Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It will anyway when Steve leaves. Look at any major corporation that had a well-known CEO/leader and he they left, the stock falls.

As for charisma vs. competence: I'll choose competence. Get the 'Mac' guy to do MWSF each year for the charisma.:rolleyes:

Wrong.

Look at General Electric (GE), they have always been well known for having some of the best leadership in the world.

Since they have some of the best leadership in the world they always planned ahead and had a good contingency plan.

Apple is a great company with great leadership, so they have a great contingency plan.

Everything Steve Jobs does has been planned out for a long time. Short term I could see AAPL dropping for a very short term maybe 10 points at most. But that will be because all of the people who sell thinking Apple is doomed. Then all the smart investors will pick up those sold shares and bring it back up but at a great discount.
 
No question, Steve Jobs is unique. By sheer force of personality he turned Apple around when he came back and then he forced us all to switch to the Intel platform, successfully. Probably few people in the world could have pulled that off.

No one will replace Steve. However, another person could make Apple successful in their own way. Steve does the keynotes just because he can and because he is so effective at it. Whoever takes over from Steve will build on their own strengths.

Assuming Steve keeps at this for another decade or more then whoever gets the job will find they are running a very different Apple. Perhaps Apple will be so big with so many different divisions that it will no longer work to have just one person represent them. There may be an entertainment division and an OS division and a telecom company and who knows what else. MWSF might return to its roots and just deal with computers and the OS.

I think Apple is sufficiently solid in the market place now with both plans for the future and secure financing and a solid name that they could make a successful transition to a new CEO. As long as his name isn't Amelio.
 
They should have me.

1) Im a total apple nerd. And "get it".
2) I have shown vast vision, inventiveness within my industry.i lead by innovation not domination, and have similar cult like followings. And have similarly large companies continuously looking over my shoulder for inspiration.
3) I have numerous groundbreaking new apple products ready to go.
4) Almost every decision apple makes, is what "i would have done" if in his position. (actually not entirely true, I would have a better web strategy IMO)
5) I took drugs when i was younger!
6) I dropped out of college
7) I program in 20 or so languages including c and objective c. I'm driven and self taught. And understand the bigger picture MUCH better than many CEO's that somehow run these multinationals.
8) I am an artist. An artist who fuses many technologies together to form my creations.
9) I have designed manufactured marketed electronic products from scratch, on my own, from my shed.
10) I'm rarely wrong, but I'm not too proud to admit my mistakes, and try different angles.

I have tried on numerous occasions to contact apple about potential products, inventions, patents, but I cant get hold of them for ****. Oh well their loss!
 
Ives is clearly not the next to take the helm at Apple. The clues lie in the fact that Al Gore is not running for President. Clearly it's because he will take over - wielding his Nobel Prize in one hand and a ball of fire in the other, which on closer inspection turns out to be the earth engulfed in flame. With the power to raise the global temperature, who would stand in his way? Under Gore, Apple will begin to make products like the iMill - the first personal windmill (which will later be -poorly - copied by Microsoft as the WinMill only available in brown) amongst other environmentally friendly products. This type of development will eventually lead to Apple discovering cold fusion and saving the entire planet.

I like the idea you had about Gore. Some good points, but I am not sure if he is fit to run Apple. I am not sure people would really accept him as a new Steve Jobs, or replacement of Steve Jobs.
Also with the idea that he did not run for president bc he is going to be CEO of Apple would mean Steve is planning on retiring within 4 years...
 
A friend of mine is a big-shot financial executive, who controls literally billions of dollars in mutual funds. I recently asked him why he's never invested in Apple stock. He said that in his opinion, Apple is "too closely tied to Steve Jobs", and if something unexpected were to happen to Steve -- the stock price would tank overnight. Just too much long-term risk despite Apple's incredible rise recently. Interesting observation from a major player in the financial realm. :apple:


"Big-shot" financial executive are not people I would take financial advice regarding whether to buy a stock or not. Many of those people rely on manipulation.

There average return is much less than many would think. I think the average for guys like them is about 10 or 12%. Ya thats better than a bank, but my yearly average right now is about 89%. Not that I am some big-shot but different people invest for different reason with different opinions.

Big-shots have been calling down AAPL allllll year and they have been wrong alllll year. Some of them are just trying to get in at a discount price.

