Ask HN: Can Apple survive Steve Jobs leaving?
Steve Jobs won't be able to run Apple forever. A lot of people believe Steve Jobs is personally responsible for Apple's success. When he steps down, can Apple continue to make such well designed products?
5 comments
Yes. But it would not be the same company.
well designed? probably. if they get the ideas to begin with. which they wont.
I think so yes and the main reason for this is for the team Steve Jobs has built to replace him.
First of all there is Tim Cook, who as you will recall when Steve Jobs took a leave of absense in 2009, Tim Cook was calling the shots and he handled the storm caused by this extremely well.
Furthermore, the main difference between Apple and many of its competitors aren't just its "awesome designs" but rather its supply chain and inventory something, which Tim Cook is in charge of and handles very well - especially as you can see by his salary bonus which was $60million.
Additionally, most smart companies plan years ahead for their development roadmaps - Apple is an extremely smart company and will already have a development roadmap outlined for a few years in advance meaning that, they're already secure for the short-term well, they probably have a working iPhone 8 and an iPad 5 right now.
However, intead of just focusing on Tim Cook there is also Jonathan Ive who can take over the role as "visionary" having worked in the design aspects of Apples Products AND there is Scott Forstall who can focus on the "software" aspect of the business.
Again this shows, that Steve Jobs has built a great team to take over the day-to-day running of Apple with Tim Cook in charge and Scott Forstall and Jonathan Ive supporting in the design/new products and software departments that Apple will have continued success even without Steve Jobs operating as CEO.
First of all there is Tim Cook, who as you will recall when Steve Jobs took a leave of absense in 2009, Tim Cook was calling the shots and he handled the storm caused by this extremely well.
Furthermore, the main difference between Apple and many of its competitors aren't just its "awesome designs" but rather its supply chain and inventory something, which Tim Cook is in charge of and handles very well - especially as you can see by his salary bonus which was $60million.
Additionally, most smart companies plan years ahead for their development roadmaps - Apple is an extremely smart company and will already have a development roadmap outlined for a few years in advance meaning that, they're already secure for the short-term well, they probably have a working iPhone 8 and an iPad 5 right now.
However, intead of just focusing on Tim Cook there is also Jonathan Ive who can take over the role as "visionary" having worked in the design aspects of Apples Products AND there is Scott Forstall who can focus on the "software" aspect of the business.
Again this shows, that Steve Jobs has built a great team to take over the day-to-day running of Apple with Tim Cook in charge and Scott Forstall and Jonathan Ive supporting in the design/new products and software departments that Apple will have continued success even without Steve Jobs operating as CEO.
Yes.. Jony Ive and Tim Cook will be good stewards of Apple in Jobs absence.
The fact that at the peak of Apple's success, a question about their survival is even meaningful points to the difficulties Apple faces going forward. The core problem Apple faces is not Steve Jobs leaving - though it doesn't help.
Despite the iPad (which lest we forget spent years in development and is basically an extension to the mature iPod product line) the past year has been full of lackluster product announcements - Mac apps, Beatles, Verizon, and Newscorp. Jobs didn't even show up for most of those and even the flagship announcement was marred by Antennagate.
The core problem is that their own mythology will make them increasingly risk adverse (if it hasn't already). Their $60 billion cash in hand presents them with some really tough choices - admit that their ideas are not good enough to spend that kind of money on and pay a dividend, hold the cash for a rainy day and signal pessimism about the company's future earnings, or make a big acquisition/merger of the sort that rarely plays out well in the initial press coverage.
Given the way in which Apple is perceived and the amount of cash in hand, it is difficult to spend a significant portion of that money in a way that does not have significant potential to be spun as a spectacular failure - and Apple has its share of failures, Ping being the most recent and AppleTV the most enduring. Other than purchasing Disney, there really isn't a good option for Apple and even that turns them into a company like GE. One might say that Apple faces an existential crisis and the question reflects that.
Despite the iPad (which lest we forget spent years in development and is basically an extension to the mature iPod product line) the past year has been full of lackluster product announcements - Mac apps, Beatles, Verizon, and Newscorp. Jobs didn't even show up for most of those and even the flagship announcement was marred by Antennagate.
The core problem is that their own mythology will make them increasingly risk adverse (if it hasn't already). Their $60 billion cash in hand presents them with some really tough choices - admit that their ideas are not good enough to spend that kind of money on and pay a dividend, hold the cash for a rainy day and signal pessimism about the company's future earnings, or make a big acquisition/merger of the sort that rarely plays out well in the initial press coverage.
