Comments on: Heart attack or not, Apple needs an heir

Don Reisinger thinks Friday's hoax that Steve Jobs suffered a heart attack illustrates one key point: Apple needs an heir to the throne. Will Apple agree?

[AppleSuxLeo]

Of course Apple denied he had a heart attack...but they didn`t deny he had a myocardial infarction !
If my market cap. dropped over 40B in one week , I would be in denial too ;)

[make_or_break]

Isn't a myocardial infarction THE SAME as a heart attack? So...were you the one posting on CNN???

[iertry]

johnathon ive I think. Or maybe team up two or three people to lead.

Ive - Design
Forstal - Software
Schiller - Marketing/keynotes

Jobs has all these qualities so I don't think that one person could replace him

[daftkey]

That's why they have "vice" presidents. You can't have a committee at the top for too long - it actually takes away any sense of leadership, which is exactly what Apple can't afford to lose.

[bonesbautista]

I agree, Apple does need an heir.

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!

[pjhenry1216]

Its no one's fault that the people who sold and lost money did so because they didn't check their facts. This wasn't a real bona fide news article, it was posted by an anonymous person (or at least posted only under a pseudonym).

[RDWNUR]

Call me on it if I'm wrong but isn't is AAPL?

[daftkey]

I'm not sure what crime this person would have committed that the SEC would be able to prosecute him on - unless they can prove that this person was attempting to short-sell some Apple stock at the time.

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.

[cnsc]

iertry makes an excellent point. Steve Jobs is something of a renaissance man and couldn't exactly be replaced by one person so easily.

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.

[wordsyouwant]

Was the reliable source Kathy Griffin? She was dating him last season on her show "Life on the D List."

[MaggieRed]

ewwww that makes one's skin crawl.

[jaybarrow]

She was "seeing" The Woz, not Steve Jobs.

[technogeist2k6]

Bring back Steve Wozniak.

The current attitude of Apple makes me barf.


[apple fan 1981-2002]

[AppleSuxLeo]

Woz is such a bloated pig , he will be next in line for a myocardial infarction. Bad choice.

[thomcarl]

you make me barf

[ferretboy88]

I think you are right. Steve Jobs never coded any software or made any hardware it was all Woz. He only has 50 million while that idiot Jobs has 6 or 7 Billion. Woz did all the work that made Apple and got the ball rolling.

[TomMariner]

I wonder where Apple would be now if the board of directors had not lost faith in Steve Jobs and caused him to walk out of the company he founded. Maybe those lost years with the soft drink folks in charge of a techie company will teach us all a lesson.

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.

[HMCIV]

QUICK! What is CNet's succession plan?

[groupeone]

Warren Buffet, the highly respected Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has never named his replacement. He has made it clear that a succession plan is in place. Nobody has ever questioned this, despite his strict vow not to disclose the name of his successor after he either retires, is incapacitated or God forbid, dies.

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.

[daftkey]

It's like everything in the business world though - every business is unique enough that there NEEDS to be double-standards and exceptions to many rules. This is why accounting standards are mainly prinicples-based, not rules-based (well, in every country other than the US - I wonder why there have been so many spectacular financial meltdowns in the US and not any other country.. hmm!)

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.

[dylan214u]

Cnet has become a Apple basher with their many shots of late. I remember when you were the Fox "fair and balanced" of the electronic age. Sad to say that has been gone for awhile now. Their is motive here and it's really not about reporting and reviewing anymore. Anyone who is well informed sees through it.

[molkood]

Quite despicable response by CNET.T
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.

[myles taylor]

That's a little extreme. It's just one journalist and one column.

[make_or_break]

Promises, promises...

[Vegaman_Dan]

The United States has a government that has both a President and Vice President. As you are against the discussion or notion of an heir to a top office, I would expect you also believe this is true for any and all news about elections, changes of power in the presidency, and any/all news about the United States in the media? When will you be leaving the US and denouncing your citizenship? This is the only acceptable thing you can do now while retaining your honor and maintaining your beliefs.

Or..... you could just be living with double standards and people here will just toss your comments out as an extremist whacko.

[Motyoj]

Succession is an important move and picking the right person crucial. Look what happened to G.E.'s stock price after Jack Welch retired. At least he didn't die on his watch but if he had, I believe it would have been worse for them and the stockholders.

[make_or_break]

I agree. Apple NEEDS to have a plan in place, even if Jobs is perfectly healthy right now. There's already been too many questions surrounding his health; that genie has been let out of its bottle and now every time some blurb comes up it'll be an unwarranted roller-coaster ride for investors. If for nothing else, having a succession plan in place will at least placate some if not many of the jittery shareholders.

[myles taylor]

I think that it would he hard to find someone who could actually do Steve's job (no pun intended). However, they don't really need someone who can actually do his job. They need a person who can be the Face of Apple. Steve Jobs has been the Public Face of Apple for a long time and also done many other jobs. His replacement wouldn't have to take on everything, as long as he could handle the public aspect. I just know Steve Jobs hardline attitude towards management is what gets so many amazing things done. He basically tells them what they are going to do and they figure out a way to do it. I hope that Steve Jobs stays head of Apple for at least another decade.

[AppleSuxLeo]

I vote for the guy that runs/ran Sharper Image , since Apple is the "Sharper Image" of the computer industry. A boutique seller of overpriced items that , when the economy is bad , goes by the wayside.
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 ?

[kalel130]

And Bill Gate's well known, famous, and liked heir apparent will be... oh wait, Gate's is gone???

[pjonesCET]

Why not have the other Apple Steve Originator to take over. when Apple Started out it was Between Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak.

[ayoung45]

i agree with this plan of action only because Apple is a unique company in itself... what is Apple without Steve Jobs??

[Tommyr2006]

I'm sure there is a second in command ready to go IF something happens. RELAX people, Steve isn't stupid you know.....

[ripragged]

The suppository that Apple should publish a succession plan is beyond stupid. As near as I know they would be the first corporation in history to do so, if they did. There is no good business case for it.

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.

[Vegaman_Dan]

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.

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.