Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Life After Steve Jobs
animusCollards writes "Slate ponders a post-Steve Jobs Apple, including possible successors, and the future is... boring. '..it's certainly true that Jobs' style is central to the company's brand and the fierce connection it forges with its customers. His product announcements prompt hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free press coverage and whip up greater and more loyal fans, generating ever-greater interest in the company. ... At some point, all that will end. Jobs will eventually leave the company. There are no obvious plans for succession; in addition to Schiller, observers finger Tim Cook, Apple's COO, and Scott Forstall, who helped develop Mac OS X and the iPhone's software, as contenders for the job. But Tuesday's keynote illustrated how difficult it will be for any of those guys to replace Jobs.'"
Jobs will eventually leave the company? I thought he was immortal. Damn you reality distortion field!
How did Tuesdays Keynote illustrate 'how difficult it will be for any of those guys to replace Jobs.'? Just a bloggers opinion, nothing to see here, please move along
Watch those corners
While stock owners of companies like Apple or Berkshire Hathaway may wish their CEO's could like forever. Jobs while "great" is still a double edged sword for Apple. Granted one side is sharper than the other at the moment.
But a less charismatic person could make different decisions that get Apple way more into the main stream. I could go on, but work is busy today.... :-(
Think Deeply.
I don't know if it was just a lack of Jobs or a lack of innovation, but this was the first one of these that really lacked something new and fresh. Quite frankly none of it excited me this round.
Ok look. I love my Apple gear. My MacBookPro is by far the best laptop I have owned in a long series of laptops. I like hearing about interesting new tech stuff coming from Apple. New gadgets like the new MBP and its battery, the dropping of DRM, those are geek worthy stories. But seriously, how many damned times is slashdot going to rehash this "What will we ever do without our beloved Steve Jobs!?" story?
How about we just leave it at this. Regardless of who takes over the company next I am sure we can all agree, regardless if you love or hate Apple, that he will probably be more stable and qualifed that the Chair Tossing Google Killer that took over that other really big tech company...
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Say what you like about Apple (I usually do) but one thing that can't be denied is that Apple does what it does starkly in the face of existing trends and directions. They do it their own way regardless of whether or not the general consensus thinks it's a good idea.
This makes Apple a very popular trend setter and many people really like that about Apple.
This is made possible because Apple leadership is run by an asshole. And I don't mean that in a bad way either. Jobs does what he does from what appears to be pure inspiration. People just eat that up too. He is the Willy Wonka of the computer world.
There can't be another one... there will not be another one. Apple will become a blob of its former self and people will make decisions the way they feel most comfortable... incremental changes and improvements, following trends and very rarely will frighteningly new ideas get thrust into the limelight as they have been under Jobs.
But we will also see something that people have been begging for... something that competes HEAD to HEAD with Microsoft. And Apple will WIN.
...when even Apple is forced to consider the possibility of losing Jobs.
This sig is certified free of self-referential humour!
I am the very model of an iPod fashion follower,
My waist is getting thinner but my head is getting hollower,
I know the name of every Mac, in Apple stores a wallower,
And at the MacWorld every year I tell Steve I'm a swallower.
(Yes at the MacWorld every year he tells Steve he's a swallower)
They just need to go back in time with their Time Machine and set Jobs back to his uncorrupted state.
There is a simple solution: just follow the mac rumour sites and skim the ideas which make sense (physical, technological, ergonomic, etc.) and turn them into products. Voila, instant fan-inspiring advertising, for free..
Part of me wonders if that isn't what they've been doing for the last couple years.
Of course, that's depending on whether Apple lasts. Apple has always ridden on top of the financial waves, so to speak, by catering to the upper financial strata... That strata might not be around much longer, and younger people, for the most part, don't regard computer differences with quite as much difference as we have in the past.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The same thing will happen: Apple will devolve again and be directionless, perhaps again bringing in a big soda company executive for CEO. History repeats itself. Market share will drop.
The problem with many firms (in IT especially Microsoft, Apple and Dell) is that they were built around their founders and really can't perform as a corporate culture without them. And without a vibrant corporate culture, the firm stagnates or fails. Commodore or Wang anyone?
USA Today ran a story on it a few months back... http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2007-08-21-founder-ceos_N.htm
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
I thought God was immortal!
Monstar L
Plus, it would create jobs!
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
There is a simple solution: just follow the mac rumour sites and skim the ideas which make sense (physical, technological, ergonomic, etc.) and turn them into products.
There is a problem with that.
People tend to not know what they want. Noone demanded something like the iPhone.
The secret is to understand their wishes and offer them far more than what they've asked for.
I am no fan of Apple as a company, but I do appreciate what they've done. The same thing holds true for Microsoft and Bill Gates. Apple was doing well because of Steve Jobs, then went into a decline when he left. Because of his return Apple enjoys the popularity and success it holds today.
Bill Gates has left Microsoft (sort of) and Microsoft is rapidly declining. Hewlett and Packard left HP and look where that company is now. These were all visionaries and good businessmen. You can't just replace someone like that. ESPECIALLY not with a financial person (CFO, etc.) Finance people know one thing, numbers.
In order for a company like that to continue it's momentum it needs an Engineer (software, hardware or otherwise) with charisma and good business sense. That is unlikely to happen as these people generally create their own companies and become the next Apple or Microsoft.
Steve Jobs died in a car wreck in 1988. The current "Steve Jobs" is San Jose session musician, Roland Trisk. Trisk, who often doubled for Steve Jobs before his death in sales meetings and conferences, had plastic surgery in order closely resemble Jobs. There are hints everywhere-in the enclosure of the Mac LCII, the first NeXT CUBE, even Pixar's first full-length film, Toy Story. Wake up people! The truth is out there!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I love Macs, so this isn't disparagements or drawing Apple customers like a cult (perhaps corporate culture?). But Scientology had one of the most wacked out, eccentric, but strangle charismatic (to some people I suppose) founders. After his death, its not just thriving but even gets people like Will Smith hooked. It's headed by David Mascavige although few people heard of him. I would argue that this state of Scientology is due purely to it's organizational structure rather than any one man.
Having a good leader will be important. But the corporate culture will have to be in place. I think Jobs is very talented, but his talent was letting the good ideas and people already in Apple (or outside, like NeXT) rise while he steered them towards this greater vision. I think Jobs has a very clear vision in some ways (he said back in 90s interview Sculley destroyed everything he sought to achieve), and when he expects to be leaving, he should write it in a book what it is - so that it can inspire his company towards it.
I think though, in the end, having a strong leader with a vision at the helm is what Apple as a company needs. What that means, is that they have to avoid putting in business men/accountants who only have the imagination to see the bottom line at the end of the day. But a pure artist is often equally disastrous with less business pragmatism. For instance, Steve was inspired by a previous calligraphy class to put extra effort in fonts in Macintosh. Most pure business men wouldn't have bothered at the time. Reading his bio, he often obsesses about aesthetic appeal.
To nix the scientology thing from above, I could draw Apple as a design studio like Wiener Werkstatte or Bauhaus. Earlier last century, they made lots of distinctive but beautiful objects (Art Deco), going so far as to build entire houses and furnishing them. An integrated solution. On the downside, neither lasted long. It is the nature of such things, it seems. In another industry, perhaps Apple can be compared to Porsche and the father son team Ferdinand/Ferry porsche.... it survived but to me it's arguable that, while, the design spirit lives on, whether successive innovative spirit has since those two passed away.
First off, there is no such thing as "Replacing Steve Jobs", there is only following him.
ANYBODY who is trying to "duplicate" the Steve and his infamous RDF is going to fail, and miserably. In fact, if I was on the committee that was choosing the heir to the helm I'd ask how they plan to "replace" Jobs, and if anyone mentions anything other than .... "nobody can replace Steve" (or similar) is clearly not good enough to fill the vacancy.
People wanting to continue the mystique after Steve leaves is going to fail . There is only one Steve Jobs.
That doesn't mean that Apple will fail after Jobs, but rather, they need to find a new "leader", one that doesn't replace Steve, but rather one that mealy follows him.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Cloning
(Maybe that's what Obama meant when he said he was going to create "millions of Jobs")
[Insert pithy quote here]
Why do you think Jobs bought Pixar? to make cartoons? No they are working to cross the uncanny divide where live action animated figures are indistinguishable from humans. They will just have an all digital Jobs up there in a few years presenting the products and you will never know.
Indeed maybe they already have. Jobs maybe is not ill but actually just an early version like Tom Hanks in Polar express.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Here are my qualifications:
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Jobs is capitalism to a T. He is exploiting a market by any means acceptable and doing a damn good job at it. If anything Apple will fail when the person running the show starts to actually be concerned with what the public wants instead of telling the public what he wants.
Apple is marketed very well and a big part of marketing is convincing people they must have it even if it isn't what they want or need.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The Apple fanboys think Jobs is important for his design influence. But Apple's design work is actually outsourced. (Early on, Apple used frogdesign; they've since used others.)
What really turned around Apple were two deals. One was the deal with Microsoft that kept Office on the Mac, and the other was the deal with the recording industry that put music on the iPod.
Apple needs a dealmaker from the content industry. Probably a film executive; recording industry people are too dumb. (Really.) Successful film producers are good at getting multiple parties who don't like each other all pulling in the same direction.
The admirers of Apple's cult of personality forget how it was created: Jobs drove away those who didn't fit his whims. He had the first Mac designed around his choices for the Apple II that Woz over ruled. The very act of creating it was purposely divisive, with a skull and crossbones flag flying over the Mac building, and non-Mac people barred from entry except by invitation. Rather than complimentary lines, the Mac was intended to supplant the very successful and projected to be long-lived Apple II (16 bit version in production, 32 bit processor, machine and OS in design phase). After Woz got fed up and left*, Jobs shut down the Apple II line. At every step people who'd been loyal employees, customers, third party manufacturers or fans fell away -- literally by the millions. More than once, to a lesser but significant extent, severe and abrupt changes to the Mac line instigated repeat performances of the II exodus. "Love it or leave it" seemed to be the corporate motto.
Jobs' cantankerous ways with the remaining employees, manufacturers and fans drove away so many, including major players and stock holders, that he was taken out of the spotlight and replaced by John Scully. It took a decade for him to grow up enough to be given back the reins.
Those remaining fans view Jobs as charismatic. Ex-fans remember him as anti-charismatic, and view him that way still if they even bother to think about him at all.
I've recounted these and similar details before, and gotten modded down as flamebait and troll. I expect the same to happen now, despite the fact that while it may be in somewhat negative phrasing, it's accurate and verifiable in media archives and others' writings. In the spirit of full disclosure, I was an Apple II fan in the extreme, was senior/technical editor of an Apple II fan-zine (The Road Apple; the first computer media source published simultaneously in the US and USSR), and said much these same things back then. But I'm not the only one who said them. I'm just one of the very few who still bothers to recount the history that most have ceased to care about.
* Woz left Apple primarily due to a re-examination of his life following a private plane accident. However, his displeasure at the direction of things was no secret, nor was Jobs' efforts to marginalize him. Between those, had he not had the accident, he'd almost certainly have left anyway.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Cripes, it's as bad as DEFCON being held in fuck-me-its-hot August, where the traditional attire is all black.
Indeed. DEFCON is well known for having attendees that love the outdoors and are unable to operate AC units.
I totally disagree.
The problem isn't that Apple has no corporate identity, but almost the opposite. They have a very strong identity, and it's intimately tied to Jobs, not just in terms of his brilliant marketing and product launches but more importantly in terms of the (high design, cutting edge, minimalist) more-than-skin-deep design aesthetic he imposes on everything that Apple does.
The trouble is that while a generic bunch of (post-Jobs) suits may be able to run certain types of companies successfully (generally the type that Warren Buffet invests in - stable markets where all you need to do is execute competently), they're very unlikely going to be able to continue that design aesthetic - they don't teach design/style in bean-counting school, nor for that matter can it really be taught. Jobs not only has style, and the asshole micromanaging, yet inspirational, personality to enforce it ubiquitously at every level of the products Apple designs, but also a style that has widespread appeal.
When Jobs eventually leaves Apple, the company will almost certainly flounder the way it did under (ex. Pepsi CEO) Sculley. IBM did much better when it brought in a high powered generic suit (ex. Nabisco biscuit boy Louis Gerstner), because IBM didn't need a high priest of style as well as a manager. Apple best bet (but still no sure thing) post-Jobs will be to lure away someone who is already running a high tech company where style is a/the key element - you either have it or you don't and there's no chance of a generic suit learning to fulfill that roll.
Agreed. RDF exaggerated.
Jobs is remarkable in that he Part product visionary, part perfectionist taskmaster, part marketing guru, and part charismatic showman.
But more is made of his lesser role as showman than is warranted. I seriously doubt anything more than 10% of Apple product owners have ever even watched a Keynote. Steve Jobs charisma is nice for the free press it gets them but little else. If they keep building good products and doing half decent marketing there will be no problem. I don't watch the keynotes, but read about them. I was disappointed because there was no Mac Mini, not because Jobs wasn't there.
But in my opinion the greater loss might be in the loss of Steve Jobs the product visionary with the right measure of taskmaster.
I don't think these roles can be filled at a post Jobs Apple by one person. The probably need at CTO visionary/taskmaster + CEO-Showman. The should be figuring Steves roles in the company and how they can interact if those roles are split among different people. At some point the should staff all the roles and let Jobs supervise them, but let them run with it, but only if he feels that he is planning to leave sooner rather than later.