You have to look at the real fundamentals of the company. Apple is continuously growing because their products ARE superior to others and at the moment is a niche product. That is what sells. PC users are not going out and making the switch because they watched Steve Jobs do a keynote, they are doing it because the products are better.

Yes, how investors view Steve Jobs does effect their investment choices but only to a certain extent. When people sell off because Jobs goes and there is that temporary sell off, I will love to pick up more shares at a nice discount. Then when earnings comes a few months later and we find out that they killed Analysts estimates again....$$$$

Steve Jobs is a big part of AAPL but not as big as many think. The stock is driven by high analyst estimates, Apple continuously beating estimates, continous large scale growth, niche prodcuts, good quality products, customer service, fundamentals, etc.

When people act like Steve Jobs is AAPL, it makes no sense to me. SJ is Apple but not AAPL and those are two completely different things. Saying SJ is the main driving force of AAPL bewilders me just as much as when people say AAPL is all about the iPhone.... but thats another story.
 
A friend of mine is a big-shot financial executive, who controls literally billions of dollars in mutual funds. I recently asked him why he's never invested in Apple stock. He said that in his opinion, Apple is "too closely tied to Steve Jobs", and if something unexpected were to happen to Steve -- the stock price would tank overnight. Just too much long-term risk despite Apple's incredible rise recently. Interesting observation from a major player in the financial realm. :apple:

My dad is successful and retired, he thinks I made a very wise/lucky choice by buying my Apple stock when I did.
 
They should have me.

1) Im a total apple nerd. And "get it".
2) I have shown vast vision, inventiveness within my industry.i lead by innovation not domination, and have similar cult like followings. And have similarly large companies continuously looking over my shoulder for inspiration.
3) I have numerous groundbreaking new apple products ready to go.
4) Almost every decision apple makes, is what "i would have done" if in his position. (actually not entirely true, I would have a better web strategy IMO)
5) I took drugs when i was younger!
6) I dropped out of college
7) I program in 20 or so languages including c and objective c. I'm driven and self taught. And understand the bigger picture MUCH better than many CEO's that somehow run these multinationals.
8) I am an artist. An artist who fuses many technologies together to form my creations.
9) I have designed manufactured marketed electronic products from scratch, on my own, from my shed.
10) I'm rarely wrong, but I'm not too proud to admit my mistakes, and try different angles.

I have tried on numerous occasions to contact apple about potential products, inventions, patents, but I cant get hold of them for ****. Oh well their loss!


Maybe you should work some non-critical patent infringement in to your next product, so they come knocking on your door. You could do a little SJ style reverse takeover action.
 
I would love someone British as the CEO.

I would love it if Ive then reduced the price markup on UK Apple products.
 
Untrue! Not Ivey at all!

Jobs told me a few years ago that he wanted me to take over if anything should ever happen to him. I am still considering it.
 
Maybe you should work some non-critical patent infringement in to your next product, so they come knocking on your door. You could do a little SJ style reverse takeover action.

Ha ! I was very close to a bit of apple copyright infringement the other day actually. The UI design for a competing product I was involved in was almost perfectly designed by apple, to the point where it was very difficult to differentiate without losing functionality/usability.

Got there in the end though.
 
Steve Jobs is a big part of AAPL but not as big as many think. The stock is driven by high analyst estimates, Apple continuously beating estimates, continous large scale growth, niche prodcuts, good quality products, customer service, fundamentals, etc.

When people act like Steve Jobs is AAPL, it makes no sense to me. SJ is Apple but not AAPL and those are two completely different things. Saying SJ is the main driving force of AAPL bewilders me just as much as when people say AAPL is all about the iPhone.... but thats another story.

Steve Jobs turned Apple around when he returned to the company ten years ago. At the time of his return, Apple was in serious financial trouble and lacked direction (was it a software company? A hardware company? What was its future?). Though people now joke about Michael Dell's infamous quote, at the time, Dell arguably had a good point. When jobs returned, he reorganized management--firing a whole bunch of people--slashed departments, and, perhaps most importantly, realized what was needed to reinvigorate Apple so it could thrive (that vision thing...). His understanding of design, the consumer, technology... was the root of Apple's success, not to mention NeXT's contribution to what we now know as OSX. Without NeXT (aka, Steve Jobs), who knows where the Macintosh or Apple would be right now.

