By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why Steve Jobs Is So Important to Apple

famousringo on 19 January 2011
Squilliam said:
Joelcool7 said:
Squilliam said:

So he took Apple from a record low to a record high. Not just any one executive could have done that.

Again Jobs is a brilliant man a great CEO. Not any exec can do what he does. But recal that prior to the 12 year low and another CEO in charge of Apple Jobs was the head. Jobs was at Apple since the beginning being a co-founder and Apple was never as successful as it is today.

Also if you note my comparison I compared him to Iwata and Bill Gates both of which are really great Presidents and CEO's. I never belittled Jobs I just said Apple could probubly survive without him. Just like Microsoft is surviving without Gates and Nintendo without its past presidents and CEO's.

Yeah they could survive without Jobs but at present the Jury is still deliberating on the concept that they could thrive without Steve Jobs. He has a powerful personality, infact hes a cult of one. Steve Jobs is more to Apple than Iwata is to Nintendo, Balmer is to Microsoft. It has been argued that Jobs = Apple as it exists today and without Jobs that Apple would cease to exist. He isn't any regular employee, he is as irreplaceable to Apple as Miyamoto is to Nintendo. We all know that there are better executives out there who could replace Balmer or Iwata though they are good at what they do. However Jobs isn't merely an executive, hes the litteral front and centre beating heart of Apple and he defines more than just their strategy he is also front and centre a part of their image.

That's true. It's hard to replace the charisma and authority that he commands.

I recall a story about a newspaper exec at the NYT who got fired because Jobs hated the NYT iPad app. It's hard to imagine anybody getting sacked because they pissed off Tim Cook.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network
Squilliam on 19 January 2011
famousringo said:
Squilliam said:

Yeah they could survive without Jobs but at present the Jury is still deliberating on the concept that they could thrive without Steve Jobs. He has a powerful personality, infact hes a cult of one. Steve Jobs is more to Apple than Iwata is to Nintendo, Balmer is to Microsoft. It has been argued that Jobs = Apple as it exists today and without Jobs that Apple would cease to exist. He isn't any regular employee, he is as irreplaceable to Apple as Miyamoto is to Nintendo. We all know that there are better executives out there who could replace Balmer or Iwata though they are good at what they do. However Jobs isn't merely an executive, hes the litteral front and centre beating heart of Apple and he defines more than just their strategy he is also front and centre a part of their image.

That's true. It's hard to replace the charisma and authority that he commands.

I recall a story about a newspaper exec at the NYT who got fired because Jobs hated the NYT iPad app. It's hard to imagine anybody getting sacked because they pissed off Tim Cook.

My guess is the NYT gets a lot of Apple advertisement... But still thats pretty unprecedented.



Tease.

Killiana1a on 20 January 2011

Alright, lets play hypotheticals.

First, lets say the worst occurs. One of two scenarios is occuring: 1. Job's pancreatic cancer is back in full swing and has evolved into the deadly version which killed legendary comedian Bill Hicks or 2. Job's body is rejecting the liver transplant.

Under this scenario, Jobs is dead plain and simple. Tears, obituaries, 3 days of news coverage, and on. Here are the following questions:

1. Does Apple have a succession plan envisioning corporate existence without Jobs? Or is Job's so vital to the company like a king is in uniting disparate, warring tribes that when he dies Apple has no answer to succeed without him and the company gets devoured from within by warring factions vying for the power he left?

2. Did Jobs foresee Apple going downhill, thus forth he took his medical leave at the most opportune time so that his legacy will not be marred with failure?

I think Apple does have a succession plan, albeit they are far worse off without Jobs as the 1990s showed when Microsoft kicked Apple in the nuts and curb stomped them on the wall street ticker ala American History X style.

Furthermore, I am in the camp that Jobs to Apple is unlike any corporation in the modern era with the exception of Hiroshi Yamauchi and Nintendo. In case anyone has not brushed up on their Nintendo history, Hiroshi Yamauchi inherited Nintendo in his 20s and turned it from a hanafuda company into the powerhouse it is today. He made all the decisions regarding the direction of the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube. Unlike Jobs, Yamauchi had to step down because his decisions regarding the N64 and Gamecube damaged the Nintendo brand.

Back to Jobs, Apple is Jobs and Jobs is Apple. With the exception of Hiroshi Yamauchi and Nintendo, no other modern day corporation has had a leader with the cult of personality that Jobs has. Apple's stock price rises and falls as Job's health rises and falls. This is a huge detriment to Apple because no matter how accomplished or how visionary his successor, there will never be another CEO for Apple like Jobs. Thus forth, when Steve Jobs dies (I predict he won't live to age 80), Apple will need to have had created and sold several successful products on the level of the iPhone, iMac, and iPad. Otherwise, they revert back to the 1990s where their closed system mentality means every desirable piece of software comes to their products last.