6 ms·

On Succeeding Steve Jobs

229 points by ddagradi 15y ago

chalst 15y ago
Gruber 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.
- KuraFire 15y ago
  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.
  - blinkingled 15y ago
    Interesting that it doesn't get brought up when the manipulating "story" is all pro-AAPL unicorns and panacea.
    - Steko 15y ago
      Example?
    - mbrubeck 15y ago
      Actually it does get brought up regularly. A lot of articles were written last year about how Apple itself fed stories to the Wall Street Journal, for example: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_controlled_leaks/ http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...
      - blinkingled 15y ago
        What do Controlled Leaks have anything to do with alleged willful downward stock manipulation attempt by WSJ using a story which was later refuted by Jobs?
barredo 15y ago
Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months. Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/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.
- Steko 15y ago
  It's a solid post but this is batting practice by Gruber. Anyone following Apple would bet the farm on Gruber's shortlist and the only serious candidate I'd entertain besides Cook would be Ive. Notably, Gruber missed a chance to link back to the Apple University effort which is another huge giveaway that a successor will almost certainly come from within. Glancing over the archive, imho Gruber's best posts in the last few months have been his iPad 2 review (custom benchmarks!); taking All Things D, Engadget, et al. to task for weak attribution; and taking non-Apple tablet reviews to task for grading on a curve.
  - podperson 15y ago
    Gruber's dismissal of Ive as a candidate is pretty solidly based. I don't think Ive has even appeared in a speaking role in a keynote. I just don't think it's his kind of gig (and why should it be?)
    - Steko 15y ago
      To play Ive's advocate here: Jobs probably wants people who speak at events to serve specific functions. The product visionary role is currently filled by Steve. You only do a few of these a year and you aren't going to buzzkill the free pub by running the understudy up there if the lead is available. Edit: The above is in regards to Ive being a private person and not liking the public speaking gig. Of course for all we know Steve is a private person and may not like the public speaking gig but he does it because it's a necessary function. The strongest argument for Ive of course is that what set's Apple apart from other companies is that it's design/product driven. See Steve's comments re: what happens when The Sales Guy ends up running the whole show. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf20041012_4018_db083.htm http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf200410... Obviously you can say "well Phil is The Sales Guy" (which is a bit of a dodge) and also that "Tim took over for Steve when he was totally unable to work" which is at least partially true (was he really doing everything Steve did?). So maybe Tim Cook can by a product visionary. Maybe Jon Ive can't. But if you start from this one small and very arguable given that Steve wants Apple to be led by a product visionary and not the sales/operations guy that leads you to Jon Ive being the best candidate. There's other evidence too of course, reports are the two are quite close on Apple campus although I imagine Tim Cook would qualify based on that criteria as well.
brianwillis 15y ago
There 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.
- barredo 15y ago
  That and the latest sentence in the definition of Dorsey
- temphn 15y ago
  The craziest part was mentioning Guy Kawasaki (Guy Kawasaki!) in the same context as Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Ellison. Wow. Just goes to show the power of self-promotion.
  - brianbreslin 15y ago
    well Guy was chief evangelist at apple during the 90s, thats what he's actually famous for (originally). Now he's famous for self-promotion and tangientially his vc activities.
- napierzaza 15y ago
  I imagine that's why he even mentioned him. Though I don't understand why he mentions Ellison and Bezos. This is like the King of France giving up his position so he can be the King of England. Gates? Ballmer? Padding the list I guess.
  - rkosai 15y ago
    Well, there's the War of the Spanish succession, where the heir to France gave up his position to be the King of Spain. Sort of. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- pagekalisedown 15y ago
  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.
  - code_duck 15y ago
    I get the impression that the mainstream already thinks that Apple users are basically equivalent to whatever they think homosexuals are, so this probably wouldn't have an effect.
    - code_duck 15y ago
      By the way, I am not trying to say anything negative about either group. Simply pointing out that from simply living in N. American society and reading forums such as reddit, I have observed prejudice against linux users, Apple fans, GBLT folks, non-white middle class people, and so on which all has a similar flavor.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - emiranda 15y ago
    I honestly have not heard about this until now.
    - jcitme 15y ago
      The consensus is that apple users are generally hipster, and/or metro. Metro as in metrosexual, not necessarily gay. (Not my own view) But yes, there are a lot of generalizations and stereotypes to this extent.
  - groby_b 15y ago
