Well, you need guts to do that in formal meetings, conferences, parties etc. Steve Jobs shows his guts in whatever he does.

The answer is clearer than the article presents.

Consider this story: the CEO of a high-flying technology company steps down suddenly because he is no longer able to perform his duties. We learn that he has been diagnosed with an incurable disease, so the company is now moving to replace him in his capacity.

Let’s say the company in question is Google, and the CEO is Eric Schmidt. What will the market reaction be? My guess is that the shareholder market fluctuation would be little, because Dr. Schmidt himself is not the Google brand.

Let’s say the company in question is Apple, and the CEO is Steve Jobs. What will the market reaction be? My guess is that the shareholder market fluctuation would be substantial, because Mr. Jobs himself IS the Apple brand.

Steve’s cult of personality is a goodwill asset to Apple. Because Apple is a publicly traded company, disclosure about pending and/or possible events that can affect the value of the company in a material manner are why things like Sarbanes-Oxley exist.

Apple dodged a bullet, but the longer they sat on that information, the more likely they would be liable to shareholder lawsuits.

There is no succession plan.

Jobs has done a tremendous job piloting the company since his return. And one of his greatest feats has been to surround himself with a very talented, long-tenured executive team (Phil, Jonathan, Tim, others), and despite his reputation and tendencies, has let them do their jobs. Jobs can emote about the characteristics he wants a product to have, and he knows good design when he sees it, but he can’t actually design his way out of a paper bag. That’s where Ive, his design teams, and their equally talented engineering teams come in.

And while Ive has gotten a lot of visibility (at least initially, not as much lately), where is Tim Cook in the press? What has he done but significantly improve product quality, reduce inventory levels, move products to more standardized components, and helped make Apple more price competitive. And he’s just one example. Ive, the head of their stores, Rubenstein when he was there… by all accounts, Jobs has assembled a crack executive team.

So which one succeeds Jobs? Who the heck knows… the company doesn’t have a publicly stated succession plan, and because it is such a cult of personality, Apple will take a huge hit in the capital markets when Jobs steps aside voluntarily or otherwise.

Anyone from TC cares to explain? Too many spammers here and you guys are trying to fend’em off?

We love him and he is the greatest of all!

Damn envy…

Steve is a man of contradictions. I admire the way he persisted for 13 years after being ousted from Apple.

I have a hard time understanding why he would not support his own daughter when he himself was an orphan.

Other than that I am not too concerned about criticism of Jobs.

Jobs should definitely deserve credit for Apple. I remember the times for Apple prior to 2001 and I-Pod. Many CEO’s tried unsuccessfully to revive Apple.

Senior executives should be entitled to some privacy in these cases. Until it gets to a point where the person cannot perform the required duties, there should be no need to make public something very private to someones personal life. Even if and when something like cancer gets to the point where an executive is not being able to perform duties, that should be able to take a leave of absence and not have to disclose exactly what the medical reason is. I certainly see the need to have the leaders of major companies inform shareholders of their ability to perform their required duties but something like cancer is very personal and they should be entitled to some level of privacy. There are so many privacy acts and regulations about personal/medical information in the workplace, these CEO’s should have some level of privacy protection as well.

Yeah, and? He’s supposed to bankroll the man who put him up for adoption just because they share some DNA? Come-on, I know Steve is loaded but he isn’t a charity. Where do you draw the line? Some of his teachers probably contributed more to Steve’s life than his biological father, should he bankroll them too – teachers don’t make that much cash.

Yeah, the man has a short fuse and is arrogant and so on. But he knows how to make (or market) darn good product.

That makes me question this “take down” of Elkind. It’s far too easy to write stuff like this. Elkind spent months putting together his research. You’ve spent 5 minutes giving your opinion without even engaging his text in a thorough way.

This post (and most of Duncan Riley’s) makes me wince for its emptiness and bias. You can do so much better.

p.s. techcrunch is better off for having you. you seriously do bring a lot more depth to the table.

I have no problem with critical stories about Apple. I’ve written some myself. In this case, the story fell short of its promise. It promised a takedown. And failed to deliver.

That doesn’t mean I hold a grudge against anybody. For the record, I think Elkind (who I know and is a former colleague) is a terrific journalist generally, and I admire his work. Even this story, with all of its flaws, is a great read. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss its merits, Wade.

If it is going to be in print and from the east coast, WSJ > *

It’s also a reflection of the fact that Apple control their PR pretty well and rarely have product leaks, making it very hard to fill those 6-8 pages which have to go with the covers.

both articles are very clear in their target; one is about the greatness of the apple company, and the other is about the personal life of the CEO at helm.

do different stories. two different perspectives.

I suppose if they were admiring him in the same two articles it would have been ‘bias’ right? Come on guys, you guys make ridiculous claims and i know exactly what for; to bring controversy and stimulate debate. classic way to get the techcrunch brand into the ranks!

I read both articles.

Please tell me why a media source cannot tackle both sides under one name?

I think we all confuse our fiduciary duty to share holders, whether private or public, with our personal responsibilities.

Gee, Fortune magazine said something negative about Jobs? How dare they !

Listen up junior (that’s you Erick). Go find a real story for once. Techcrunch is worse off for having you.