Slashdot Mirror
Apple After Jobs
recoiledsnake writes "The connection between Apple and Steve Jobs is unlike any other brand and CEO relationship in corporate America, maybe the world. While Bill Gates has successfully transitioned himself away from his day job at Microsoft, can Apple do without Jobs at all? Once word started circulating that Jobs may be ill, Apple stock took a considerable hit, dropping more than $10 a share. And when Mr. Jobs was absent from last week's quarterly earnings conference call, the questions started again — and the stock fell again. What does this mean for corporate users of Apple for whom switching costs are high? Can Apple continue innovating in Job's absence?"
Don't put much stock (hah!) in how people are betting APPL. The shorts got a hold of it early to try and shake out (successfully I might add) anyone with a tenuous grasp (those that bought recently, those that had unrealized gains). Look what happened after that 15 point down spike. It bounced back 10, and the following day totally filled the remaining gap.
Using 2 days of trading to predict the future of a company is less likely to work out for you than say... flipping a coin
Jonathan Ive
Responsible for look and feel of virtually all Apple products for the last ten years, is as much responsible for Apple's resurgence as the man Jobs himself.
Old news though is that he himself is already positioned as a possible successor to the big man.
Jonathan Ive groomed to take over from Jobs
If that happens, I'd feel pretty confident about Apple and their continued ability to innovate in create great products.
G4 Hackintosh
This is the second high-profile article online that has mentioned Steve Jobs' absence from last week's quarterly earnings call. I have listened to Apple's quarterly earnings calls pretty regularly for over five years, and it is rare for Steve Jobs to be present at that event. It's usually Tim Cook (COO) and Peter Oppenheimer (CFO). And holy jeebus...the linked article cites Rob Enderle as its chief Apple 'expert'. Enderle is a joke among the Apple community, as his track record is abysmal.
I guess submitter doesn't listen to many quarterly calls, because Steve is literally never on them, and certainly hasn't been in the last year. Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO, runs those calls. His not being on the Q3 call is simply business as usual, not something special.
He left in 85. Apple's decline was after (much after), not because of. If you look at some of his decisions wrt to Apple III, Lisa, early Macintosh, and even NeXT, it's entirely conceivable he would have driven the company into the ground.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Next wasn't a huge success...
...until he sold NextStep to Apple for big bucks, and wrapped it up in Aqua and made OSX the Next Big Thing.
Obviously you do not have any corporate experience with HP at all. We are buying servers from them and we have a number of (acquired) their software products that we run. For instance, the Mercury Load Runner testing suite. I know they do a pretty good business, so I do not understand your "printer ink companies" comment.
Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
He left in 85. Apple's decline was after (much after), not because of. If you look at some of his decisions wrt to Apple III, Lisa, early Macintosh, and even NeXT, it's entirely conceivable he would have driven the company into the ground.
Actually his decisions regarding the early Macintosh were precisely what lead to its success. As Andy Hertzfeld once said, when he started working on the Mac, it was going to have a character-based display just like the Apple III. Jobs' instance on pushing out a computer with the advances he witnessed at Xerox PARC was precisely what led to its success. The Lisa, OTOH, was just too ambitious for the time. The price tag was too high and the machine was too high-end for the day to ever garner mainstream appeal.
My blog
Which is supported by the fact that many of their successful products were not created in-house, but acquired and then polished internally. Jobs would have to be one helluva creative guy if he could be the creative force behind something without actually having contact with anyone working on it.
Minutes!? Are they a bit slow? No exaggeration, but my father, who is 84, going senile, and who has trouble operating automatic flushers in bathrooms, was given an iPhone and has been able to use the various features quite easily right off the bat.
Anyway, on topic, I suspect that one of the reasons the Apple stuff works the way it does is because people are TERRIFIED of Steve and where he will put his foot if they give him something fucked up. Anyone remember the "rant" that was posted online recently about how Bill Gates had issues using the Windows Update service? He was merely somewhat snarky and sarcastic; I imagine that anyone who gave Jobs an unpolished turd like that would literally burst into flame from the response.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
"Turns it into another Microsoft? Wow, the shareholders will cry with someone turning Apple into one of the largest companies in the world making over 10x their current profits. That would be something to worry about."
MS shareholders should cry (split adjusted)
Apple Stock price 6/28/1998 - $10.29
Apple stock price 6/28/2008 - $162.12
Gain - 1575%
Microsoft Stock price 6/28/1998 - $27.48
Microsoft Stock price 6/28/2008 - $26.16
Gain (loss) - -4.8%