Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

So Who's Running Apple Now? 399

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-admit-it-it's-me dept.
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..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So Who's Running Apple Now? More

So Who's Running Apple Now?

Comments Filter:

  • Did I miss the news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday January 15, 2009 @01:55PM (#26469329)

    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?

    • Re:Did I miss the news? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by retech ( 1228598 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:13PM (#26469735)
      Much like Edison Electric didn't fold when he died. Or Ford Motor Company hasn't rolled over and died. You can go on ad nauseam with examples. I do not know why this continues to be such a big deal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sweatyboatman ( 457800 )

      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 (prob

      • When Jobs left apple the first time, It wasn't under nice circumstances. He didn't really get to pick his replacement leadership team. Unlike now where he can pick and choose who he wants to run Apple.
        Jobs charisma, for the most part makes Apple fans feel good about being Apple fans. Not as much getting new people Hence why he is not on TV advertising his products.

        Bill Gates and Steve Blamer (The Nerd and the Cave Man) are not much on positive charisma however they have seen make make a profitable company o

    • Did Steve Jobs die?

      Maybe you did miss the news, because as the summary notes, Jobs has taken leave from his day-to-day responsibilities at Apple. It may be temporary, but apparently his health is not very good. This leave may become permanent, or may at least lead to a long-term reduction in his role at Apple.

    • Re:Did I miss the news? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phroggy ( 441 ) <slashdot3@@@phroggy...com> on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:23PM (#26469957) Homepage

      as long as they keep concentrating on things they're good at, and not wandering aimlessly into dozens of disparate and mundane product areas

      ...like a portable MP3 player, an online record store, a UNIX-based operating system that runs on Intel processors, and a cell phone. Wandering into those areas would definitely be bad for the company.

      Oh wait.

      Sometimes wandering into new areas is a good thing - you just have to know which new areas to wander into, and which ones to avoid. Jobs has been good at that.

    • Re:Did I miss the news? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:28PM (#26470093)
      Well said. One other comment that I'll make is that in the last ten years or so, it's obvious that Apple has invested some money into Research & Development. One reason I think Apple has such a cult following is that there is something to follow. When was the last time you got excited about a new Dell product offering? I know the last time I was, it was when they released their 2005 FPW widescreen monitors (I bought one). But then, it wasn't excitement for a new product so much as, oh good, Dell now has similar monitor offerings as others (*cough* apple cinema *cough*) for much cheaper. Granted, I haven't been following Dell a lot lately, but Apple actually does have new and innovative ideas they put into their products, and that's been incredibly refreshing when some other formerly innovative companies (e.g., HP) have spun-off or canceled their R&D programs all together and prefer to sell rebranded LG televisions.

      Often on slashdot we read comments about how Apple is just selling commodity hardware. Nobody who actually owns an macbook pro would say that, or an ipod touch or an iphone. The reason is that they can look beyond just the processor speed and ram and actually see the magsafe connector, or the firewire 800, or the accelerometer that shuts down the hard drive when the laptop falls or whatever $FEATURE that the competition left out of their $500 notebook. The best way I can put it, is that watching those keynote addresses in the 2000s has been like the early days of computers, when they were fun, rather than a mundane commodity. (E.g., here's one of Phil Schiller jumping from ~20 feet up up with a macbook [tuaw.com] to demonstrate the accelerometer.)

      The question is, how much did Steve jobs have to do with that? Obviously, the same hardware engineers and programmers are still working at Apple. How much did Jobs need to persuade the board of Apple to put the time into being innovative rather than pursue more short-term gains that would be good for the quarterly results? I don't know. I do know that at least one board member, Al Gore, does have the vision and the patience for long-term gains. (Al Gore trolls, you can go straight to hell.)

    • I think the problem is that quite a lot of people believe that Apple will die without Steve Jobs. It's well known that he takes meticulous detail with just about every successful product they've ever shipped.
      I don't think Apple is going anywhere, Jobs or no Jobs, but it will certainly be worse-off without him.

    • the most shocking news, shocking I tell you

      It is shocking, because Jobs' health has less to do with Apple's sales output, and more to do with the stock market's paranoia. The fact that people are making such a huge deal of these events is solid proof that the great majority of stock traders are sensationalist imbeciles.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mckinnsb ( 984522 )

      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.

      I agree completely, but I would personally put greater emphasis on the fact that when Jobs re-took Ap

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

      Steve needs to be using the iPotty, with RSS feed.

  • It's not charisma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday January 15, 2009 @01:59PM (#26469415)

    It's vision. Steve Jobs was able to lead his teams to build products that people wanted. Through constant focus on the user and the user's experience, Apple was able to grab a huge majority of the portable music player market. Their focus on ease of use and "just works" capabilities garnered them a significant chunk of the PC market.

