I note Jobs' discourse on Apple being at the intersection of engineering and liberal arts, with an emphasis on industrial design. This is very unusual in the co

I note Jobs' discourse on Apple being at the intersection of engineering and liberal arts, with an emphasis on industrial design. This is very unusual in the computer business, and I think it's a key indicator as to where Jobs wants to see his company going after he leaves the helm. Ives is clearly the Chief Designer. And he's being called out for something. My guess is that in the absence of Jobs 2.0, Jobs 1.0 is trying to inculcate a design-led culture within Apple, and sees Ives as the most likely successor to keep his particular design aesthetic front-and-centre. In this scenario, it doesn't matter too much who handles the business of marketing, manufacturing, and developing the products -- as long as they continue to be design-led and follow the same basic aesthetic goals. Which is not simply to make high-end PCs or smartphones, but to make stuff that is pretty and pleasant to use. (Here on HN, we're mostly technophiles. It's important to remember that most of the public are not -- and they prefer beautiful objects to ugly but functional ones. Beauty is an important market, as Apple's market cap demonstrates ...)