“Apple is defending CEO Steve Jobs as the company is under investigation by the feds,” David Morgenstern writes for eWeek. “To some, he is Apple. But could the company make do without its very public leader? …Concern on the street grew in December that Jobs’ tenure may come to an end, not by a coup by the board of directors as happened in 1985, but from legal troubles around stock options and perhaps a cover-up.”
“In the street’s imagination, Apple is Jobs. Or perhaps the other way around: Jobs is Apple. Whatever. This theory is still all about Jobs cracking the whip in Cupertino and speaking the Mac gospel to the public at the annual Macworld Expo and Apple Worldwide Developer Conference keynotes,” Morgenstern writes. “But is that right? Is this personal identification necessary for the continued success of Apple?”
“Tt would be difficult to target Apple strategic decisions over the past 10 years where Jobs didn’t make a personal difference. So, the Apple-Jobs/Jobs-Apple identification isn’t hooey,” Morgenstern writes. “However, looking through the long list of accomplishments over the decade, it seems to me that there were a small number of decisions and events that only Jobs could carry out and be successful. These were moments—most in the early part of his latest tenure—that relied upon Jobs’ authenticity as a founder of the company as well as the communication that he still had a personal stake in Apple’s direction.”
Morgenstern’s shortlist for these crucial events:
• Reassuring the Mac base: In the summer of 1997… Jobs took the stage of the Boston Macworld Expo… The most reassuring thing to many that day was that Apple would settle its ongoing patent lawsuit with Microsoft, with Redmond guaranteeing Mac versions of Office for another five years. There were other parts of the deal, including a minor investment ($150 million) by Microsoft in Apple stock.
• Reassuring developers
• The transition to Intel
“To succeed, Apple must continue to execute on its plans. That’s what Jobs said in 1997. And that can be accomplished without Steve Jobs,” Morgenstern writes. “Please note that I’m not saying Apple would be better off without Jobs. No way. He’s amazing and entertaining. I wish him only health and job security for the years ahead. But the current FUD around his status should stop.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Apple stock-option fallout: investor lawsuit and twin U.S. gov’t investigations – January 04, 2007
WSJ: Steve Jobs, backdating miscreant – January 03, 2007
Should Steve Jobs be allowed to survive Apple’s options backdating scandal? – January 02, 2007
Apple options probe shines spotlight on former execs Anderson and Heinen – January 02, 2007
ThinkEquity analyst: Apple sell-off due to ‘inexperienced traders,’ nothing new in options story – December 28, 2006
Analyst: U.S. Gov’t unlikely to ‘nail Apple and Steve Jobs’ – December 28, 2006
Report: Apple ‘falsified’ records on 7.5m stock options granted to CEO Steve Jobs in 2001 – December 28, 2006
What would Apple be worth without Steve Jobs? – December 27, 2006
Piper Jaffray: Steve Jobs not at risk in stock options case – December 27, 2006
Apple shares push into positive territory, top NASDAQ most-active list – December 27, 2006
Shares of Apple Computer fall 5% in pre-market trading – December 27, 2006
Faked documents may be at core of Apple options probe; Jobs seeks outside legal representation – December 26, 2006
Apple delays filing annual report due to ongoing stock options investigation – December 15, 2006
Options scandal: is Apple’s Steve Jobs truly safe? – October 18, 2006
Apple Computer Directors may have had conflicts of interest in options investigation – October 11, 2006
Apple’s options disclosures leave plenty of unanswered questions – October 09, 2006
Apple shareholders await earnings restatements; Steve Jobs still not in the clear – October 06, 2006
Former CFO Anderson helped turn Apple Computer around – October 05, 2006
Wall Street unshaken by results of Apple stock options investigation – October 05, 2006
Is Apple rotten at the core? – October 05, 2006
Analyst: Anderson, Heinen may be former Apple executives responsible for irregular options grants – October 05, 2006
Analyst: Apple restatement due to options irregularities not expected to be significant – October 04, 2006
