While I’m not sure Ive has the charisma and “star power” of Steve Jobs, he certainly does have Jobs’ extraordinary vision and taste (Jony might even best Steve in these areas). I’m not 100% sure Ive is the man, but I can’t think of anyone better, either.
The bottom line is, there’s not going to be anyone who can fill Steve’s shoes. Ive has a better chance than most.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article3019090.ece
001 // Brian Ford // 12.09.2007 // 5:43 PM
While I think it’s a worthwhile thought exercise — the article is crap and FUD all rolled into one.
I suspect that “growing pressure” is, in large part, limited to the fact that this article suggests it’s there.
They also dredge up the stock options backdating issue, despite the fact that Jobs’ has been cleared by both an internal investigation -and- an official investigation. Bringing up a “revised” lawsuit by what is likely a money-hungry attorney with a case that will likely be dismissed hardly counts. If we’re going to do that, we may as well bring up every dumb lawsuit against every company as evidence that their CEO is in jeopardy.
But yes, Ive would be the obvious choice. In fact, it may be so obvious that Jobs doesn’t feel the need to make an official comment about it. Can you imagine the feeding frenzy and the rumors if Jobs were to officially announce his next in line?
“OMG! Steve is stepping down tomorrow!”
“OMG! Steve is having more health problems!”
“OMG! Apple is going out of business!”
002 // Jeff Croft // 12.09.2007 // 5:47 PM
Hmm, I didn’t get the impression the article was suggesting there was a ton of pressure on Steve or anyone else to name his successor, nor did I get the impression the author thought Apple would be making a change anytime soon. I do see that one paragraph uses the phrase “growing pressure,” which was probably a bad choice of words, but overall, I didn’t feel the article suggested any sense of urgency.
I thought they were simply discussing who would be Jobs’ successor, whenever that day may come — which is something all Apple fans are talking about and interested in, so it seems like a perfectly worthwhile thing to discuss in the media.
003 // Brian Ford // 12.09.2007 // 7:02 PM
To me, the article reeks of unsubstantiated speculation. “Some say…” etc. That’s just another way of saying: “No one who knows what they’re talking about says…”
It’s all very vague. What that means to me is that they’ve read speculation elsewhere or that “some” are even likely to be various comment threads and blog posts and idle chattering about “what if..”
Basically, it sounds like they don’t have a story unless they are vague, and it seems to me that I can read that sort of content on Newsvine — I’d like more from a mainstream outlet.
They start off with:
And then go into all the vague speculation, and again — that says to me that they don’t really know anything, but want it to seem like they’ve got a scoop.
At any rate, I still say that whoever those”some” are — it would be a field day if Jobs ever made that sort of announcement.
004 // Jeff Croft // 12.09.2007 // 7:05 PM
But you do agree that the topic of “who is going to succeed Steve Jobs” is one that has been on every Apple fan, Apple investor, and Apple employee’s mind, right? Especially since the cancer scare?
I guess what I’m saying is: even if they didn’t do a very good job of naming their sources (their sources probably are just regular Apple fans and investors, and not anyone special), it’s still an important story, because it’s on the minds of the public at large.
005 // Brian Ford // 12.09.2007 // 10:18 PM
Yes, I agree that it’s important, but I’m not sure that it matters at all whether it’s announced now or on the day Steve retires.
It only matters if you honestly think that no one at Apple has considered what to do in the event that Steve leaves, and you can bet that very question has been on their mind ever since Steve was ill. I just don’t see a point in worrying too much about it.
I guess I just object to taking something that is based on pure speculation and writing it up as though it’s a sourced story — when stories like this are picked up all too often by other outlets, and then passed as fact. Then, suddenly, Apple’s stock drops based on what amounts to blog speculation from an outlet that should be above that.
006 // Greg Paulhus // 12.10.2007 // 4:17 AM
I second the point about sourced stories. What ever happened to not only needing a source for information, but requiring two independent sources for every fact in a news story? That’s basic journalism, which used to be taught when I was in university ‘cough’ years ago.
I agree it’s an interesting issue, but does anyone really believe Apple hasn’t got a succession plan, and hasn’t had one for years and years?
007 // Jeff Croft // 12.10.2007 // 4:24 AM
Jesus — tough crowd.
Look, I just was entertained by the article, so I linked it here and offered my thoughts on the topic. I thought people here might be interested in the issue, too, since many of my readers are Apple fans.
My linking a site isn’t to be seen as an endorsement of the journalistic integrity of said site. If you are concerned about the methodology used in putting together the article, I suggest you contact The Times directly.
008 // Brian Ford // 12.10.2007 // 7:42 AM
You’re too sensitive.
I don’t see anyone saying “Jeff Croft is a journalistic hack” or anything like that. You posted some content and the flaws of that content are being discussed.
With that said, my point is that they’re trying to make something “fun” into a credible journalistic story about Apple’s need for a succession plan, and I think that’s a huge leap and, beyond that leap, poor logic.
009 // Greg Paulhus // 12.10.2007 // 3:19 PM
No worries Jeff, you’re not responsible for the stories you link to. And you’re right, it is an interesting thought exercise. I’m also an Apple fan, so I appreciate all interesting Apple-related links.
I’m just in a snit lately about the quality of journalism, especially in North America, it’s so poor. What’s really been bugging me lately is the incorrect and often biased Apple coverage that happens in the media. But that’s been happening since I owned my first Mac in 1984 (which I still have, it was working as a ‘typing machine’ up until the mid 90s, we upgraded it to 512K, smokin’ fast).
010 // David Yeiser // 12.11.2007 // 7:58 AM
I read the title of this link as you talking to someone named Jonathan about how you were going to succeed Steve Jobs as Apple’s CEO, but weren’t really sure if it was a good idea or not.
“Jonathan, I’ve set to succeed Jobs as Apple CEO?” (apostrophe inserted by me)