    These are not because Jobs is especially charismatic (though he is). He was simply able to get his employees to stop thinking about features and capabilities. He got them to think instead about the tasks that users would want to do and then find the best way to let them do it.

    • Re:It's not charisma (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:17PM (#26469811)
      Also while Steve Jobs is a techie, he himself isn't a programmer or engineer. His approach to products is that of an average person. He has always tried to get the technical side to understand that Apple has to design for average people. Look at their successes:
      • Macintosh: OS and UI designed for an average person not wanting to type in commands.
      • iPod: portable media player with a UI designed for an average person. Form factor dictated by what an average person would want.
      • iTunes: music (and later other media) software and distribution system designed for ease of use to an average person.
      • iPhone: smart phone with a UI designed for an average person. If you've ever used another smart phone, you'd know how maddeningly simple an iPhone is compared to other smart phones.

      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: (Score:2)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 )

        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 Mini did not 'replace' the Cube. They are completely different classes of machine.

      • You confuse Average with Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @03:03PM (#26470897)

        He has always tried to get the technical side to understand that Apple has to design for average people.

        Actually, that is overly simplistic and not a good analysis of why Apple succeeds - though it's a common misconception. Let's look at your list.

        Macintosh: OS and UI designed for an average person not wanting to type in commands.

        Actually, the UI is designed to have sensible common defaults and an easy to use UI, but someone "wanting to type in commands" also has the whole UNIX subsystem to access for more flexibility.

        iPod: portable media player with a UI designed for an average person. Form factor dictated by what an average person would want.

        Designed from the ground up to simply play music, but move most of the song management features off the device and onto the computer. The fact is there are a lot of more advanced features the "average" person might not use (like random play of albums, on the go playlists, sped-up audiobook playback).

        iTunes: music (and later other media) software and distribution system designed for ease of use to an average person.

        Designed to minimize the amount of actions required to give Apple money and get something back in a usable form (just talking about the store here since management features really belong with discussions about iPod/iPhone).

        iPhone: smart phone with a UI designed for an average person. If you've ever used another smart phone, you'd know how maddeningly simple an iPhone is compared to other smart phones.

        Designed to make all of the common smartphone operations as direct to use as possible, and again move more complex management of core data off device. I've used other smartphones, thanks, which is why I have an iPhone - because the others offered "maddingly" complex interactions with the system to do the simplest things.

        What do all these items have in common? It's not designing for the "average" user. It's looking at what the device is meant for, and simplifying operation as much as possible before then building complexity back on top once you arrive at the core of purpose for the device/software. There is a huge difference in that in understanding this, you can somewhat predict product evolution after initial product delivery in a way you could not if you were saying "well what does the average user like". If Apple designed for the "Averge" user they'd have the same checklist-drived designed by comitte products most other competitors spit out, instead of being a thought leader in virtually every area they enter.

        Take for instance the G4 Cube. 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.

        Why would the old Steve Jobs have done that? Being forced out and then coming back with Apple in tatters only reinforced his core belief that his own views on how to run product lines were correct. When did the old Steve Jobs hang onto a product line for emotional reasons? Early accounts don't seem to indicate emotion was involved in decisions much at all.

      • I don't want to argue about who at apple was responsible for the user interface but I think your crediting the wrong person. Regardless, I think you are saying Steve Jobs was dictating what he wanted until he got it. That I completely agree with. When his dictator, more of a "I'm the last final word", way of leading annoyed enough people they kicked him out. Apple wandered without strong leadership until they realized how bad they needed it. IMHO, That leader didn't have to be Steve Jobs. Not that he

    • That's more or less what I came in here to say. From everything I've seen and read over the years, Jobs' role in making Apple successful has not been as a charismatic salesperson, and also not as a brilliant inventor who designed things himself, but rather as the guy who tells his development team, "Redo this. It's not good enough."

      That sort of thing takes both a strong sense of what makes a "good product" (and having a taste in products that many people will flock to), but also the confidence, or perhap

  • Steve is just one employee out of thousands. He didn't design the ipod, or the iphone, or any of the macs. He didn't build the chips, he didn't write os x, and he didn't figure out how to make a laptop shell out of a single piece of aluminum. Sure, it was his "vision" that has guided the company the past decade, but the hard work has been done by the same set of employees who were there last week. I fully expect nothing to change in his absence.

    • I fully expect nothing to change in his absence.

      This would let them coast for a year or two, then what? After that there are some hard choices to be made about direction for the company (Should they make CE, Macs or Software for PCs, or all 3?). Put Sculley or some other cookie cutter CEO in his place and see how long Apple last - they'd be haemorrhaging employees very quickly.