Ultimately, a stock is only as good as its fundamentals, and without Jobs's return, and subsequent leadership, Apple wouldn't be a $150+ billion company with no debt, an ever-growing customer base, expanding margins..., and, thus, AAPL would not be the incredible investment it became after Jobs's return. Anyone think John Scully, Michael Spindler, or Gil Amelio could have brought Apple to where it is now?

The reason analysts have high estimates for AAPL is because of the growth engines that have resulted from Jobs's vision. I'm not saying that he does all the work and gets all the credit, but, again, it is his leadership that has brought Apple to where it is now. The analysts' estimates would not be high if Apple's fundamentals didn't warrant it. And Apple beats those estimates because of its sterling fundamentals, growing margins, and expanding consumer base. The analysts don't randomly give Apple high estimates, which Apple just happens to beat.

The fact is, Steve Jobs IS the driving force behind both Apple and AAPL. His vision, ability to motivate, and unwillingness to compromise have given birth to some of the greatest consumer/electronics products of the century. It is his leadership that brought Apple back from the brink of oblivion, his leadership that continues to invigorate the company (and all that entails), and his leadership that has led AAPLs meteoric rise over the past decade.
 
Steve Jobs turned Apple around when he returned to the company ten years ago. At the time of his return, Apple was in serious financial trouble and lacked direction (was it a software company? A hardware company? What was its future?). He reorganized management--firing a whole bunch of people--slashed departments, and, perhaps most importantly, realized what was needed to reinvigorate Apple so it could thrive (that vision thing...). His understanding of design, the consumer, technology... was the root of Apple's success, not to mention NeXT's contribution to what we now know as OSX. Without NeXT (aka, Steve Jobs), who knows where the Macintosh or Apple would be right now.

Ultimately, a stock is only as good as its fundamentals, and without Jobs's return, and subsequent leadership, Apple wouldn't be a $150+ billion company with no debt, an ever-growing customer base, expanding margins..., and, thus, AAPL would not be the incredible investment it became after Jobs's return.

The reason analysts have high estimates for AAPL is because of the growth engines that have resulted from Jobs's vision. I'm not saying that he does all the work and gets all the credit, but, again, it is his leadership that has brought Apple to where it is now. The analysts' estimates would not be high if Apple's fundamentals didn't warrant it. And Apple beats those estimates because of its sterling fundamentals, growing margins, and expanding consumer base. The analysts don't randomly give Apple high estimates, which Apple just happens to beat.

The fact is, Steve Jobs, IS the driving force behind both Apple and AAPL. His vision, ability to motivate, and unwillingness to compromise have given birth to some of the greatest consumer/electronics products of the century. It is his leadership that brought Apple back from the brink of oblivion, his leadership that continues to invigorate the company (and all that entails), and his leadership that has led AAPLs meteoric rise over the past decade.

There is no doubt that SJ turned the company around and made it what it is today. The thing is though it is what it is today. And loosing the CEO of Apple is not going to make the software go bad, or the hard ware, or the sales.

SJ has almost absolutely nothing to do with actual production side. If he was gone Apple could still make good software and hardware. I am sure he comes out with some great ideas, but he is not the only one, and he is passing on his ideology to many others.

He wants Apple to be led a certain way, it got it pointed in that direction and now he is teaching his pupils how to carry it out.

One thing that would really take a noticeable hit is his keynotes.... but man have you watched those lately? I love the guy, genius innovator, but they are getting worse and worse.

SJ has put too much work and planning in his big master plan, whatever that might be, to let it all fall apart when he leaves... and I am sure AAPL stock price is part of his plan.

Yes SJ was the driving force behind AAPL and Apple and he still is, but like you said a stock is only as good as its fundamentals. Here is a good definition of fundamentals found in your dictionary widget:
forming a necessary base or core
The base is set, the core is stronger than ever, and there is no doubt SJ provided all this. But with the base already there and set up so strong by such a good leader, its not cracking and its not falling rather he is there or not. Unfortunately there are others that feel the same way you do and it will cause a temporary stock drop... but because of the base Apple has its earnings will continue to surprise and the company will continue to grow. I think many people including you will be very surprised at how well SJ's contingency plan is carried out, it is definitely something he does not take lightly.

SJ is a huge asset to Apple but the fact that he is in the office everyday is not why the stock is at 190+, it is because what he has done and set up while being in that office the last 10 years.
 