    Au contraire, this is something that should be mentioned as often as possible. It's time that "mainstream" America realizes that gay people are just as valuable members of society as everybody else.
IdeaHamster 15y ago
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 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
- danilocampos 15y ago
  I feel as though you're assuming facts not in evidence, here. 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.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Woz's lineage is in the overall engineering talent. Woz himself was no longer a major part of the company by the time the Mac was designed. Guys like Bud Tribble, Andy Hertzfeld, and Bill Atkinson were three of Woz's (many) successors already. It's not down to any individual exec to carry on Woz's legacy, because Woz was never an executive, not even an engineering executive. He only wanted to be an engineer. There are thousands of successors to Woz, and perhaps not a single successor to Jobs in the whole company.
kenjackson 15y ago
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 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.
- igorgue 15y ago
  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.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... 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).
    - igorgue 15y ago
      Oh, I had no idea of that... thanks.
blinkingled 15y ago
"Put another way, the obvious structure for a post-Jobs Apple is simply Apple as we know it, without Steve Jobs." 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).
donnaware 15y ago
I think I would be perfect for the job. he he, but seriously, they should look the the startup world, that is the only way to match the creativity of the jobster.
dr_ 15y ago
This also goes back to how News Corp has changed the Wall Street Journal since it's acquisition. The quality has deteriorated. And it's shows what News Corp real focus is - it's not news, and it's not really conservative or liberal issues either - it's sensationalism, in any form. Because thats what gets peoples attention.
- kes 15y ago
  I think this is on the wrong thread.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Gruber is criticizing a WSJ story.
jonnathanson 15y ago
Cook was palatable to both Wall Street and Apple employees while SJ was on medical leave. IMO, he's passed the test already. Everyone was willing to accept him then, back when there was serious doubt about whether Jobs would return after his leave. So there's no reason why they wouldn't be willing to accept him in a genuine succession event.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Seems to me that the post doesn't fully address the most important fact: "He cannot be replaced..." Gruber takes the paragraph to points about what Jobs' absence will do to the stock, and then takes the rest of the post to talk about the sourcing of the story and who might eventually replace him, but those strike me as ancillary issues at best. Jobs can't really be replaced, can he? Certainly Apple will continue to make heaps of money for the forseeable future, but without Jobs, the company will lose its essential nature. How can it not?
  - mortenjorck 15y ago
    If Jobs has really, truly done it right this time, he won't need to be replaced. Cook, Forstall, Ive, and Schiller are obviously people he trusts with his life's work. Time will tell how good his choice of stewards was, but given that he learned the hard way nearly three decades ago, I'd say the odds are in his favor.
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      I mean, yeah, I get that that's the hope, but I'm not sure I buy the idea that a collection of individuals even as talented and capable as those can really replace someone with as singular a vision and fierce a personality as Jobs. I'm sure they'll be able to run the company, but I just don't see Apple maintaining its place as market-inventing thought-leader, or at least not to the same degree.
      - protomyth 15y ago
        Listen to Cook or Ive when they talk in public, they have the vision.
cpeterso 15y ago
In Daniel "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons' book Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs, the real Steve hires a stand-in so he can finally take some time off. Are we sure this hasn't already happened? :)
beaumartinez 15y ago
Aaron Swartz' response[1] is quite interesting. > If Apple is to continue, it will be with a tastemaker at the top. And there are no serious candidates besides Ive. (He remarks on Twitter[2] to Gruber, "I think we had this debate briefly over email many years ago, but nice to revive it in long form in public".) [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks [2] https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425 https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425
antics 15y ago
Ok, Gruber's answer is probable, maybe even correct. But what exactly is Jobs responding to[1] here? Not the ramblings of a tabloid magazine, but the reporting of a world-class newspaper. And before we band together behind a blogger it's worth at least considering exactly why (or if) his position is better. Where the WSJ seems to have black-box-trusted someone else's expertise, Gruber seems to depend only on facts that he has a good command of. In other words, yes, it's easy to side with Gruber here (I know I do), but the problem is that even if he has actually named the correct successor, in at least one crucial aspect of the debate, he is still wrong: it is a disservice to the transformation Apple will have to undergo to simply name the CEO. Who's next is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact. One thing to notice here is that Apple is a huge and