11–20 of 110 posts
Steve Jobs is as unique as it gets and if that wasn't already obvious - the one line summation was more than enough to express everything written in preceding lines. "Proving" other people as not being Steve Jobs was optional.
Although it remains to be seen how much of Apple as we know it remains after Jobs (things may warrant a change who knows).
Who 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Speculation 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 cle…
Can you explain a little bit more what legacy you feel Steve Wozniak has left at Apple that persists to this day, along with why it has been important to the company's success?
My analysis of Apple's latter day success:
- Steve Jobs, demanding a high standard of quality and providing vision for ongoing products and strategy. Selecting and grooming smart people for crucial leadership roles. Requiring accountability and virtuous integration between product components and even different products.
- Tim Cook, optimizing industrial and business processes, ensuring high margins, protecting profits and structuring clever, unmatched deals for manufacturing and supply sourcing
- Jonathan Ive, designing the physical incarnations of Apple that create strong connections to the brand for customers
So is your position that software engineering has had an equally critical role to what's described above, and the engineering leadership has been Woz-esque? While Apple does make world-class software, I'm not sure I agree about the Woz bit, but I'm open to a persuasive argument.
edit: Especially when you consider how much of Apple's software engineering assets and talent came from NeXT.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is indeed something memorable, but considering main stream America's view on homosexuals, I don't think this is something that should be mentioned too often.
Who 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…
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... I like all the guys that surround Jobs, Philip Schiller, Scott Forstall, Jonathan Ivy even Bob Mansfield are a good candidates, there is no reason why Apple should look elsewhere for CEO candidates.
You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference. Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much in the way of business experience (Ballmer).
If you look at Gates's colonels you'll see they were mostly engineers. Allchin was a widely respected developer prior to MS. Silverberg was a dev on the Lisa project. Rudder, Muglia, Sinofsky, Maritz, all rose through the ranks at MS in enginnering.
It wasn't until Ballmer became CEO did "suits" start moving up the ladder.
If you look at the execs that Gates surrounded himself with, you'll have a hard time finding a stronger team of executive engineers than he did. It even puts Google's current execs to shame (w/ respect to engineering horsepower).