Apple’s special committee reports findings of stock option investigation – October 04, 2006
Google CEO declines Apple automatic stock option grant; plans to buy 10,000 AAPL shares instead – September 01, 2006
Google CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt joins Apple’s Board of Directors – August 29, 2006
Shareholders allege Apple execs reaped ‘millions’ in unlawful profits – August 23, 2006
How options-backdating irregularities can affect your Apple Computer stock – August 23, 2006
Apple’s options imbroglio: Mac-maker granted options at or near key events in company’s history – August 18, 2006
Apple added to Nasdaq’s list of ‘delinquent companies’ – August 18, 2006
Apple unlikely to be delisted by NASDAQ – August 16, 2006
Apple CEO Steve Jobs drawn into stock options scandal – August 15, 2006
Apple announces update regarding stock option grants – August 11, 2006
As expected, Apple delays quarterly results due to stock-options grants review – August 11, 2006
Some stock options grant decisions were made by Apple board, and potentially, CEO Steve Jobs – August 10, 2006
Disney: no material impact from Pixar options – August 09, 2006
Pixar options draw scrutiny – August 08, 2006
Apple stock options scandal? What scandal? – August 07, 2006
Class action lawsuit over stock options filed against Apple Computer, Inc. – August 04, 2006
Wall Street forgiving of Apple’s stock option irregularities; CEO Jobs unlikely to be terminated – August 04, 2006
Apple’s stock option irregularities escalate into a scandal as world awaits Steve Jobs’ WWDC keynote – August 04, 2006
Apple warns of profit restatement dating back to 2002 – August 04, 2006
Apple loses 3.5% to $67.15 in premarket trading – August 04, 2006
Apple announces update regarding stock option grants – August 03, 2006
Shareholder’s options suit against Apple alleges ‘striking pattern that could not have been chance’ – July 11, 2006
Apple announces update regarding stock option grants – July 05, 2006
UBS: stock options probe unlikely to hurt Apple – June 30, 2006
Apple joins growing list of companies entangled in stock option ‘irregularities’ – June 29, 2006
Apple to investigate stock option grant ‘irregularities’ made between 1997 and 2001 – June 29, 2006
It could thrive. Just wouldn’t be as fun.
Short Answer: No.
Do you realize that Microsoft has made an 1,100% return on their investment?
I wonder if Vista’s numbers will be that good.
ChrissyOne,
MS sold all of their AAPL awhile ago, so they missed out on the full run.
Could Apple thrive without Steve Jobs?
The answer is NO, plain & simply.
NOBODY in the ENTIRE CORPORATE WORLD, from ANY public company, has the VISION & the COMMON SENSE & the STYLE & the RESTRAINT that Steve Jobs has in his product designs. Every other CEO is worried about one thing only: churning out low-quality, low-cost products; entering ALL markets; throwing in every feature plus the kitchen sink, and screwing consumers. Every other CEO can’t even say the word NO to horrible ideas.
NOBODY in the corporate world GETS IT like Steve Jobs gets it.
Without Steve Jobs, Apple would fail. Or at the VERY BEST, they would become just like every other Cingular, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Motorola, etc. These other companies don’t get it at all.
I think the 90’s pretty should indicate how many people have a real vision for Apple… hhmmm???
If Macs could just get a real foothold in the entire market place, obvious, confirmed, unarguable, then MAYBE Apple could carry on without the Steve Meister ’cause they’d have some fudge room for figuring out how to fly without crashing.
You right, I’d forgotten about that.
Good thing I’m smarter than they are.
Like that’s hard.
Sry, that was a response to Mike and MS’s selling.
Guaranteed that history would repeat itself. Without Steve, Apple would lose its way faster than poop through a goose.
Like any other business it would all depend on who would replace him.
Apple didn’t close it’s doors when he got booted out years ago, but because the CEO’s in charge didn’t understand the Mac consumer and the reason why people buy a Mac in the first place they floundered. They had little direction and little vision.
And as Mr. Jobs said when he came back. The Mac has NO SEX APPEAL. Now it does.
Keep it sexy, keep it innovative. Make it something that YOU would want to buy and not something just to sell.