complicated machine, and from the perspective of the CEO who knows all of this, it must seem absolutely precious that people like Gruber, and organizations like the WSJ believe they have a firm grasp on what's going on internally. In a lot of ways, this seems to have inspired the "Hogwash" comment, and on a darker note, it suggests something about the discussion as a whole: that the important bits, the descriptive and interesting bits, the more useful bits, lie in a discussion about what Apple should decide to be post-Jobs. What goals are realistic? What can and can't it be? The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are clear objectives. THIS is the discussion worth having; points about who the next CEO are subsidiary, and only useful insofar as they give us information about these important questions. [1] Particularly with his "Hogwash" comment.
- megablast 15y ago
  Why do you imagine that the WSJ writer or Gruber feel that they have a firm grasp on the matters? They are just speculating, nobody is calling it here. As much fun as it is to deride these articles, you seem to be missing the point.
kenjackson 15y ago
One other reason Apple will make Cook the CEO -- it will make the least waves. No one at Apple will quit if Cook becomes CEO. If Apple were to hire anyone from the outside I think there's a decent chance that they lose Cook for starters (Cook can write his own ticket anywhere he wanted).
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
I think Tim Cook would be a mistake as awesome as he is (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181). Tim is too operations-focused, and that will bleed over into the products. Apple needs a design-oriented CEO. Tim can balance that and make the company amazing from an operations-perspective. I don't know who the person is, but I do think he (or she) exists.
- fuzionmonkey 15y ago
  I agree. The way Apple is run today is every other department exists to make Steve and his design pals happy. Unlike most other technology companies, design is king and it should stay that way.
wallflower 15y ago
To better understand the role of Steve Jobs, I recommend reading this excellent article from Technologizer (that got buried on HN as some good submissions do) about Edwin Land of Polaroid and the innovative product of the time, the SX-70. "Edwin Land was brilliant, prescient, prickly, and demanding, and hounded his employees into doing great things they might never have accomplished otherwise. That sounds like Steve Jobs. Land described photography as “the intersection of science and art.” Jobs likes to cite Land’s quote and says that Apple’s work sits “at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology,” a location which is surely in the same neighborhood. Land demoed new Polaroid products himself at corporate events that were famous for their hypnotic effect. Jobs carries on the tradition. And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two of the more preposterous decisions in business history." http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/ http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/
spage 15y ago
Ashton Kutcher would be a near-perfect replacement for Steve Jobs. I'm not a fan of either, just sounds right to me.
hluska 15y ago
Sorry to be this thread's grammar troll, but I would be very happy if OP (and the person who wrote this article) would edit the title to read: On Seceding Steve Jobs Succeeding means something totally different than seceding! That bit of ugliness aside, I agree with the basic premise of this article. It would be tremendously risky for the board to bring in an outsider, and when you consider the structure of Apple's management, Tim Cook is the only reasonable choice to secede Jobs. However, Mr. Cook will have his work cut out for him as Jobs has an iconic stature, both within his company, on Wall Street and throughout the technology community. However, on a strictly personal note, I feel sorry for whoever does eventually replace Mr. Jobs. There will inevitably be a few years when every time the new CEO makes an error, someone (either within the company, on Wall Street or within the media) will say, "If Steve Jobs were around this would never have happened." In that regard, getting Steve Wozniak to firmly and publicly support the new CEO will be a major factor in his/her success.
- wrs 15y ago
  Sorry, no. Those verbs are indeed totally different, and you have them backwards.
wallflower 15y ago
Just to throw it out there, Mark Zuckerberg could be a candidate if Apple ever acquired Facebook.
- cageface 15y ago
  Zuckerberg would be a terrible choice for a lot of pretty obvious reasons.
phillco 15y ago
> Name one outsider who’d be accepted both inside the company and on Wall Street. Maybe somebody from Pepsi?
evo_9 15y ago
Jonathan Ive - He's creative and brilliant similar to Jobs. Apple needs an unconventional leader - Tim Cook is too convetional to lead and inspire from the top.
mlinsey 15y ago
I agree with Gruber's analysis, but one part that worries me is the idea of having each SVP accountable for product decisions for their own area. I think that so much of Apple's advantages stem from hardware and software that are designed with each other in mind, that it would be much better to have a single person be SVP Product Design under Cook, so that there was always someone responsible for the entire cohesive user experience. Unfortunately, choosing such a person for this role among the three product SVP's that Gruber names is itself a very difficult political problem, and any choice could result in other talent leaving.
mrshoe 15y ago
