On Succeeding Steve Jobs
daringfireball.net
On Succeeding Steve Jobs
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#2Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me:
>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.
What interest does the WSJ have in manipulating Apple stock? This is effectively what Gruber claims.
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#3Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months.
Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet) 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.
This post is an interesting view on the world of tech, finance and journalism.
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#4There 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.
Quote of the day right there.
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#5Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me: > 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. What interest does the WSJ have…
The WSJ doesn’t, but they like scoops because scoops draw traffic and thus, ad revenues. And lots of competitors have an interest in manipulating Apple stock, and they also know that a publisher like the WSJ likes scoops.
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#6There 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. Quote of the day right there.
That and the latest sentence in the definition of Dorsey
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#7[deleted]
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#8Speculation 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.
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
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#9Who 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.
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.
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.
Re: On Succeeding Steve Jobs
#10Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me: > 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. What interest does the WSJ have…
The WSJ doesn’t, but they like scoops because scoops draw traffic and thus, ad revenues. And lots of competitors have an interest in manipulating Apple stock, and they also know that a publisher like the WSJ likes scoops.
Interesting that it doesn't get brought up when the manipulating "story" is all pro-AAPL unicorns and panacea.