Given the way in which Apple is perceived and the amount of cash in hand, it is difficult to spend a significant portion of that money in a way that does not have significant potential to be spun as a spectacular failure - and Apple has its share of failures, Ping being the most recent and AppleTV the most enduring. Other than purchasing Disney, there really isn't a good option for Apple and even that turns them into a company like GE. One might say that Apple faces an existential crisis and the question reflects that.
You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think that Apple is failing as a company. We haven't even heard sales numbers about Verizon iPhone yet! And the GSM iPhone 4 has (and continues) to sell pretty damn well, even after antennagate. I think its absurd to say that the iPhone 4 is a bad product for Apple to have made.
Likewise, the Mac App Store is just getting started. Wait until after 10.7 has shipped by default and everyone has it to call it a failure.
Whats the difference between 30 billion cash on hand and 60 billion? I don't feel like there is very much; and it doesn't seem to be have been a terribly big deal in the past year or so.
Likewise, the Mac App Store is just getting started. Wait until after 10.7 has shipped by default and everyone has it to call it a failure.
Whats the difference between 30 billion cash on hand and 60 billion? I don't feel like there is very much; and it doesn't seem to be have been a terribly big deal in the past year or so.
Having $60 billion in cash appears to be symptomatic of a lack of strategy on the part of management. It's money that isn't being put to work to create value for the stockholders nor is it being paid as a dividend. That raises the question of for whose benefit is that money being held?
I do not "think that Apple is failing as a company." However, they are in fear of losing their halo and the $60 billion dollars signifies inertia based on that fear. Here's the dilemma - purchasing a $20 billion dollar company with another $20 billion in unrealized value probably means the acquisition target is perceived as troubled. Getting involved in that kind of mess doesn't damage companies such as HP, the perception is that they are used to dealing with messy management issues. But it is easy to see Apple's halo easily tarnished by a pursuit of a company like Yahoo! or Foxconn. And even after spending $20 billion Apple would still be under dividend pressure.
As for the Mac App Store, I did not "call it a failure" either. I pointed out that Mac Apps was a lackluster announcement - calling it the highlight of Back to the Mac is faint praise for anyone but the faithful. Apple boosted Mac sales by requiring a Mac for iPhone development, but with the growth of other mobile platforms, Mac sales are bound to slow. The Mac App store is a rearguard action and although a sound business decision because it's so cheap to implement, is clearly uninspired.
I do not "think that Apple is failing as a company." However, they are in fear of losing their halo and the $60 billion dollars signifies inertia based on that fear. Here's the dilemma - purchasing a $20 billion dollar company with another $20 billion in unrealized value probably means the acquisition target is perceived as troubled. Getting involved in that kind of mess doesn't damage companies such as HP, the perception is that they are used to dealing with messy management issues. But it is easy to see Apple's halo easily tarnished by a pursuit of a company like Yahoo! or Foxconn. And even after spending $20 billion Apple would still be under dividend pressure.
As for the Mac App Store, I did not "call it a failure" either. I pointed out that Mac Apps was a lackluster announcement - calling it the highlight of Back to the Mac is faint praise for anyone but the faithful. Apple boosted Mac sales by requiring a Mac for iPhone development, but with the growth of other mobile platforms, Mac sales are bound to slow. The Mac App store is a rearguard action and although a sound business decision because it's so cheap to implement, is clearly uninspired.
You haven't answered my question. How is 30 billion different from 60 billion? Why would investors be okay with 30 billion cash in hand but not 60 billion? Whats the magic threshold? 31 billion?
From the Back to the Mac event, Apple sold 13.7 million Mac's in 2010 fiscal year, for a 27% growth year-over-year . In comparison, there are "only" 600,000 iOS developers. I don't think its accurate to write off the Mac's resurgence as "Oh, people want to make iOS apps, nothing more." http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/20/apple-mac-numbers/
From the Back to the Mac event, Apple sold 13.7 million Mac's in 2010 fiscal year, for a 27% growth year-over-year . In comparison, there are "only" 600,000 iOS developers. I don't think its accurate to write off the Mac's resurgence as "Oh, people want to make iOS apps, nothing more." http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/20/apple-mac-numbers/
In a sense you're right, 30 and 60 billion represent the same thing - an inability to act by Apple management. On the other hand, when Apple had 30 billion one would ask "Don't they have a plan?" When they hit 60 the question becomes "WTF are they waiting for?"
Tangent: every Mac developer isn't a one person shop.
Question: WTF are they waiting for?
Tangent: every Mac developer isn't a one person shop.
Question: WTF are they waiting for?