Apple needs someone who has wired their mind to think just like Steve Jobs. Someone who is able to rationally explain all of the decisions made at Apple, even the ones that look downright crazy to most outsiders. Someone who has spent the last 10 years trying to make themselves one with the Apple brain trust so that they can accurately predict Apple's future game plan. Someone who has immense support from Apple employees and customers alike. It's obvious why Gruber omitted this, but you know it crossed his mind, and I'm surprised no one here on HN has mentioned it: Apple should hire John Gruber to replace Steve Jobs as CEO.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  It takes more than a popular blog to be a CEO.
- matthew-wegner 15y ago
  Gruber is a fervent follower, and good at reading between the lines, but he's demonstrated no ability to set his own rudder. His vision is simply Apple's vision.
statictype 15y ago
Beloved within Apple, but he’s been out of the game for decades, and, let’s face it, is a bit of a flake. What makes him a flake?
- emehrkay 15y ago
  I would assume that he called him a flake because Woz openly praises "the competition."
  - technoslut 15y ago
    Flake may be too strong of a word but Woz is a little odd. It's not that he praises the competition but that he doesn't seem to be aware of the potential media storm that follows it. He also mentions that he only carries hundreds and advertises his whereabouts on Twitter. Then there is the painful appearance on Dancing with the Stars. It just wouldn't be the way a potential CEO would act.
    - statictype 15y ago
      I agree that neither would he be interested nor would he fit the role of CEO. But I don't see how he's a flake. The guy is brilliant and is an important reason why Apple ever got off the ground in the first place.
mw63214 15y ago
even though I'm anti-Apple, I've always thought James Dyson would be a perfect fit, along with his company. Apple -> Dyson -> Sensor Network -> Internet of Things(with some design love)
far33d 15y ago
Ed Catmull is the only plausible external possibility. He would be excellent at making sure what works at Apple stays that way.
michaelpinto 15y ago
I hate all of this talk because it's disrespectful to the man who has given his all and is very much present (and a man who certainly reads the Wall Street Journal). It's interesting to note that prior to this meme of "who an replace Jobs" the #1 meme was always "when is Apple going to die?" For my money on both accounts you'd be foolish to write off Steve Jobs until the fat lady sings. The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs on "medical leave" is doing a much better job of managing Apple than quite a few other tech companies where the CEO shows up each day and is in perfect health.
Raphael 15y ago
Let Apple figure it out.
anactofgod 15y ago
As usual, Gruber is right. And, the Wall Street Journal turned into the Yellow Journal years ago. I wouldn't wipe a parrot's ass with it, let alone lend any credence to what's printed in it.
avjinder 15y ago
Jack Dorsey would be a good candidate for Apple CEO but I cannot imagine how he's going to handle three rapidly growing companies. He is the CEO of Square and the Chief of Product Design at Twitter and according to a recent interview, he mentions that he works 18 hours a day managing the two companies. Though Jack Dorsey is a good fit for Apple, he will never be CEO of Apple.
jayfuerstenberg 15y ago
What's most important is what Steve Jobs has taught us. If you have a relentless drive and a vision to make products better people will flock to you. It doesn't happen overnight but it does happen. The next CEO will or won't embrace Steve Jobs' vision and the company's success will reflect that. It's inevitable, but the lesson has been learned and can be applied again and again by anybody who cares to.
tomlin 15y ago
Imagine you're dying of cancer and you have raised a few intelligent children to a certain age. Now you have to ask others to raise your children in your image. Not in their image, but yours. You might not trust anyone with your children, moreover, expect them to see the same vision you had for your children - which is based on the progressive iteration of your children's development. Can anyone raise Apple like Jobs? Probably not. Does that mean Apple is doomed? No, it doesn't. Anything beyond is speculation.
mojuba 15y ago
I think a bigger problem is that there is still no competition to Apple in the market in terms of design and the drive. Dell, Samsung and others could have learned something already but amazingly they keep manufacturing crappy hardware locked to crappy software, probably just a tiny bit better than before the MBP era, but overall their approach and philosophy hasn't changed. Sony looks good compared to them, but unfortunately it's too expensive (you'd rather buy a Mac for that money, wouldn't you?) plus Sony has never been a company that designs stuff with users in mind. Their hardware can be solid looking but there is usually nothing new or exceptionally well executed for the user. Now that's the saddest part of the story for me, rather than when and who will replace Steve Jobs.
panabee 15y ago
some of these choices are designed to be provocative, not necessarily legitimate. "built to last," the wonderfully insightful book on technology entrepreneurship by jim collins, contains interesting analysis about the difficulties in replacing a charismatic, controlling founder like jobs. suffice to say, the odds are against apple. but so they were in 1998. http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Essentials/dp/0060516402 http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Essent...

