Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months.<p>Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (<a href="http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet</a>) 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.<p>This post is an interesting view on the world of tech, finance and journalism.
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.
<i>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><p>Quote of the day right there.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
Aaron Swartz' response[1] is quite interesting.<p>> <i>If Apple is to continue, it will be with a tastemaker at the top. And there are no serious candidates besides Ive.</i><p>(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".)<p>[1] <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks</a>
[2] <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425</a>
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.
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 <i>your</i> image. Not in their image, but <i>yours</i>. 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.<p>Can anyone <i>raise</i> 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 <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181</a>). Tim is too operations-focused, and that will bleed over into the products.<p>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.<p>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 <i>name</i> the CEO. Who's next is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact.<p>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?<p>The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are clear objectives. <i>THIS</i> 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.<p>[1] Particularly with his "Hogwash" comment.
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.<p>"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.”<p>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.<p>And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two of the more preposterous decisions in business history."<p><a href="http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/" rel="nofollow">http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/</a>
I think a bigger problem is that there is still no competition to Apple in the market in terms of design and the drive.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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:<p>><i>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.</i><p>What interest does the WSJ have in manipulating Apple stock? This is effectively what Gruber claims.
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."<p>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.<p>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.<p>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 agree with Gruber's analysis, but one part that worries me is the idea of having each SVP accountable for product decisions for their own area. I think that so much of Apple's advantages stem from hardware and software that are designed with each other in mind, that it would be much better to have a single person be SVP Product Design under Cook, so that there was always someone responsible for the entire cohesive user experience. Unfortunately, choosing such a person for this role among the three product SVP's that Gruber names is itself a very difficult political problem, and any choice could result in other talent leaving.
In Daniel "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons' book <i>Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs</i>, the real Steve hires a stand-in so he can finally take some time off. Are we sure this hasn't <i>already</i> happened? :)
What's most important is what Steve Jobs has taught us.<p>If you have a relentless drive and a vision to make products better people will flock to you. It doesn't happen overnight but it does happen.<p>The next CEO will or won't embrace Steve Jobs' vision and the company's success will reflect that. It's inevitable, but the lesson has been learned and can be applied again and again by anybody who cares to.
even though I'm anti-Apple, I've always thought James Dyson would be a perfect fit, along with his company. Apple -> Dyson -> Sensor Network -> Internet of Things(with some design love)
some of these choices are designed to be provocative, not necessarily legitimate. "built to last," the wonderfully insightful book on technology entrepreneurship by jim collins, contains interesting analysis about the difficulties in replacing a charismatic, controlling founder like jobs. suffice to say, the odds are against apple. but so they were in 1998. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Essentials/dp/0060516402" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Essent...</a>
Jack Dorsey would be a good candidate for Apple CEO but I cannot imagine how he's going to handle three rapidly growing companies. He is the CEO of Square and the Chief of Product Design at Twitter and according to a recent interview, he mentions that he works 18 hours a day managing the two companies. Though Jack Dorsey is a good fit for Apple, he will never be CEO of Apple.
I think I would be perfect for the job. he he, but seriously, they should look the the startup world, that is the only way to match the creativity of the jobster.
As usual, Gruber is right.<p>And, the Wall Street Journal turned into the Yellow Journal years ago. I wouldn't wipe a parrot's ass with it, let alone lend any credence to what's printed in it.
Apple needs someone who has wired their mind to think just like Steve Jobs. Someone who is able to rationally explain all of the decisions made at Apple, even the ones that look downright crazy to most outsiders. Someone who has spent the last 10 years trying to make themselves one with the Apple brain trust so that they can accurately predict Apple's future game plan. Someone who has immense support from Apple employees and customers alike.<p>It's obvious why Gruber omitted this, but you know it crossed his mind, and I'm surprised no one here on HN has mentioned it: Apple should hire John Gruber to replace Steve Jobs as CEO.
Sorry to be this thread's grammar troll, but I would be very happy if OP (and the person who wrote this article) would edit the title to read:<p>On Seceding Steve Jobs<p>Succeeding means something totally different than seceding!<p>That bit of ugliness aside, I agree with the basic premise of this article. It would be tremendously risky for the board to bring in an outsider, and when you consider the structure of Apple's management, Tim Cook is the only reasonable choice to secede Jobs. However, Mr. Cook will have his work cut out for him as Jobs has an iconic stature, both within his company, on Wall Street and throughout the technology community.<p>However, on a strictly personal note, I feel sorry for whoever does eventually replace Mr. Jobs. There will inevitably be a few years when every time the new CEO makes an error, someone (either within the company, on Wall Street or within the media) will say, "If Steve Jobs were around this would never have happened."<p>In that regard, getting Steve Wozniak to firmly and publicly support the new CEO will be a major factor in his/her success.