This analysis is astonishingly shoddy, for all the reasons that tabbyjabby pointed out and more. But worse, it doesn’t even get close to the root-cause for why

This analysis is astonishingly shoddy, for all the reasons that tabbyjabby pointed out and more. But worse, it doesn’t even get close to the root-cause for why Apple may decline in the post-Steve Jobs’ era. Steve Jobs' greatest accomplishments are not Apple I, Apple II, Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone or iPad. It's Apple, itself. Depending on how one tallies, Apple has been through three successful major technology and business transitions, combined with three minor ones within the Mac family, and two minor ones within the iOS family: Apple II > Mac [Mac (68K) > Mac (PowerPC) > Mac (OS X)] > Mac (Intel)] > handhelds [iPod > iTouch(iOS) > iPhone (iOS) > iPad (iOS)]. Combine that with the development of new business/sales platforms (virtual Apple Store, physical Apple Stores, iTunes, App Store, etc.) that enhance the consumers’ Apple experience. Each one of these required the insight to recognize a particular opportunity (and the discipline to ignore others), the investment of resources to develop those opportunities, and wherewithal to follow through on the execution, even if that means cannibalizing from the sales of incumbent products. Without these pivots, Apple would not be in dominating position it is in today. Consider that companies with longevity are able to execute strategic pivots when required. IBM is an example of a tech company that has done so at least four times over its long, 100+ year old history. Apple has done three within 30 years. What is the one link between the major initiatives? They all occurred while Steve Jobs was in a position where he could significantly influence Apple. It is interesting to note that two significant new Apple tech platforms that failed - the Apple III and Newton - and the one significant new Apple business platform that failed - licensing Mac clones - were not initiatives that Jobs was affiliated with. (Before moving on, let’s acknowledge that the Lisa failed under Jobs’ purview, and that the 68K > PowerPC transition was successful carried out during his absence,) We see how Apple's success if predicated on an ability to pivot to address new opportunities in the market, even if those opportunities cannibalize an existing profit center. Jobs’ value to Apple extends beyond being a visionary, design auteur, or talented business negotiator. None of those things would have meaning if he didn’t also have the force of personality and strength of credibility to compel dramatic changes within Apple. So, then, the question becomes, who can fill in for Jobs in this capacity? If no one can, Apple is very likely to decline, much as Sony has in the post-Morita era.