By SteveJack
I was going to call this article, “What happens when Steve Jobs retires?” or “Apple after Steve Jobs,” in deference to taste, but then I decided that I wanted as many people to read it as possible, so… I succumbed. I just want you to know that I felt a pang of guilt typing that headline on a Mac.
Steve Jobs is Apple. Apple is Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs without Apple still managed to produce the foundation for what Apple became NeXT (after they paid him $400 million) while, in his spare time, heading a movie studio that only produces runaway box office hits. Apple without Steve Jobs produces Performas.
As a very minor Apple stockholder, I get the proxy statements, I check off the “yes” boxes to give Steve jets, millions of options, jet fuel, more options, whatever he wants, and I wonder what in the hell happens if Steve gets hit by a bus biking on over to the Palo Alto Apple Store some Saturday.
Steve Jobs is 48 years old. Reportedly, he is a vegan and in very good health. May he live to be one hundred! May he live forever, but that’s probably unlikely. So, I’m back to the beginning; what happens when Steve Jobs dies? Or, a bit more hopefully, when he doesn’t feel like leading Apple Computer, Inc. anymore and decides to kick back and relax? Since Jobs returned to lead Apple, every Apple shareholder, employee, and avid company watcher has asked themselves this question at some point, “whither Steve Jobs?”
Pixar has John Lasseter and a crop of young, talented directors to carry on post-Steve. But, who will lead Apple? Is Steve grooming someone, yet? Is it too early to worry about it? And what about that bus, God forbid?
I mean, come on, we all lived through the Scully, Spindler, and Amelio years; Apple barely did. On the face of it, the closest Apple has to a successor-in-grooming is Phil Schiller. No offense, Phil, but the RDF hasn’t rubbed off. Leading Apple is a very tricky proposition. Only one man so far has pulled it off successfully. Twice. The key ingredients seem to be a quest for perfection, a passion for the technology and the company, and the ability to relate Apple’s ideas to the world with style. Jobs is truly the charismatic force that propels Apple forward in the face of tremendous odds.
Right now, it looks like Apple’s best hope, and a very good one at that, is Jonathan Ive, Apple’s Vice President of Industrial Design, the London Design Museum’s “2003 Designer of the Year,” and chief designer of the original and current iMacs, iPods, iBooks, PowerBooks, Power Mac G5, and more. He seems to work well with the engineers responsible for the hardware. He is obviously a meticulous genius. And he has “that certain something” which, importantly, comes across on camera and in person. Whether he has the extremely rare “vision thing” that Jobs possesses; well, that’s still an open question.
Watch Ive in the Power Mac G5 intro video. Ive first appears about 40% in, at the 2:50 mark of the 6:33 minute video. Note that he is almost wearing a black mock turtleneck already. Contrast his presentation style and enthusiasm with the other Apple presenters. Can you sense the almost Jobsian, call it Junior Jobsian, aura? Ive has “it” while all of the other Apple employees in the video are just nice people talking about a computer. And Ive should only get better with time. Could we be watching Steve Jobs’ successor, Apple’s future CEO, in the 31-year-old Ive? Watch and see if Ive begins to join Steve on stage during keynotes soon.
Jonathan Ive, Apple Computer CEO circa 2025. It has a pretty nice ring to it, doesn’t it? You heard it here first. I think Mr. Ive could pull it off. And I think Jobs thinks so, too; in about twenty years, bus drivers willing.
SteveJack is a long-time Macintosh user, web designer, multimedia producer and a regular contributor to the MacDailyNews Opinion section.
What you have to remember is that Apple is successful as a niche company. There are a relatively small number of us in the world with higher standards for usability, stability, and appearance of our computers, and we choose to use the Mac because it’s better in those aspects. We also pay a fair margin more for the right to do so. Likewise, there are a relatively small number of people in the world with high standards for the way their car drives. These people spend the extra cash to meet their needs by purchasing a BMW, Ferrari, or (insert favorite car make).
As always, the manufacturers outside the niche (GM in the car metaphor, Dell outside the metaphor) constantly copy the innovations inside the niche. Ferrari and BMW have had paddle shifting for years; now you can get it in a Grand Prix. Apple came out with built-in wireless Ethernet in laptops first; now Dell has it. A BMW M3 can help you get the perfect launch; we have yet to see this from GM. Apple has a 17″ laptop; Dell has yet to follow suit.
If Apple converts itself to just another PC competitor, they will die a quick death amidst too much competition. Apple must continue to fill a niche in order to survive. Nothing wrong with trying to increase the size of the niche; this needs to be done not by making the niche more like the competition, but instead by showing the masses just how nice things are inside the niche. This requires a company with charisma; it requires a CEO with charisma.
