Heart attack or not, Apple needs an heir
CNN's iReport featured a story on Friday saying that a "reliable source" told them that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital. Since then, Apple has denied the report, saying nothing of the sort happened. After confirming Apple's statement, CNN took the article down.
So it looks like Jobs is doing just fine. But then again, what if he wasn't? I'm willing to accept that he never had the heart attack (why would Apple lie?), but doesn't it beg the question of whether or not Apple should appoint an heir apparent?
I know, I know: some people believe Jobs' health is a private matter and should stay that way, but the stock price plummeted on an unsubstantiated report that Jobs had a heart attack. Can you imagine how far it would fall if it was true?
See, what too many seem to forget is that Jobs is the key to Apple's success and the figurehead that shareholders look to for safe-keeping of their money. Thousands of people are willing to put their retirements in the proper judgment of Jobs, and I think it's time Apple wakes up and realizes that simple fact.
Apple needs an heir to the throne now. Sure, most companies usually don't play that game and instead choose to appoint a new leader when it comes time to do so, but I think Apple is an entirely different story.
Jobs is Apple. Apple is Jobs. There are few other companies like that in the world and none in the tech industry. Apple's success and failure depends on Jobs whether we want to realize it or not. And the only reason shareholders are happy to own Apple stock is because of Job's sound judgment. Without it, there would be panic in the streets of Cupertino as shareholders wondered what the future of the company will look like.
Realizing that, why doesn't Apple fill them in on that now? Naming a successor doesn't mean Jobs will need to step down anytime soon and more often than not, it buoys a stock price because shareholders would know where their money stands after the leader decides to retire.
Speculation abounds over who Jobs would pick to take the reins, but I don't think it matters to most who he picks. The shareholders trust his judgment so much, that whichever person he taps to take over will be greeted with open arms by the shareholders.
But simply saying that someone else is taking over probably won't be enough. Instead, Jobs will need to bring that person to each and every Stevenote and let them take some of the spotlight away from him to show that their vision is well in-line with his. And if he can succeed, Jobs' health won't be a factor anymore to shareholders and the reactionary drops will be a thing of the past.
If nothing else, Friday's blunder shows Apple needs to be more open to replacing Jobs. If it doesn't wake up soon, it could face a crisis if something really does go wrong.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
If my market cap. dropped over 40B in one week , I would be in denial too ;)
Ive - Design
Forstal - Software
Schiller - Marketing/keynotes
Jobs has all these qualities so I don't think that one person could replace him
I also feel that the SEC needs to prosecute the person that started the rumor and reprimand the agents who acted on an unsubstantiated rumor - it's not their money, and a lot of investors took a loss because of it. I'm not vested in APPL, but I'd be really hot about what just happened and I was vested in APPL!
It's not a crime to start a rumor, regardless of who it hurts. It is a tort though, and the shareholders may be able to sue him, but this isn't any of the SEC's business.
Anybody who's watched the `Stevenotes' as the article puts it should realize that the structure of them lately is doing exactly what the article calls for. He has most definitely "[brought] that person to each and every Stevenote and let them take some of the spotlight" It's just that it's been a couple of people consistently.
Are you expecting to be hit over the head with it? Maybe people are, but the good people of the media should lay this out in simple enough terms so that people don't panic so much. It shouldn't be Apple's job to do it, but the analysis of the media. If the media doesn't get it soon enough, I guess Apple will just have to come out with it eventually.
The current attitude of Apple makes me barf.
[apple fan 1981-2002]
On the other hand, Mr. Jobs did get a chance to found several other rousing successes and probably learned more than if he had stayed with Apple and its brain dead, no guts directors.
When I hear about the out of the box products (I-Everything) that are attributed to Steve personally, I interpret that as it would not have happened without him there blowing excitement and inspiration into his colleagues. Before he left the first time he did a guerilla force to counter the product he thought was stupid, the Lisa. I remember getting one of the first Mac's and prying off the back just to see the signatures of Steve on top and every one on the team embedded in the inside of the plastic housing. Even after that, the bozos on the board decided that Apple wasn't big enough for Steve and the MBA's.
Steve Jobs has also made it clear that a succession plan is well established should he retire, become incapacitated or God forbid, dies. Yet, he is the subject of endless speculation, outright ridicule, demands for greater transparency, and in today's terrible incident, Apple's stock was the subject of illegal stock manipulation by short sellers. In addition, in recent weeks and months, Apple stock has been under a concerted attack by large hedge funds, and it is believed that false rumors about his health have been fanned by investors with an agenda to drive down the value of the company's stock.
Do I see a double standard here? If Don Reisinger is making such demands of Steve Jobs, then why should Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway not be under the same pressure? This is where I see a real fallacy in Reisinger's argument. Despite arguments to the contrary, there appears to be no consistent standard on what disclosures any CEO must make about their health, particularly if it is legally not a material event. Reisinger is only fanning the flames of a fire caused by large investment interests, if the example of Warren Buffet is any indication. Sad.
The "double-standard" has to be applied to Apple simply because they have become a one-face company: Steve is the face of the company. The only person that can really change that is Steve himself, and he needs to do it before HIS face disappears.
Warren Buffet, and arguably most other CEOs aren't seen as being tied to the success of their companies as much as Steve Jobs is.
To offer "Heart attack or not, Apple needs an heir" as some sort of justification is almost as insulting as the original post.
This organisation has no soul or moral backbone. Try an outright retraction and a public apology - nothing less is acceptable.
I will NEVER knowingly visit a CNET site ever again. NEVER.
Or..... you could just be living with double standards and people here will just toss your comments out as an extremist whacko.
Losing over 50 percent of their Market Cap. speaks volumes to the stability of AAPL.
On a more serious note , they could use Phil "deer-in-the-headlights" Shiller ?
Who's going to succeed Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway?
Who's going to succeed John Chambers at Cisco Systems?
Are they less important to their respective companies than Jobs is to Apple? I think not.
What a goofy post.
-
by Vegaman_Dan
October 5, 2008 12:49 PM PDT
- Apple really can't afford publically to keep putting their heads in the sand when it comes to replacing Jobs at some point in the future. He is human and he will not be around to run the company 30 years from now. Highly unlikely. Anything can happen and they have no plan in place to deal with that issue.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (38 Comments)If they DO have a plan, it isn't public, and that is fine too, but they should acknowledge that they at least have one. Failing to do so makes them look a bit foolish here and not a company any sound investor would want to put money into.