
On Succeeding Steve Jobs - ddagradi
http://daringfireball.net/2011/07/succeeding_steve_jobs
======
barredo
Easily the best post in Daring Fireball in months.

Reminds me of 'The Tablet' (<http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/the_tablet>)
and others to just how different Gruber is from other tech writers, even
apple-related-tech writers like Andy Ihnatko, Jason Snell, etc. He throughly
thinks about the topic with tremendous insight and unique points of view.

This post is an interesting view on the world of tech, finance and journalism.

~~~
Steko
It's a solid post but this is batting practice by Gruber. Anyone following
Apple would bet the farm on Gruber's shortlist and the only serious candidate
I'd entertain besides Cook would be Ive. Notably, Gruber missed a chance to
link back to the Apple University effort which is another huge giveaway that a
successor will almost certainly come from within.

Glancing over the archive, imho Gruber's best posts in the last few months
have been his iPad 2 review (custom benchmarks!); taking All Things D,
Engadget, et al. to task for weak attribution; and taking non-Apple tablet
reviews to task for grading on a curve.

~~~
podperson
Gruber's dismissal of Ive as a candidate is pretty solidly based. I don't
think Ive has even appeared in a speaking role in a keynote. I just don't
think it's his kind of gig (and why should it be?)

~~~
shaggyfrog
Ive has certainly made appearances during keynote speeches before. Example:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JLjldgjuKI&t=0m25s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JLjldgjuKI&t=0m25s)

This idea that Steve can't possibly share the spotlight with Ive is absurd.

~~~
podperson
Not saying he can't possibly share the spotlight, but that Ive is not
extroverted. (Tim Cook isn't a keynote kind of guy either for that matter.)
Scott Forstall is pretty good in keynotes.

It reminds me a bit of "Tactics of Mistake" -- an old SF novel by Gordon
Dickson. No ONE person can replace Steve, but maybe two or three can.

~~~
shaggyfrog
You stated "I don't think Ive has even appeared in a speaking role in a
keynote" and I was demonstrating this to be untrue.

The idea that Steve Jobs can't be replaced by a single person is based on the
requirement that Apple would have to continue on the exact same way. It won't.
When a new CEO is appointed, it will be more of a "new normal".

~~~
Steko
This.

And I think took much is made of the "waking up and Steve is totally gone"
scenario despite health issues. More likely (and hopefully for his health) it
will be Steve voluntarily giving up more and more control as the successor is
tried out. We may be seeing some of that now, although I would say wait for a
major product launch without him.

That is how Gates did it when Ballmer took over Gates was still heavily
involved doing what he had always done.

~~~
gjm11
> That is how Gates did it when Ballmer took over

This is ... not obviously a recommendation.

------
jonnathanson
Cook was palatable to both Wall Street and Apple employees while SJ was on
medical leave. IMO, he's passed the test already. Everyone was willing to
accept him then, back when there was serious doubt about whether Jobs would
return after his leave. So there's no reason why they wouldn't be willing to
accept him in a genuine succession event.

~~~
joebadmo
Seems to me that the post doesn't fully address the most important fact: "He
cannot be replaced..." Gruber takes the paragraph to points about what Jobs'
absence will do to the stock, and then takes the rest of the post to talk
about the sourcing of the story and who might eventually replace him, but
those strike me as ancillary issues at best.

Jobs can't really be replaced, can he? Certainly Apple will continue to make
heaps of money for the forseeable future, but without Jobs, the company will
lose its essential nature. How can it not?

~~~
mortenjorck
If Jobs has really, truly done it right this time, he won't need to be
replaced. Cook, Forstall, Ive, and Schiller are obviously people he trusts
with his life's work. Time will tell how good his choice of stewards was, but
given that he learned the hard way nearly three decades ago, I'd say the odds
are in his favor.

~~~
Steko
Jobs can be replaced, he's not some magical being, he's a person making
decisions and he isn't doing it all by himself.

He probably _won't_ be replaced (at least not completely by one person) but --
and this again ties back to the Apple University effort -- it will be even
more impressive if the crux of what makes Jobs/Apple great is successfully
imprinted on dozens or hundreds of Apple execs and engineers.

~~~
kenjackson
Jobs actually is sort of magical, at least at Apple. One thing Jobs has that
will be hard to replicate is that fact that he's Steve Jobs. His decision is
final and adored. Forstall or Cook won't try an end run to try to make
something happen and hope that with enough corporate backing they can put
Jobs's back against the wall. Won't happen. With any other CEO it could.

It's not just the decisions that Jobs makes that are important, but the fact
that a decision coming from Jobs means something to every employee at Apple.

Ive+Forstall are within a couple of orders of magnitude from Jobs (the only
people who are even in the neighborhood of reverence). But the fact that
they're two people, with two egos will probably mean that the two together as
the visionary aspects of the company won't be as unified as a single Jobs.

