? Probably not. Does that mean Apple is doomed? No, it doesn't. Anything beyond is speculation.
[+] [-] far33d|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|14 years ago|reply
Apple needs a design-oriented CEO. Tim can balance that and make the company amazing from an operations-perspective. I don't know who the person is, but I do think he (or she) exists.
[+] [-] fuzionmonkey|14 years ago|reply
Unlike most other technology companies, design is king and it should stay that way.
[+] [-] phillco|14 years ago|reply
Maybe somebody from Pepsi?
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antics|14 years ago|reply
Where the WSJ seems to have black-box-trusted someone else's expertise, Gruber seems to depend only on facts that he has a good command of. In other words, yes, it's easy to side with Gruber here (I know I do), but the problem is that even if he has actually named the correct successor, in at least one crucial aspect of the debate, he is still wrong: it is a disservice to the transformation Apple will have to undergo to simply name the CEO. Who's next is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact.
One thing to notice here is that Apple is a huge and complicated machine, and from the perspective of the CEO who knows all of this, it must seem absolutely precious that people like Gruber, and organizations like the WSJ believe they have a firm grasp on what's going on internally. In a lot of ways, this seems to have inspired the "Hogwash" comment, and on a darker note, it suggests something about the discussion as a whole: that the important bits, the descriptive and interesting bits, the more useful bits, lie in a discussion about what Apple should decide to be post-Jobs. What goals are realistic? What can and can't it be?
The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are clear objectives. THIS is the discussion worth having; points about who the next CEO are subsidiary, and only useful insofar as they give us information about these important questions.
[1] Particularly with his "Hogwash" comment.
[+] [-] megablast|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wallflower|14 years ago|reply
"Edwin Land was brilliant, prescient, prickly, and demanding, and hounded his employees into doing great things they might never have accomplished otherwise. That sounds like Steve Jobs. Land described photography as “the intersection of science and art.”
Jobs likes to cite Land’s quote and says that Apple’s work sits “at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology,” a location which is surely in the same neighborhood. Land demoed new Polaroid products himself at corporate events that were famous for their hypnotic effect. Jobs carries on the tradition.
And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two of the more preposterous decisions in business history."
http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/
[+] [-] mojuba|14 years ago|reply
Dell, Samsung and others could have learned something already but amazingly they keep manufacturing crappy hardware locked to crappy software, probably just a tiny bit better than before the MBP era, but overall their approach and philosophy hasn't changed.
Sony looks good compared to them, but unfortunately it's too expensive (you'd rather buy a Mac for that money, wouldn't you?) plus Sony has never been a company that designs stuff with users in mind. Their hardware can be solid looking but there is usually nothing new or exceptionally well executed for the user.
Now that's the saddest part of the story for me, rather than when and who will replace Steve Jobs.
[+] [-] michaelpinto|14 years ago|reply
The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs on "medical leave" is doing a much better job of managing Apple than quite a few other tech companies where the CEO shows up each day and is in perfect health.
[+] [-] chalst|14 years ago|reply
>I can’t see how a speculative and sketchily-sourced story such as this, published 30 minutes before Apple announced overwhelmingly positive financial results, was not intended to dampen, to some degree, the positive effect of those results on Apple’s stock.
What interest does the WSJ have in manipulating Apple stock? This is effectively what Gruber claims.
[+] [-] KuraFire|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evo_9|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinkingled|14 years ago|reply
Steve Jobs is as unique as it gets and if that wasn't already obvious - the one line summation was more than enough to express everything written in preceding lines. "Proving" other people as not being Steve Jobs was optional.
Although it remains to be seen how much of Apple as we know it remains after Jobs (things may warrant a change who knows).
[+] [-] IdeaHamster|14 years ago|reply
Apple with Jobs, but without Woz, is just an empty suit...a really, really well hand tailored $6000 fine Italian 3-piece suit...but still just a suit
[+] [-] danilocampos|14 years ago|reply
Can you explain a little bit more what legacy you feel Steve Wozniak has left at Apple that persists to this day, along with why it has been important to the company's success?
My analysis of Apple's latter day success:
- Steve Jobs, demanding a high standard of quality and providing vision for ongoing products and strategy. Selecting and grooming smart people for crucial leadership roles. Requiring accountability and virtuous integration between product components and even different products.
- Tim Cook, optimizing industrial and business processes, ensuring high margins, protecting profits and structuring clever, unmatched deals for manufacturing and supply sourcing
- Jonathan Ive, designing the physical incarnations of Apple that create strong connections to the brand for customers
So is your position that software engineering has had an equally critical role to what's described above, and the engineering leadership has been Woz-esque? While Apple does make world-class software, I'm not sure I agree about the Woz bit, but I'm open to a persuasive argument.
edit: Especially when you consider how much of Apple's software engineering assets and talent came from NeXT.
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply