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

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.