~~~
econgeeker
You're correct, but I think this also is why it needs to be Cook.

Essentially, Apple is a one product company. That product is "the mac". The
"mac" comes in the form of a combination of software and hardware. OS X on
Macintoshes is the past, iOS on iDevices is the future. All of that is
Forstall (if I'm understanding things right.) And even then, the hardware is
merely the box for the software. They make a very great box.

But Forstall is the "new jobs" in that regard. Ive can demand that it have
fewer buttons, and Schiller can demand that marketing be on message, and
Forstall has to listen to them, and if he doesn't then Cook should have their
backs. Cook is thus well placed to be the "vision guy" (and yes, I think that
is a legitimate description and that he'd be just as good as jobs at it) whose
got his finger on the daily operations but also is looking 5, 10 & 15 years
into the future.

Apple University is the glue that holds these four guys together and keeps
them on the same page. Plus, of course, The Writings of The Chairman from Jobs
over the years.

In fact, I would bet good money that there literally is a book within Apple,
that probably only has a dozen or fewer copies, written by Jobs about the
Apple Way and presenting his vision for the Apple Way. In a way, his living
will to the future.

I think this book is Apple's equivalent to Cokes "secret formula", only Apple
doesn't trumpet that they have a secret formula, they keep even the existence
of it secret.

~~~
Steko
Tim Cook's function at Apple is to take care of all the shit Steve doesn't
want to be burdened with because Steve wants to spend all day obsessing on
small product details like removing unneeded buttons. Steve is a designer. Jon
Ive is a designer. Tim Cook afaik is not a designer. Who's going to take the
prototype home and obsess over the tiniest details?

[http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/132488837/The-Behind-The-
Scene...](http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/132488837/The-Behind-The-Scenes-
Partnership-At-Apple)

~~~
jonnathanson
That's essentially why Cook will be the new CEO. No one will accept a "new
Steve Jobs" in the Steve Jobs role, so trying to foist a new Steve Jobs onto
the company -- and into the public eye -- would be an exercise in futility.
People would rebel. People would doubt. People would question this person's
every move. One slip-up or bad quarter, and people would be calling for his
head; analysts would be publishing lengthy diatribes about how Apple had lost
its way. Etc.

Apple has some amazing designers and engineers in the likes of Ive, Forstall,
etc. It doesn't need to promote one of them to the top spot in order to
extract the genius from them.

This is why Cook wins by default. He's a CEO Wall Street and employees will
accept, and nobody's expecting him to have a Jobsian design aesthetic or
artistic vision. But they're expecting his lieutenants to carry that torch
while he keeps everyone and everything unified.

------
brianwillis
_There is a better chance of Apple choosing its next CEO through a raffle of
ten golden tickets hidden inside iPad boxes distributed around the globe than
that they’d give the job to Eric Schmidt._

Quote of the day right there.

~~~
temphn
The craziest part was mentioning Guy Kawasaki (Guy Kawasaki!) in the same
context as Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Ellison.

Wow. Just goes to show the power of self-promotion.

~~~
brianbreslin
well Guy was chief evangelist at apple during the 90s, thats what he's
actually famous for (originally). Now he's famous for self-promotion and
tangientially his vc activities.

------
kenjackson
Who on that list would want to succeed Steve Jobs? I agree, for once, with
Gruber that Apple's best bet is to change as little as possible. Don't fix
what ain't broken.

And conversely, there's virtually no upside for any high profile CEO to take
this job. You'll get none of the credit for keeping the company on a roll, and
take all the blame if it begins to turn downwards.

With that said, Apple w/o Steve Jobs and MS w/o Bill Gates just aren't the
same companies. They're the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird of my generation. You
have to pick one to cheer for, but you respect them both.

~~~
igorgue
IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was
surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers... I
like all the guys that surround Jobs, Philip Schiller, Scott Forstall,
Jonathan Ivy even Bob Mansfield are a good candidates, there is no reason why
Apple should look elsewhere for CEO candidates.

~~~
kenjackson
_IMHO there is a big difference between Apple and Microsoft, Bill Gates was
surrounded by suits, Steve Jobs is surrounded by Engineers and Designers..._

You know very little about Microsoft. You're right there was a difference.
Jobs was surrounded by engineers and designers. Gates was surrounded by
engineers. Gates top business guy was a math geek from Harvard with not much
in the way of business experience (Ballmer).

If you look at Gates's colonels you'll see they were mostly engineers. Allchin
was a widely respected developer prior to MS. Silverberg was a dev on the Lisa
project. Rudder, Muglia, Sinofsky, Maritz, all rose through the ranks at MS in
enginnering.

It wasn't until Ballmer became CEO did "suits" start moving up the ladder.