      While I think this morbid obsession with his illness is nasty and pointless, you understate the importance to Apple of having one person dedicated to making beautiful, functional o

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CrazyTalk ( 662055 )
      So... you don't remember the 90s when Steve Jobs was not with Apple, and the company almost went bankrupt?

    • Re:stevejobs != apple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @03:08PM (#26471031)

      You could say the same of Fidel Castro. He's just one person in a country.

      But if it comes down to accepting or rejecting the design of the iPod, the iPhone or any of the Macs then yes. It does matter.

      He didn't figure out how to make a laptop out of a single piece of a aluminum, but he's the one that dictated that he wanted it done.

  • Um...Tim Cook, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)

    by danaris ( 525051 ) <danaris@NosPaM.mac.com> on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:10PM (#26469643) Homepage

    Reader Bastian227 adds a link to this letter from Steve Jobs on Apple's website, which also says that Tim Cook will be responsible for daily operations, though Jobs will remain involved with major strategic decisions.

    Less than 24 hours ago on Slashdot, emphasis mine.

    Hello, are you stupid, people?

    Dan Aris

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jours ( 663228 )

      > Hello, are you stupid, people?

      Haven't dropped in on the /. Apple section in a while, huh?

  • How is Apples "cool"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by east coast ( 590680 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:11PM (#26469665)
    Do the people on the street buying Apple really know who Jobs is? Is he the cool factor for Apple?

    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. Hell, if it was up to Slashdot "cool" they would bring back Woz!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Khemisty ( 1246418 )
      case in point [slashdot.org] ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Brendor ( 208073 )
      Yes. I think he's got a similar level of exposure that Bill Gates had circa 1997; a lot of people know who he is even if they don't have his life story memorized.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phroggy ( 441 )

      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 latte

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by daybot ( 911557 ) *

      Do the people on the street buying Apple really know who Jobs is?

      Yes, at least somewhat, thanks to mainstream media coverage. I went to lunch with my (non-geek) sister today. She asked me if I'd heard that Apple boss "Steve somebody" was too ill to work and "apparently he's the heart of the company." News about Jobs' health, along with other Apple news, is regularly front-page material on BBC News Online [bbc.co.uk], which allegedly has 14 million users per week [wikipedia.org].

    • No. The cool factor for Apple is this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EbCyibkNB0&feature=rec-fresh+div [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by somethingwicked ( 260651 )

      Do the people on the street buying Apple really know who Jobs is?

      Of course. After a few movies, and doing that NBC show ED, he's been in a junkload of popular commercials with that guy from the Daily Show.

  • Didn't he do it all? (Score:5, Funny)

    by retech ( 1228598 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:11PM (#26469671)
    I heard he mined the minerals and metals himself. Smelted and forged them. Used his own personal laser pointer to hand cut every chip. Speaks in code to a special computer that compiles it on the fly. And then hand assembles each and every Apple devise.

    How will they carry on without him?

  • Apple doesn't need cool, they just need Itunes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:11PM (#26469679) Homepage Journal

    During Jobs last tenure at Apple, he did something incredible. He convinced a majority of record labels, artists, and producers to sell music electronically. Remember, this happened *AFTER* the music industry got a swift kick in the ass from the first round of P2P apps.

    Though not the first to do it, it was the amount of music available on Itunes that got everyone else to do the lemmings thing, and jump aboard. Apple has secured themselves as a modern day music distributor.

    Thank you for making it less sucky to get music Mr Jobs. I think it will be hard for anyone to screw up the perpetuating awesomeness that you created. Have a nice rest sir.

  • Oblig Simpsons quote (Score:4, Funny)

    by genner ( 694963 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:12PM (#26469699)
    What happened to you apple you used to be cool?

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wandazulu ( 265281 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:14PM (#26469741)

    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Itninja ( 937614 )
      I smell a fanboy. I bet you will love this [theonion.com] recently revealed CES innovation.

  • BRING BACK WOZ (Score:5, Funny)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:15PM (#26469757)

    I mean seriously.

    • two problems (Score:3, Insightful)

      by peter303 ( 12292 )
      1) WOZ wasn't the "vision" guy but a super engineer.
      2) WOZ lost some of his mental capabilities in a near-fatal airplane accident. He cant really concentrate long enough to repeat his fantastic inventions. He has a good heart and tries to help people.
    • Woz still gets a paycheck from Apple you know...

  • Disney & Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sertsa ( 158454 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:18PM (#26469837)

    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?

    • I think you are absoultely right; however, the major difference is that with Disney, you're producing a single animated feature one-at-a-time that when the project is over; unless you're talking sequels or toy-tie-is (which they do, but eventually fizzle out by a market obsessed with the latest and greatest); you're having to develop from start to finish a brand new product, almost constantly. Disney had a huge advantage by being among the first to do so, and chosing to do films that were americanized versi

    • Re:Disney & Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @03:06PM (#26470981)

      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. ;-)

      Eisner channeled Disney like Stalin channeled Lenin. (hey, at least it ain't a Hitler reference!) He may have returned the company to profitability but he helped ruin what made Disney special.