By the way, Apple has over four billion dollars in cash assets. That’s a pretty darn good bank balance, if you ask me.
-Jake
While this is an interesting topic to discuss, real life will be totally different:
Before Jobs dies, Apple will be taken over by Sun or Sony or a company that might not even exist yet. Since Jobs wouldn’t accept the idea of being the Man in Second Place, this will be the moment we will lose Steve
Jake,
Why would they die, I wouldn’t stop buying Apple, would you?
Whilst I respect your points, I think they are flawed because they are based on the ethos that growth is a bad thing. Growth doesn’t mean that you lose your ability to innovate, innovation is driven by people with vision and Apple is full of those people.
As I said, Microsoft are very vulnerable at the moment, many Windows users and importantly corporations are looking for something different as is evidenced by the surge in interest in Linux. Unfortunately despite all the hype, Linux just isn’t ready and in my opinion never will be for the mass market, it is far too disjointed and I think Apple is perfectly placed to benefit from this, it is a rare opportunity and one that should be grasped.
Sean
Never did I assume or imply that growth was a bad thing. My arguments are based on the theory that if Apple bails on the things it has going for it (more advanced hardware; “whole widget” philosophy), they will stop being better. These two things are the fuel for the innovation.
The right way for Apple to grow is via recruiting. “Hey, look what we’ve got over here! Look! It’s great!” Get people to come check it out, show them how it’s better. Show them OmniWeb and iTunes. Show them Keynote and iMovie. Show them how beautiful Quartz antialiasing really is.
Again, I am not saying that growth is a bad thing, but I will say it’s not a requirement for a successful company. Apple has reported several profitable quarters as well as increasing sales, all while continuing to lead the industry in innovation both in hardware and in software. It’s far more important to me that Apple continue to innovate than it is that they grow the niche.
The point is, for Apple to survive, they must continue to provide for the niche. The minute they stop, I’ll quit buying Apple. I spend $3000 on a Mac instead of $800 on a PC because I love having a computer that just works right. I can not see any way for Apple to continue to produce a machine that just works right, if they start trying to cater to the masses (whose #1 criteria seems to be cost).
I think the best way for Apple to increase its reach is to branch out into more types of consumer electronics products. The iPod is ridiculously successful. Late onto the scene, and much more expensive that most of the competition, it now is the most common MP3 player in existence, due solely to the fact that it’s incredibly superior to any other MP3 player. You can buy one a Target, for Pete’s sake.
Steve Jobs says PDAs and cell phones are not practical for Apple to try right now. I think he’s right. But I think there are markets out there that Apple can do very well in.
*continued next post (stupid 2500 character limit)*
I don’t know just how vulnerable MS is right now. Most PC users I know aren’t surprised, and are just toughing it out until all these viruses and security holes blow over. They really don’t care that much. No matter how many times I tell them that I’ve never had a virus, nor a virus protection app, they continue to believe that viruses and security holes are par for the course, and that there’s no other way.
Just like my mother doesn’t care that her Saturn L200 placed last in Car & Driver’s comparison of ten family sedans. The Saturn takes her where she needs to go, and she doesn’t give a rat’s ass if the Accord and Camry do a much better job of it.
-Jake
Number one qualification: User Loyalty
I biught a new IIGS just before Scully pulled the rug out from under the Apple II user population and took the Mac off the consumer retail market.
Althouguh Steve has redefined the PC envelope, he has kept an eye on the loyal users who are still on older technology. The upgrades (e.g., G4, G5. OS X) are out there and promise a qualitative improvement as we upgrade, but we still get to enjoy improvements until that time…and we all share the excitement when Steve takes the stage and says “There is one more thing!”
Apple Computer is not about computing; it’s abut the quality of life.
you guys are way off; the next ceo will come up through retail. also, if you don’t understand the southern hemispere strategy you don’t understand the next 5 years and OS 11. sorry
What, pray tell, is the southern hemisphere strategy?
Jake,
Surely the desire to remain a niche product implies little or no growth, this is currently manifesting itself in a constantly shrinking market share. Apple is rapidly looseing it’s core markets especially the education market.
The problem is that we are living in times where margins are constantly shrinking, that coupled to a shrinking user base could potentially signal disaster for Apple, will Apple ever disappear? very unlikely but it could be signifacntly weakened.
We are currently entering what will be looked back on as a purple period for Apple but Moores law dictates that the computers we buy today are going to last us for many years to come which and that could mean that 4 Billion bank balance will start dwindling.
