´óÏó´«Ã½

As a Mac user, even a disciple to their far superior computers, for many years, I'm naturally delighted to hear that Steve Jobs is not on his deathbed just yet. However, I find it very disturbing that financial markets seem to feel that the death or loss of a CEO will make the company lose its way: where's the precedent for this? Sure, there'll be changes down the line if Jobs dies or steps down (as he inevitably will one day), but so what? That's life. It happens. Accept it.
The scariest thing for me is how the financial markets can react so strongly to such events, or even the rumour of such events: that volatility is why I'll never waste my money investing in such twittery.

Apple have made a number of cardinal errors.

The first is in allowing too much of the value of the business to be vested in the CEO.

There are many other businesses that take similar risks by putting their CEO front and center at every opportunity and having he/she lead all communications with the outside world.

It is far better for a business in the medium / long term to let people see and hear from a cross-section of the leadership team.

Ultimately, this is better for the business as it mitigates investor concerns if the CEO is unwell or decides to leave the business.

In Apple's case, the issue is compounded by two factors:

First, they run what looks like a dysfunctionally tight ship when it comes to media relations (information is hard to get, access is restricted - all acceptable in the context of a product launch of course, but it is actually a wider problem as any google search or glance at the twittersphere will confirm).

The second factor - and one where I have more sympathy is in relation to Steve Jobs' health. He values his privacy, which I respect.

However, if - as seems to be the case with Mr Jobs - you see yourself as the brand, you run external "communications" with a rod of iron and you add a deep desire for privacy to the mix - well, you're asking for trouble.

The fact is that Apple was a fairly ordinary outfit when Jobs originally left, so it is natural for markets to beleive the same could ahppen again. Not totally rational but reasonable enough - one has to question whether his style has allowed others to grow into a position to take over from him, or whether his ego prevents this.

I find it very disturbing that financial markets seem to feel that the death or loss of a CEO will make the company lose its way: where's the precedent for this?

Apple is the precedent for this; they lost (actually, got rid of) Steve Jobs before and the company did lose it's way, very badly. It was only when he was brought back in 1997 that Apple started to recover.

The markets aren't spooked over nothing, they're just worried it could all happen again.

"My model for business is The Beatles: They were four guys that kept each other's negative tendencies in check; they balanced each other. And the total was greater than the sum of the parts. Great things in business are not done by one person, they are done by a team of people."

Steve Jobs being asked about his business model on 60 minutes.


So you see, since his return in 1997 he has made sure that the total is greater than the sum of the parts. There are great PEOPLE in charge of Apple, it's not just Steve Jobs in a room on his own as the markets and bloggers have you believe.

Phil Schiller, Jonathan Ive, Tim Cook, Scott Forstall, Bertrand Serlet, Ron Johnson, Bob Mansfield, Sina Tamaddon, Daniel Cooperman, Peter Oppenheimer... All these people are the sum, and the products Apple produce are the total.

The Apple Board are too strong to make the same mistakes when Steve was sacked in 1985 (yes he was sacked, John Sculley 'relieved him of duty' following an internal power struggle).

Apple has a tremedous talent pool. That said, it is clear that Mr Jobs is the driving force behind the enterprise and it would be foolish to underestimate the impact he has on the business.

Of course, it would also be foolish to say the likes of Mr Schiller couldn't step into his shoes but I guess we won't know until that happens.

In any event, I'm glad that Mr Jobs isn't at death's door. Like him or loathe him the tech industry would be a poorer place without him.

Steve Jobs has hyperthyroidism, a common cause of which is Grave`s disease. (Diabetes can be another.) This is certainly treatable, but there are side effects from the treatment, which can last months, if not years. Quite a few people have come down with [and recovered from] Grave`s disease, including Barbara Bush and the actress Maggie Smith. But this could also arise from Job`s earlier treatment for Pancreatic cancer; because part of his pancreas was removed the remaining pancreas many not produce enough digestive enzymes to absorb proteins and so maintain his weight.

Interesting that Disney’s shares don’t seem to be suffering; Jobs is on the board of directors (and largest individual shareholder) following the sale of Pixar, the animation company he bought and turned into a world class studio before selling to Disney.

However you look at the Apple/Jobs relationship it can`t be denied that he has been identified in turning round its fortunes since he rejoined it in 1996. (Jobs had left Apple in 1985 after losing a boardroom battle with then CEO, John Sculley.)
Jobs promoted Jonathan Ive and worked with him on the design and launches of iMac, iBook, PowerMac G3, iPod, and iPhone; all triumphs in innovation, design as well as commercial success.

To understand the reasons why such high value is attached to Jobs as Apple CEO is simple, investors and Apple fans remember the 1985 – 1996 period when Job`s wasn’t involved in the company.
Jobs return brought a remarkable turnaround. One byproduct of Jobs having to step back from the limelight is it might allow Apple (and Jobs) to look at potential successors.

I hope it won’t be for a very long time yet, but he’ll be a hard act to follow; he combines a number of rare skillsets.

I'm just looking at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Technology site and I remembered a broohaha that erupted the last time Apple held an event.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't appear to have learned anything from this discussion - it is still providing an unfair number of stories about Apple. Take this one:



I visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ News because I know I can trust the content, but this article is not based on any fact whatsoever. It's just rumour! How can the Corporation justify publishing this when it does nothing similar for any other companies prior to the release of their products?

What I'm basically trying to say is, why not write about the products which are announced afterwards, rather than trying to speculate about what's coming tonight?

neiltc13 ... you should take a longer view. That the ´óÏó´«Ã½ comments and speculates on the rumours surrounding MacWorld is nothing new. It does the same when there is a new arrival due from Microsoft. If there is a perceived Apple bias ... could it be because they are generally the front-runners in design-tech, especially with the iPod (which, like it or not, revolutionised music storage) and the iPhone (which, like it or not, revolutionised the ways we use mobiles. Hence the 'me too' from the big phone manufacturers). Even in the personal computers area, Macs were the first to enable colour handling. So fair dos to Apple. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is reporting on innovation.

Like it or not, rumour and speculation are part of the entertainment that is 'the media'. What you seem to be asking for is a rather dull alternative which won't sell newspapers or web space. Visiting the BBB News because "I can trust the content ..." is rather naive. Look back in history ... you can't believe anything the media reports on ... even the ´óÏó´«Ã½!

Returning to the Steve Jobs issue. I wish him good health. Even egocentric and secretive folk deserve that!