It will be impossible to duplicate Steve Jobs. Therefore, I think the top people at Apple need to spend some serious time figuring out who will replace Jobs when he eventually leaves and how that person can continue pushing Apple forward in his own way. In other words, he won't mimic Jobs because that would result in a poor imitation. He won't simply use marketing buzz at an attempt to produce the same feeling towards Apple, because it will, again, feel like a poor imitation. He'll have to gain the "feel" for what Apple has done right in the past and what to keep doing right in the future. I've heard that everything in the end must be cleared by Jobs, including the radius of the corners on the edges of the screens. Whoever replaces him will have to have the same sort of incredible drive to produce absolutely the best product, meaning not taking "it can't be done" as an answer, pushing the people to perform beyond what they themselves imagine they can, sensing what kind of products that nobody ever thought they'd need will, once seen, become a must-have, and having the understanding of psychology that it takes to make those products work the way they should. See, that's the crazy thing about Macs, iPhones, and iPods. When you pick one up, you immediately figure out how to use it and it all just seems to flow in a way that makes sense. They also look amazing. Place an Apple product next to any competitor's product and it's a difference of 100 years. It's something you'd see in Star Trek versus something you'd find in Office Depot. There is this whole feel that someone will have to have, but it must be done in such a way that it is not an imitation of Jobs, that it does bring in the talent, thoughts, creativity, and style of the new person, but in a way that does not turn Apple, the shining star that it is now, back into what it was in the 90's when the company almost disappeared from the Earth. Yes, with the momentum they have now, they can just glide ahead with a CEO who doesn't have "it", whatever "it" is, but if that happens, it will eventually be like Microsoft with Vista. Eventually that momentum will run out, they'll run out of airspeed and altitude, and it will be the Apple of the 90's, before Jobs' return. That would be sad because say what you will about fanboys, Apple has done and is doing some really amazing thing. They've turned computer and OS design into an art form.
Here, I believe you are wrong. Apple means easy to use electronics people want.
That's a powerful image. When I go to Walmart, I see an entire row of 25+ mp3 players. The only ones people are eyeing are the iPods. The closest, a Zune, I have never seen in the wild. It's also extensible: they just moved into phones 1.5 years ago. With iTunes they'll become the defacto music, movie/video, and, if they play their cards right, book store in the future. That is pretty good too. They're becoming a real media hub.
Right now, they can say to themselves: "What devices supplied by their current industry is deficient, ugly, and/or hard to use, which we, can make easy?" I have one: e-ink based book readers. I'm sure there are many others, but they want the profitable opportunities - thus the small line of computers unlike what confusing line of products in the 90s. Plus new devices not out yet but made possible soon through emerging technology.
The downside, which you touched upon, is that they can't rest on their laurels. That they need to churn out new things. BUT, stagnation like that isn't good for Apple anyway. The artistic types always want to tackle something new, not just rehash the same old thing.
But they do have an imag which means something. The fact that it's not something as definite as you say is a double-edged sword. Look at Polaroid? They, too, meant instant photos once. It only hindered them in a market that they should be more dominant in (as they couldn't let go of the exact method of "instant", being addicted to the old revenue stream). Microsoft may mean "Windows" but what happens why Adobe and Intuit start compiling against Wine 1.xx?
"... so at Apple, we thought, what's the next step? Where does data storage go from here? And our engineers told us: Atoms! We're going to build the data directly into the molecular structure!"
"And here's what they gave us."
(Holds up object. Crowd ooohs, awestruck.)
(A spotlight high behind Jobs shines on Job's upraised right hand, gleaming off the surface of what appears to be a shiny black disclike object, hypnotising the crowd.)
"As you can see, the new product has no straight lines, and no corners. And for data registration purposes, it has (Jobs suddenly tilts the object, back, allowing the spotlight to pick out a gleaming white spot at the disk's centre) ... a Hole!"
(crowd gasps)
"Notice how the Hole is at the EXACT centre of the disc. Not on the left. Not on the right. Our engineers told us that this placement was a critical feature for the playback process. So that's where we put it. Right in the middle."
(crowd cheers, until Jobs put up a hand signifying that he wants them to stop)
(hushed tones) "This is not just a nice looking object. This is a truly BEAUTIFUL object. You could hang this on your wall. Notice how the surface gleams. We could have made this out of cheap plastic ... but no. We decided to manufacture this out of the finest carbon-blacked Vinyl."
(crowd whoops)
"Now, wait until you see this brand-new user interface. We place the "disc" onto the "turntable", and the disc rotates AUTOMATICALLY. We place the arm anywhere on the disc. Anywhere at all!"
(music plays)
(Jobs lists the arm and puts it down somewhere else.)
(music plays)
(Jobs repeats, looking up at the audience and grinning each time)
"Now, isn't that just the Coolest thing you ever saw?"
(Audience applauds wildly)
"Now, how'll we be selling these. Well, we'll be packaging them in a special two-layer format that we call a "sleeve" ..."
Eric Baird