The old bloated Aplle was ill equiped to deal with clones the new streamlined Apple is perfectly poised to license the best OS available to the likes of Dell and HP.
Apparently Apple computers cost less than similar Dell and HP variants so what is there to lose?
Ahh, yes! Let’s get a marketeer with some narrowly-defined strategy.
South American countries are so hobbled by taxes that they can barely afford obsolete technology. I was in business with a Brazilian and worked with financiali web sites from all over Latin America. They live by the “gray” market.
If Apple is to continue to gain market share, it must be in the US, EU, and Pacific Rim. But a Harverd MBA or a salesman will never understand how to fight quantity with quality
I don’t demand that Apple remain a niche product. I demand that they continue to cater to those of us in the niche. If 50% of the market is willing to pay extra for superiority, fantastic. Apple just needs to remain superior.
There’s a problem with the statement that Apple computers cost less than similar HP and Dell variants. The reason is that Apple computers come with lots of things as standard equipment that most users don’t need. I can put together a PC that’s quite fast for $1000, but it won’t have Firewire, Serial ATA, PCI-X, USB 2, digital audio, or any number of other features that bring the Mac’s price up so high. Dual processors is a big one — DP motherboards for PCs are quite expensive.
Similarly equipped, yes, Macs are cheaper than PCs. But most people don’t need all that extra equipment.
Also — I can put together a fully-functional PC for $350, and it’ll be way faster than the cheapest new Mac you can buy today (but it still won’t have Firewire).
-Jake
Sjakelien,
The opposite is probably true in the case of Sun, they have major problems, they are haemoraging money at an alarming rate and trying to reinvent themselves as cheap PC clone manufacturers.
The thing is to be bought out by a large dull corporation would be the worst thing that could happen to Apple. That’s why a split would be ideal before it eventually happens. Apple has one very major stock holder an Arab Sheikh, if he loses interest and decided to dump his stock Apple will be ripe for the picking.
Wearing a black turtleneck polo and having a jobsian aura isn’t enough to lead a company like Apple, so even if Ive has both, he still is a good graphic designer, not yet a CEO. And beign a good graphic designer has really different charachters and qualities than being a good CEO.
Whatver are the post-Steve plans (do you really think there are none?) they aren’t made to know for the public. There is no reason to.
Long live Jobs
(for sure longer than my pile of black turtlenecks..)
Just to clarify — Ive is an Industrial designer, not a graphic designer. He designs hardware.
Yes but 50% of the market don’t want to pay for quality, currently about 2.5% do, Apple quality that is.
The question is how many people who already own a PC and under no circumstances would buy a Mac because they have never bothered to look past the misinformation spread about Apple, would pay $99 for OSX.
Your argument about what PC users buy seems to imply that Apple are using a monopoly to force us to buy machines which are far higher spec than some would ordinarily buy?
The majority of those that don’t buy Apple don’t even know how much better they really are. Most think they are inferior in every way.
That’s a valid implication from my statement. My mother has a 600MHz Snow iMac. It’s about a year old. The Firewire ports have never been used. The VGA mirroring port has never been used. Heck, even the Ethernet port has never been used. My mom paid $800 for her iMac, and doesn’t use $300 worth of features. She uses a Mac because it’s easy (and because I insist).
I’m not complaining personally, because I like to have all of the upgradeability, connectivity, and flexibility brought about by having the latest and greatest everything. I’m actually using both Firewire ports on my G4. I have a second network card, and a 5-port USB 2.0 PCI card. I use all of my G4’s abilities, and I’m willing to pay for all the extras.
But yes, there are lots of people who don’t need all that stuff. To some, the system is superior enough to warrant the extra cost. To others, it’s not.
Note: Last I checked, OS X was $129.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
-Jake
Everyone here is right. The question remains, why can’t apple increase market share with a superior product? My answer is still that Steve doesn’t care, and I think he ought to. Shitcan the fancy ads and saturate the marketplace with thousands of cheap ads, including popups, that simply blow up the most popular misconceptions about macs, re: speed, compatability, and cost. It isn’t that hard…..why not do it?
Jake,
Currently PC users have a choice, buy a Mac to run OSX or buy a PC. To try OSX they would have to sell the thing they are comforatble with and spend $1100 minimum for a Macintosh. That is unacceptable for most people. I realise that porting app’s to x86 is potentially difficult but people like Adobe would be able to use a lot of x86 optomised code for OSX apps (what is YellowBox or BlueBox or whatever it was called) but if someone could go and buy and x86 version of OSX for $129, their risk is reduced exponentially.