Nobody could ever replace Steve Jobs, ever. Plain and simple. When Steve is gone it will truly be the end of an era.

I would imagine it's an awkward position for Steve to be in really. As a smart CEO he needs to make sure that Apple can thrive without him BUT in order to line someone up it's going to be VERY important for Steve to really understand his individual worth and how a fairly major element to the whole Apple sell is the Steve factor.

For example, I love my iPhone...it's amazing, but to be completely honest, I also love having the same phone Steve Jobs has. This is the VERY unique nature that makes up Apple on some level. I'm not a celeb. follower or into the entertainment industry per say, but I really admire and almost "look up to" Steve in an odd way.
 
Hopefully Steve remains at the helm for many years to come.:D

But...... if he was to step down, what about Al Roker?:p
 
Guess what? Ives is a different person from Jobs. It's okay if the keynotes are different. In fact, maybe Ives would decide to use a different marketing strategy -- which is what he *should* do if he's not a good speaker....

Ives needs to be doing Apple Keynotes at MacWorld San Francisco, even if they are second day Keynotes or with Jobs.

They don't happen and it's because the show is Steve Jobs and the vision that created Apple and continues to advance it.

Jobs is brilliant at hiring people to see his vision unfold. He's learned to take critical input from other visions that are localized to a specific product.

He's even been able to see how invaluable these key people have in seeing Apple succeed.

This has only allowed him to be able to explore new markets for Apple and to then turn to incredibly skilled talent to test out these ideas and to improve upon them.

People expect the NeXT Big Thing every January from Apple.

With Steve's RDF he's able to soften the blow when they don't reach these ridiculous expectations and to be able to mask the splash when they exceed consumer expectations.

Put Ive out there this MacWorld 2008 to convey the vision he had behind his team's next big project.

If it flops you won't see him doing another keynote for quite a while.
 
Whomever they find, I bet they will have to pay him more than $1 per year.

From what I have seen, Ive would be a terrible choice-- product design is very different from corporate vision. When Steve leaves, there will be a huge drop in AAPL's multiplier, no matter how competent his replacement. SJ is a rare mix of prick, visionary, and personality. Nobody can fill those particular shoes, but someone might help push Apple in one particular direction. The 150 billion dollar question is where should Apple focus their energy five years from now. Cool products alone won't go anywhere-- you have to look at the complete ecosystem.
 
Whomever they find, I bet they will have to pay him more than $1 per year.

From what I have seen, Ive would be a terrible choice-- product design is very different from corporate vision. When Steve leaves, there will be a huge drop in AAPL's multiplier, no matter how competent his replacement. SJ is a rare mix of prick, visionary, and personality. Nobody can fill those particular shoes, but someone might help push Apple in one particular direction. The 150 billion dollar question is where should Apple focus their energy five years from now. Cool products alone won't go anywhere-- you have to look at the complete ecosystem.

I'm prepared to start saving for my Apple thought-powered super car. :apple:
 
He's only 52 for crying out loud I mean it's not like the man is about to keel over!
Why start thinking about replacing him now?
 
For what it's worth, even Sir Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony has acknowledged internally that Steve is the man. (Speaking as a former Sony employee...)

Empirically and technically speaking, the position of CEO has a greater need for charisma than competence. Now, mind you we're talking in a somewhat theoretical fashion here, since clearly competence gives one the knowledge necessary to be aware of what they should be driving and thus focusing their people on; however, I tend to liken it to the whole train of thought from the movie Apollo 13 about the parachutes: without them, really does it matter if everything else worked perfectly?

You have to focus your people -- and your customers as well -- on the future and on your core business strengths. If you can't do that, then you're no better than Mr. Stringer of Sony or Frank Blake of Home Depot, who seems to think he can lead from the rear (he doesn't like to make appearances, and appears to support the "strong committee" approach).

I understand where that investor guy is coming from: Steve and Apple are linked in a way that very, very few other companies are with their own leadership. This isn't a fault of either Steve or Apple, it's just an unfortunate by-product of their respective -- and collective -- history. And Apple isn't just "any other company". Do any of us know who the CEOs of Pepsi, Coke, GE, Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Novell, Mead, Sysco, Gap, Guess, Macy's, or any of a dozen other major companies are? And do any of us care? And -- assuming there were no truly incompetent people out there as choices -- would it really matter who was their CEO?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.