229 points by ddagradi 15y ago

Gruber 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.

KuraFire 15y ago
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.
- blinkingled 15y ago
  Interesting that it doesn't get brought up when the manipulating "story" is all pro-AAPL unicorns and panacea.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Example?
  - mbrubeck 15y ago
    Actually it does get brought up regularly. A lot of articles were written last year about how Apple itself fed stories to the Wall Street Journal, for example: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_controlled_leaks/ http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...
    - blinkingled 15y ago
      What do Controlled Leaks have anything to do with alleged willful downward stock manipulation attempt by WSJ using a story which was later refuted by Jobs?

barredo 15y ago

Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months. Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/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.

Steko 15y ago
It's a solid post but this is batting practice by Gruber. Anyone following Apple would bet the farm on Gruber's shortlist and the only serious candidate I'd entertain besides Cook would be Ive. Notably, Gruber missed a chance to link back to the Apple University effort which is another huge giveaway that a successor will almost certainly come from within. Glancing over the archive, imho Gruber's best posts in the last few months have been his iPad 2 review (custom benchmarks!); taking All Things D, Engadget, et al. to task for weak attribution; and taking non-Apple tablet reviews to task for grading on a curve.
- podperson 15y ago
  Gruber's dismissal of Ive as a candidate is pretty solidly based. I don't think Ive has even appeared in a speaking role in a keynote. I just don't think it's his kind of gig (and why should it be?)
  - Steko 15y ago
    To play Ive's advocate here: Jobs probably wants people who speak at events to serve specific functions. The product visionary role is currently filled by Steve. You only do a few of these a year and you aren't going to buzzkill the free pub by running the understudy up there if the lead is available. Edit: The above is in regards to Ive being a private person and not liking the public speaking gig. Of course for all we know Steve is a private person and may not like the public speaking gig but he does it because it's a necessary function. The strongest argument for Ive of course is that what set's Apple apart from other companies is that it's design/product driven. See Steve's comments re: what happens when The Sales Guy ends up running the whole show. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf20041012_4018_db083.htm http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf200410... Obviously you can say "well Phil is The Sales Guy" (which is a bit of a dodge) and also that "Tim took over for Steve when he was totally unable to work" which is at least partially true (was he really doing everything Steve did?). So maybe Tim Cook can by a product visionary. Maybe Jon Ive can't. But if you start from this one small and very arguable given that Steve wants Apple to be led by a product visionary and not the sales/operations guy that leads you to Jon Ive being the best candidate. There's other evidence too of course, reports are the two are quite close on Apple campus although I imagine Tim Cook would qualify based on that criteria as well.

brianwillis 15y ago

There 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.

barredo 15y ago
That and the latest sentence in the definition of Dorsey
temphn 15y ago
The craziest part was mentioning Guy Kawasaki (Guy Kawasaki!) in the same context as Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Ellison. Wow. Just goes to show the power of self-promotion.
- brianbreslin 15y ago
  well Guy was chief evangelist at apple during the 90s, thats what he's actually famous for (originally). Now he's famous for self-promotion and tangientially his vc activities.
napierzaza 15y ago
I imagine that's why he even mentioned him. Though I don't understand why he mentions Ellison and Bezos. This is like the King of France giving up his position so he can be the King of England. Gates? Ballmer? Padding the list I guess.
- rkosai 15y ago
  Well, there's the War of the Spanish succession, where the heir to France gave up his position to be the King of Spain. Sort of. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

pagekalisedown 15y ago
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.
- code_duck 15y ago
  I get the impression that the mainstream already thinks that Apple users are basically equivalent to whatever they think homosexuals are, so this probably wouldn't have an effect.
  - code_duck 15y ago
    By the way, I am not trying to say anything negative about either group. Simply pointing out that from simply living in N. American society and reading forums such as reddit, I have observed prejudice against linux users, Apple fans, GBLT folks, non-white middle class people, and so on which all has a similar flavor.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- emiranda 15y ago
  I honestly have not heard about this until now.
  - jcitme 15y ago
    The consensus is that apple users are generally hipster, and/or metro. Metro as in metrosexual, not necessarily gay. (Not my own view) But yes, there are a lot of generalizations and stereotypes to this extent.
- groby_b 15y ago
  Au contraire, this is something that should be mentioned as often as possible. It's time that "mainstream" America realizes that gay people are just as valuable members of society as everybody else.