Steve is the soul of Apple… remove him and Apple becomes just another tech company trying to keep margins up.
Job’s hubris has done in himself and his company.
Last Keynote was ’06 folks – don’t expect him to take the stage again.
Yes: Ives could do it!
So Steve won’t be there next week in ’07? Thanks for the insight.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”rolleyes” style=”border:0;” />
Don’t worry, it’s another inconvenient truth, but, I’ll take it from here.
I seriously doubt that Steve is making all the new decisions for Apple. He has a team. A team with a common vision and understanding. Apple is not just Steve Jobs. Its a group of talented people that have been guided by Steve’s ideas, but this team is not totally dependent on the man.
They can think too. Steve’s not the only one with the brains.
Although it is a good brain…
It depends on the circumstances of his departure.
If he’s forced out again, then no. The company will go to shit.
If he exits gracefully under his own terms, then it SHOULD continue on. If he makes it to retirement, but the company falls apart, then that shows he was a poor head of state.
So that any fears of Jobs leaving can be put to rest, there are at least 3 Steve Jobs clones. One wears a black shirt and jeans and running shoes, another wears a black turtle neck shirt and black pants and runners, and another wears a black dressy shirt with black pants and black shoes. One day on campus, Steve 1.0 was giving a presentation when Steve 2.0 walked on stage, he stopped and they both stared each other down till 2.0 walked off. We all had to sign NDA before leaving….. ooopps!! I’m dead..
Lets say the idiot Mac haters get their way and Steve gets drummed out of Apple.
Steve waltzes into Disney and takes over. Child’s play for him. Disney buys Apple. Next iteration of the iMac has black ears.
No big deal.
Steve wants to kick Bill’s ass. Steve will kick Bill’s ass. Then, and only then, he’ll quit.
Jobs does well because he has stocks Apple with great minds, tasks of designing great things, and makes sure their best efforts make it to the final product.
I think Jobs himself made an analogy comparing his style to automotive industry. The Big 3 produce great concept vehicles, but the soul in the concept never makes it to the final car. Concepts get diluted, filtered, and castrated until what made the car a beautiful piece of work becomes a bean-counter’s idea of a profitable product.
I don’t think he’s after Bill as much as he’s after Mike Dell and the other Mike Dells of the world.
Jobs could easily manage Apple from a prison cell at one of our nation’s barbwire country clubs for white collar criminals. However, if SEC banned Jobs from any and all contact with Apple, well, I just don’t want to think about that. Can we talk about something else?
Bobby, I agree. Ives would make a good successor to Steve Jobs. Hopefully Steve and Apple are working to impart some of Steve’s insight, style, vision, etc. to Apple’s future leaders. As this is an art and not a science, let’s hope their beginning the “training” sooner rather than later.
Peace.
To echo some of the sentiments already expressed here, let me quote from my favorite unauthorized Jobs biography, iCon:
“Yet there’s one more battle he wants to win. It has nothing to do with money, fame, or glory. Like all the best fights, this one is personal. Steve Jobs is going to best Bill Gates. This fight is Shakespearean, elemental, and emotional; watching it unfold should be the most fascinating business story of this young millennium.”
This is purely an intellectual game.
The worst that could happen is some form of censure.
Remember, the backdating is LEGAL, and widely practiced, even M$ does it. The only point of contention is they didn’t properly declare it in documentation. Could be as innocent as pure oversight. At absolute worst, it’s a falsification of records for inhouse or accounting reasons, not theft.
Because… If the backdating was legal to begin with in the eyes of the SEC, then where is the motive to create fraud?
As to SJ, he is certainly a wonderful focal point and figure head. But his influence could and will be felt long after he departs. By the time any departure were to occur, things should be well on track to continue expanding for some time. We’d all prefer him to stay. But there will be a day when Apple will have to succeed him.
I think he’s established the Apple culture pretty well.
My fear is having corporate types taking over what has become a huge, hulking company with thousands of employees. That will make future leaders want to “manage” the thing, not lead.