The other thing is that if you and I evangelise to someone about Mac’s we do so as Mac users, we are seen (by many) as biassed and maybe even dilussional or ill informed. Now if PC users start telling people how they bought OSX for $129 and it has transformed their computing experience the potential for “Switchers” is then massive.
Fortune favors the brave as they say.
Jon,
He can’t do it because he isn’t a great CEO, he’s a great Marketing director, that is why Sculley ousted him, his heart rules his head and you can’t run a business that way.
These forums are the wrong place to get answers because for the most part, people who passionate about computing hang around them, like Jake says though, most people aren’t passionate about their computer they just use it as a tool. They need to experience OSX and we can tell them till we’re blue in the face how great OSX is but if they don’t experience it for longer than 2 minutes in an elecronics store where the sales people are telling that PC’s are better, they’ll never switch.
Apple’s board have a decision that needs to be made within the next 6 months, grasp a time where MS is at it’s weakest and make the brave decision to release the x86 or remain a niche company where they experience 18 months of bouyant sales while we buy G5’s and faster PB’s but where they wuill then suffer three to four years of flat sales and dwindling bank balances.
If Apple’s future also lies in consumer electronics then that just reinforces a case to split the company into two divisions.
Why doesn’t anyone ever clamor about BMW needing to increase their market share? It’s similar to Apple’s. It’s a superior product, with more bells and whistles than your average Pontiac. The controls are all in well-thought-out places. It will last longer. It drives better than most anything else you can buy. It looks great. And it costs more too. The only complaints I ever hear about BMW are:
1. I want one, but I can’t afford it
2. They win in magazine comparisons too often; magazines are biased
BMW is doing fine financially. They are an innovator, and other manufactures strive to match their products. They don’t have the whole market, but they have a consistent portion that varies by a percent or two occasionally, but they have a group of die-hards that will never buy anything else.
Sound familiar?
If people accuse me of being biased, I tell them I’m biased for a reason. Most people I know see me as a reasonable person with high standards for everything, so they usually listen at least a little.
-Jake
The thing is that in order to increase market share BMW would have to reduce the cost of the product and that would more than likely mean cheaper components and perhaps reduced quality which would affect sales and that would have the opposite impact to the desired one.
You seem to like using the motor industry as an analogy so let me put this to you. As a group, VW Audi have a diverse line of vehicles, but they leverage the most from their components in order to generate the greatest revenue. As an example, the chassis from the bland VW Golf is used in the exciting Audi TT and the steady SEAT Ibiza. Revenue streams are important for all companies and Apple doesn’t have to reduce the quality of their hardware in order to increase revenue, they port their OS. It will have neglible impact on their hardware sales and if it does they should get more competitive, they have it too easy at the moment because we as users are passionate, they take us for granted in my opinion.
I use the auto industry because I know it well, and because BMW makes a nice analogy.
You’ve got it backwards! VW shares the Golf/TT/Ibiza platform because it’s GOOD hardware.
First, I’d like to say that VW is a HUGE company. Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, SEAT, Skoda. They have amazing resources, and tons of money. In that regard, it’s not the best comparison. But I’ll run with it for now.
If Apple were to try to emulate this business model, they would need to instate a new brand. Macintosh would be the luxury brand, so to speak, and the new brand would be the non-luxury. They would then sell machines under the new name without all the bells and whistles, but still built around the PPC architecture, with all the inherent advantages therein.
If Apple resorted to selling machines based only on x86 hardware, that would be like VW deciding that from now on all Porsches would be powered by the 2.2L ECOTEC engine, simply because they’re cheap, and Cavaliers sell tons more than 911’s.
Personally, if I were a Porsche customer (which I one day hope to be), I would drop out and look elsewhere if they pulled something like that.
Let’s be clear. Apple, to me, is a luxury brand. They use superior components, and charge more for them. You’ll never get everyone in the world to drive Porsches and BMWs. Some people don’t care enough about their cars. But if you can find someone that (a) cares about their driving experience, and (b) can afford the luxury, they’re likely to be driving one.
The equivalent applies to the Mac.
We’ll never convert everyone. I don’t expect to. But I will tell everyone that asks me about my computer that it’s a luxury computer, and it’s worth every penny to me.
-Jake
If jobs does pop his clogs theres only 1 thing we can do.. we can rebuild him into a super intelligent robot where the G10 powers his body and mind to run things. Also instead of apple paying for his jets, they can save on the cash and keep him stored in a cupboard where hes hooked up to a plentiful supply of energon cubes
silvergun
And we can then argue whether his benchmarks are any better than the original Steve Jobs.
LOL nice 1