IdeaHamster 15y ago

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 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

danilocampos 15y ago
I feel as though you're assuming facts not in evidence, here. 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.
philwelch 15y ago
Woz's lineage is in the overall engineering talent. Woz himself was no longer a major part of the company by the time the Mac was designed. Guys like Bud Tribble, Andy Hertzfeld, and Bill Atkinson were three of Woz's (many) successors already. It's not down to any individual exec to carry on Woz's legacy, because Woz was never an executive, not even an engineering executive. He only wanted to be an engineer. There are thousands of successors to Woz, and perhaps not a single successor to Jobs in the whole company.

kenjackson 15y ago

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 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.

igorgue 15y ago
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.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... 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).
  - igorgue 15y ago
    Oh, I had no idea of that... thanks.

blinkingled 15y ago

"Put another way, the obvious structure for a post-Jobs Apple is simply Apple as we know it, without Steve Jobs." 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).

donnaware 15y ago

I think I would be perfect for the job. he he, but seriously, they should look the the startup world, that is the only way to match the creativity of the jobster.

dr_ 15y ago

This also goes back to how News Corp has changed the Wall Street Journal since it's acquisition. The quality has deteriorated. And it's shows what News Corp real focus is - it's not news, and it's not really conservative or liberal issues either - it's sensationalism, in any form. Because thats what gets peoples attention.

kes 15y ago
I think this is on the wrong thread.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Gruber is criticizing a WSJ story.

jonnathanson 15y ago

Cook was palatable to both Wall Street and Apple employees while SJ was on medical leave. IMO, he's passed the test already. Everyone was willing to accept him then, back when there was serious doubt about whether Jobs would return after his leave. So there's no reason why they wouldn't be willing to accept him in a genuine succession event.

joebadmo 15y ago
Seems to me that the post doesn't fully address the most important fact: "He cannot be replaced..." Gruber takes the paragraph to points about what Jobs' absence will do to the stock, and then takes the rest of the post to talk about the sourcing of the story and who might eventually replace him, but those strike me as ancillary issues at best. Jobs can't really be replaced, can he? Certainly Apple will continue to make heaps of money for the forseeable future, but without Jobs, the company will lose its essential nature. How can it not?
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  If Jobs has really, truly done it right this time, he won't need to be replaced. Cook, Forstall, Ive, and Schiller are obviously people he trusts with his life's work. Time will tell how good his choice of stewards was, but given that he learned the hard way nearly three decades ago, I'd say the odds are in his favor.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    I mean, yeah, I get that that's the hope, but I'm not sure I buy the idea that a collection of individuals even as talented and capable as those can really replace someone with as singular a vision and fierce a personality as Jobs. I'm sure they'll be able to run the company, but I just don't see Apple maintaining its place as market-inventing thought-leader, or at least not to the same degree.
    - protomyth 15y ago
      Listen to Cook or Ive when they talk in public, they have the vision.

cpeterso 15y ago

In Daniel "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons' book Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs, the real Steve hires a stand-in so he can finally take some time off. Are we sure this hasn't already happened? :)

beaumartinez 15y ago

Aaron Swartz' response[1] is quite interesting. > If Apple is to continue, it will be with a tastemaker at the top. And there are no serious candidates besides Ive. (He remarks on Twitter[2] to Gruber, "I think we had this debate briefly over email many years ago, but nice to revive it in long form in public".) [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks [2] https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425 https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425

antics 15y ago

Ok, Gruber's answer is probable, maybe even correct. But what exactly is Jobs responding to[1] here? Not the ramblings of a tabloid magazine, but the reporting of a world-class newspaper. And before we band together behind a blogger it's worth at least considering exactly why (or if) his position is better. Where the WSJ seems to have black-box-trusted someone else's expertise, Gruber seems to depend only on facts that he has a good command of. In other words, yes, it's easy to side with Gruber here (I know I do), but the problem is that even if he has actually named the correct successor, in at least one crucial aspect of the debate, he is still wrong: it is a disservice to the transformation Apple will have to undergo to simply name the CEO. Who's next is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact. One thing to notice here is that Apple is a huge and complicated machine, and from the perspective of the CEO who knows all of this, it must seem absolutely precious that people like Gruber, and organizations like the WSJ believe they have a firm grasp on what's going on internally. In a lot of ways, this seems to have inspired the "Hogwash" comment, and on a darker note, it suggests something about the discussion as a whole: that the important bits, the descriptive and interesting bits, the more useful bits, lie in a discussion about what Apple should decide to be post-Jobs. What goals are realistic? What can and can't it be? The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are clear objectives. THIS is the discussion worth having; points about who the next CEO are subsidiary, and only useful insofar as they give us information about these important questions. [1] Particularly with his "Hogwash" comment.