      Here's a good case in point: Epcot. Originally this was supposed to be a world showcase and a city of tomorrow and a living test lab for future tech. The vision was grandiose and many people had no idea where Walt was going with it. Those who knew where he was going weren't even sure if it was practical. After he died, management had no idea what to do with it. Rather than follow through with his vision, they just turned it into another Orlando theme park. "Hey, it's a people trap built by a mouse. We understand this!"

      Dreams and vision have to have a practical side to pay the bills, big ideas ain't supported by pixie dust and wishes alone, but the ruthlessly pragmatic can suck all the life and energy out of something beautiful in the quest for money.

      Apple's biggest danger is entering an era of bean counter mediocrity. Live for the quarterly earnings statement, have no vision beyond that point, maximize profit at the expense of doing anything else with the company, play it safe with unambitious ideas, and become what Microsoft is today. (yeah, I know some wags will say "What, insanely profitable? You anti-MS fag" and the like, but I think Microsoft is in serious trouble and when people look back with perspective, the Vista era is when the leaks started to spring. It'll be a long time in sinking but I think we've seen the MS high-water mark.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by neoform ( 551705 )

      I've never heard anyone actually praise Eisner for the job he did on disney. He whored the company out to the extreme commercializing absolutely everything about the themepark to the point where ever single ride in the park is actually an advertisement for a product or company (literally).

      What's that? Bamby's going back into "the vault"? Fantastic! Nothing like shunting your product line in order to create fake supply shortages so that you can reintroduce the same fucking products over and over again with n

  • I'm sure Apple's product development cycle is longer than 6 months; I don't think they're going to close up shop declaring, "Sorry guys, without Steve we just don't have any products to sell any more" in three months. Steve takes his leave, and everything goes on the same trajectory for a while.

    When he comes back, he gets briefed on what's happened and they move on. If Steve's health is so bad that he doesn't return, that doesn't mean he gives up all influence in the company, his type-A personality pro

  • I bought stock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charles Dodgeson ( 248492 ) * <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:23PM (#26469969) Homepage Journal
    I've been waiting for AAPL to come down in price. When I heard the news Wednesday (after trading closed), I figured there would be a nice discount on Apple stock at opening this morning, and so there was. We'll know in a couple of years whether my purchase was a good move or not.

  • Raul Jobs (Score:5, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:29PM (#26470127) Homepage

    Steve's younger brother, Raul, has taken over day to day operations.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Star Trek fans remember the episode where Scotty reprograms the robots on the planet into the splitting image of a hated ex-wife to police the con-man Mudd on that planet. Well, you create life-like Steve-bots to utter Steve's inscrutible sayings and favorite motivational insults: "Insanely great!" "No damn fans!" "Shave off another millimeter!" ...
  • Definitely missed one there... Jonathan Ive. He's really as much a part of the New Apple as Steve was. I predict he will become very very important in the next six months. Also... These people have already been running things for a long time. New Steve has learned to delegate better than people let on. He was running Apple and Pixar at their most successful eras-- at the same time. He didn't do that alone.
  • OK Scully forced Steve out and Steve had to grow up some. But Apple first tried to become more like a PC company. Then it tried to a little of everything, doing nothing great. Those of you talking about "momentum" after Steve is gone need to study history.

  • Dean Kamen - Segway inventor - not as much business acumen, but some interesting ideas.. Good RDF too :P

    Woz - probably not at all interested, but I'd buy a Mac in a moment if he was back with Apple product development

    VMWare product president -- would be helpful getting Apple into corporate environments

  • But you have to wonder whether they'll have the charisma needed to keep Apple cool...

    No, you have to wonder if they have the guts to pull the plug or drastically change one of Jobs's initiatives if it should become necessary.

    • No, you have to wonder if they have the guts to pull the plug or drastically change one of Jobs's initiatives if it should become necessary.

  • If there's one man who could replace Jobs when he decides to leave / retire, it's Guy Kawasaki. [guykawasaki.com]

  • I know the perfect person to run Apple in Steve's absence.

    Chuck Norris. Roundhousekicks and a fist under his beard must be excellent qualities for running a big company like Apple.

  • Put George W. Bush in charge of Apple (Score:5, Funny)

    by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @03:38PM (#26471661)

    He'll be free real soon now. Everybody rants that Apple's success is dependent on Jobs. If Apple continues to deliver blockbuster products, despite having George W. Bush as CEO, that will prove them wrong, and that Apple as a company is strong, despite of who is at the helm.

    If Apple craters, we can all blame it on Bush.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close