megablast 15y ago
Why do you imagine that the WSJ writer or Gruber feel that they have a firm grasp on the matters? They are just speculating, nobody is calling it here. As much fun as it is to deride these articles, you seem to be missing the point.

kenjackson 15y ago

One other reason Apple will make Cook the CEO -- it will make the least waves. No one at Apple will quit if Cook becomes CEO. If Apple were to hire anyone from the outside I think there's a decent chance that they lose Cook for starters (Cook can write his own ticket anywhere he wanted).

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

I think Tim Cook would be a mistake as awesome as he is (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181). Tim is too operations-focused, and that will bleed over into the products. Apple needs a design-oriented CEO. Tim can balance that and make the company amazing from an operations-perspective. I don't know who the person is, but I do think he (or she) exists.

fuzionmonkey 15y ago
I agree. The way Apple is run today is every other department exists to make Steve and his design pals happy. Unlike most other technology companies, design is king and it should stay that way.

wallflower 15y ago

To better understand the role of Steve Jobs, I recommend reading this excellent article from Technologizer (that got buried on HN as some good submissions do) about Edwin Land of Polaroid and the innovative product of the time, the SX-70. "Edwin Land was brilliant, prescient, prickly, and demanding, and hounded his employees into doing great things they might never have accomplished otherwise. That sounds like Steve Jobs. Land described photography as “the intersection of science and art.” Jobs likes to cite Land’s quote and says that Apple’s work sits “at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology,” a location which is surely in the same neighborhood. Land demoed new Polaroid products himself at corporate events that were famous for their hypnotic effect. Jobs carries on the tradition. And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two of the more preposterous decisions in business history." http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/ http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/

spage 15y ago

Ashton Kutcher would be a near-perfect replacement for Steve Jobs. I'm not a fan of either, just sounds right to me.

hluska 15y ago

Sorry to be this thread's grammar troll, but I would be very happy if OP (and the person who wrote this article) would edit the title to read: On Seceding Steve Jobs Succeeding means something totally different than seceding! That bit of ugliness aside, I agree with the basic premise of this article. It would be tremendously risky for the board to bring in an outsider, and when you consider the structure of Apple's management, Tim Cook is the only reasonable choice to secede Jobs. However, Mr. Cook will have his work cut out for him as Jobs has an iconic stature, both within his company, on Wall Street and throughout the technology community. However, on a strictly personal note, I feel sorry for whoever does eventually replace Mr. Jobs. There will inevitably be a few years when every time the new CEO makes an error, someone (either within the company, on Wall Street or within the media) will say, "If Steve Jobs were around this would never have happened." In that regard, getting Steve Wozniak to firmly and publicly support the new CEO will be a major factor in his/her success.

wrs 15y ago
Sorry, no. Those verbs are indeed totally different, and you have them backwards.

wallflower 15y ago

Just to throw it out there, Mark Zuckerberg could be a candidate if Apple ever acquired Facebook.

cageface 15y ago
Zuckerberg would be a terrible choice for a lot of pretty obvious reasons.

phillco 15y ago

> Name one outsider who’d be accepted both inside the company and on Wall Street. Maybe somebody from Pepsi?

evo_9 15y ago

Jonathan Ive - He's creative and brilliant similar to Jobs. Apple needs an unconventional leader - Tim Cook is too convetional to lead and inspire from the top.

mlinsey 15y ago

I agree with Gruber's analysis, but one part that worries me is the idea of having each SVP accountable for product decisions for their own area. I think that so much of Apple's advantages stem from hardware and software that are designed with each other in mind, that it would be much better to have a single person be SVP Product Design under Cook, so that there was always someone responsible for the entire cohesive user experience. Unfortunately, choosing such a person for this role among the three product SVP's that Gruber names is itself a very difficult political problem, and any choice could result in other talent leaving.

mrshoe 15y ago

Apple needs someone who has wired their mind to think just like Steve Jobs. Someone who is able to rationally explain all of the decisions made at Apple, even the ones that look downright crazy to most outsiders. Someone who has spent the last 10 years trying to make themselves one with the Apple brain trust so that they can accurately predict Apple's future game plan. Someone who has immense support from Apple employees and customers alike. It's obvious why Gruber omitted this, but you know it crossed his mind, and I'm surprised no one here on HN has mentioned it: Apple should hire John Gruber to replace Steve Jobs as CEO.

thaumaturgy 15y ago
It takes more than a popular blog to be a CEO.
matthew-wegner 15y ago
Gruber is a fervent follower, and good at reading between the lines, but he's demonstrated no ability to set his own rudder. His vision is simply Apple's vision.

statictype 15y ago

Beloved within Apple, but he’s been out of the game for decades, and, let’s face it, is a bit of a flake. What makes him a flake?

emehrkay 15y ago
I would assume that he called him a flake because Woz openly praises "the competition."
- technoslut 15y ago
  Flake may be too strong of a word but Woz is a little odd. It's not that he praises the competition but that he doesn't seem to be aware of the potential media storm that follows it. He also mentions that he only carries hundreds and advertises his whereabouts on Twitter. Then there is the painful appearance on Dancing with the Stars. It just wouldn't be the way a potential CEO would act.
  - statictype 15y ago
    I agree that neither would he be interested nor would he fit the role of CEO. But I don't see how he's a flake. The guy is brilliant and is an important reason why Apple ever got off the ground in the first place.

mw63214 15y ago

even though I'm anti-Apple, I've always thought James Dyson would be a perfect fit, along with his company. Apple -> Dyson -> Sensor Network -> Internet of Things(with some design love)

far33d 15y ago

Ed Catmull is the only plausible external possibility. He would be excellent at making sure what works at Apple stays that way.

michaelpinto 15y ago

I hate all of this talk because it's disrespectful to the man who has given his all and is very much present (and a man who certainly reads the Wall Street Journal). It's interesting to note that prior to this meme of "who an replace Jobs" the #1 meme was always "when is Apple going to die?" For my money on both accounts you'd be foolish to write off Steve Jobs until the fat lady sings. The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs on "medical leave" is doing a much better job of managing Apple than quite a few other tech companies where the CEO shows up each day and is in perfect health.

Raphael 15y ago

Let Apple figure it out.

anactofgod 15y ago

As usual, Gruber is right. And, the Wall Street Journal turned into the Yellow Journal years ago. I wouldn't wipe a parrot's ass with it, let alone lend any credence to what's printed in it.

avjinder 15y ago

Jack Dorsey would be a good candidate for Apple CEO but I cannot imagine how he's going to handle three rapidly growing companies. He is the CEO of Square and the Chief of Product Design at Twitter and according to a recent interview, he mentions that he works 18 hours a day managing the two companies. Though Jack Dorsey is a good fit for Apple, he will never be CEO of Apple.

jayfuerstenberg 15y ago

What's most important is what Steve Jobs has taught us. If you have a relentless drive and a vision to make products better people will flock to you. It doesn't happen overnight but it does happen. The next CEO will or won't embrace Steve Jobs' vision and the company's success will reflect that. It's inevitable, but the lesson has been learned and can be applied again and again by anybody who cares to.

tomlin 15y ago

Imagine you're dying of cancer and you have raised a few intelligent children to a certain age. Now you have to ask others to raise your children in your image. Not in their image, but yours. You might not trust anyone with your children, moreover, expect them to see the same vision you had for your children - which is based on the progressive iteration of your children's development. Can anyone raise Apple like Jobs? Probably not. Does that mean Apple is doomed? No, it doesn't. Anything beyond is speculation.

mojuba 15y ago

I think a bigger problem is that there is still no competition to Apple in the market in terms of design and the drive. Dell, Samsung and others could have learned something already but amazingly they keep manufacturing crappy hardware locked to crappy software, probably just a tiny bit better than before the MBP era, but overall their approach and philosophy hasn't changed. Sony looks good compared to them, but unfortunately it's too expensive (you'd rather buy a Mac for that money, wouldn't you?) plus Sony has never been a company that designs stuff with users in mind. Their hardware can be solid looking but there is usually nothing new or exceptionally well executed for the user. Now that's the saddest part of the story for me, rather than when and who will replace Steve Jobs.

panabee 15y ago

some of these choices are designed to be provocative, not necessarily legitimate. "built to last," the wonderfully insightful book on technology entrepreneurship by jim collins, contains interesting analysis about the difficulties in replacing a charismatic, controlling founder like jobs. suffice to say, the odds are against apple. but so they were in 1998. http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Essentials/dp/0060516402 http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-Essent...