If you look at the execs that Gates surrounded himself with, you'll have a
hard time finding a stronger team of executive engineers than he did. It even
puts Google's current execs to shame (w/ respect to engineering horsepower).

~~~
pedalpete
I'm not sure where you got your info on Ballmer. Yes, he has a degree in
Mathematics and Economics from Harvard, but he was a P&G marketing guy before
coming to Microsoft.

That P&G gig is pure business, and though I think Ballmer has some
understanding of technology and engineering, he doesn't have the near the
depth that gates has.

I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers, though I'm
sure you could convince me otherwise.

Executive Engineers or Designers isn't important, it is a leader with a clear
vision which is needed. Gates was able to envision the future technology and
push to get it done, same with Jobs. Ballmer just doesn't have that, and
Microsoft has missed that over the last few years.

~~~
kenjackson
Re: Ballmer. He worked less than two years at P&G, which is why I said "not
much in the way of business experience".

 _I also disagree with your comments re: the executive engineers_

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with. I agree that Ballmer is no
Gates. My first post in this thread was how Apple/MS aren't the same companies
w/o Jobs/Gates. The follow-up poster made the point that Gates was surrounded
by suits, and my point about engineering execs was that Gates wasn't
surrounded by suits, but rather by engineers.

------
beaumartinez
Aaron Swartz' response[1] is quite interesting.

> _If Apple is to continue, it will be with a tastemaker at the top. And there
> are no serious candidates besides Ive._

(He remarks on Twitter[2] to Gruber, "I think we had this debate briefly over
email many years ago, but nice to revive it in long form in public".)

[1] <http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/howappleworks> [2]
<https://twitter.com/#!/aaronsw/status/94550094199783425>

------
dr_
This also goes back to how News Corp has changed the Wall Street Journal since
it's acquisition. The quality has deteriorated. And it's shows what News Corp
real focus is - it's not news, and it's not really conservative or liberal
issues either - it's sensationalism, in any form. Because thats what gets
peoples attention.

~~~
kes
I think this is on the wrong thread.

~~~
tptacek
Gruber is criticizing a WSJ story.

------
tomlin
Imagine you're dying of cancer and you have raised a few intelligent children
to a certain age. Now you have to ask others to raise your children in _your_
image. Not in their image, but _yours_. You might not trust anyone with your
children, moreover, expect them to see the same vision you had for your
children - which is based on the progressive iteration of your children's
development.

Can anyone _raise_ Apple like Jobs? Probably not. Does that mean Apple is
doomed? No, it doesn't. Anything beyond is speculation.

------
far33d
Ed Catmull is the only plausible external possibility. He would be excellent
at making sure what works at Apple stays that way.

------
SoftwareMaven
I think Tim Cook would be a mistake as awesome as he is (see
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134181>). Tim is too operations-focused,
and that will bleed over into the products.

Apple needs a design-oriented CEO. Tim can balance that and make the company
amazing from an operations-perspective. I don't know who the person is, but I
do think he (or she) exists.

~~~
fuzionmonkey
I agree. The way Apple is run today is every other department exists to make
Steve and his design pals happy.

Unlike most other technology companies, design is king and it should stay that
way.

------
phillco
> Name one outsider who’d be accepted both inside the company and on Wall
> Street.

Maybe somebody from Pepsi?

------
kenjackson
One other reason Apple will make Cook the CEO -- it will make the least waves.
No one at Apple will quit if Cook becomes CEO. If Apple were to hire anyone
from the outside I think there's a decent chance that they lose Cook for
starters (Cook can write his own ticket anywhere he wanted).

------
antics
Ok, Gruber's answer is probable, maybe even correct. But what exactly is Jobs
responding to[1] here? Not the ramblings of a tabloid magazine, but the
reporting of a world-class newspaper. And before we band together behind a
blogger it's worth at least considering exactly why (or if) his position is
better.

Where the WSJ seems to have black-box-trusted someone else's expertise, Gruber
seems to depend only on facts that he has a good command of. In other words,
yes, it's easy to side with Gruber here (I know I do), but the problem is that
even if he has actually named the correct successor, in at least one crucial
aspect of the debate, he is still wrong: it is a disservice to the
transformation Apple will have to undergo to simply _name_ the CEO. Who's next
is an important fact, but it is not the most important fact.

One thing to notice here is that Apple is a huge and complicated machine, and
from the perspective of the CEO who knows all of this, it must seem absolutely
precious that people like Gruber, and organizations like the WSJ believe they
have a firm grasp on what's going on internally. In a lot of ways, this seems
to have inspired the "Hogwash" comment, and on a darker note, it suggests
something about the discussion as a whole: that the important bits, the
descriptive and interesting bits, the more useful bits, lie in a discussion
about what Apple should decide to be post-Jobs. What goals are realistic? What
can and can't it be?

The work here is paving the way for who's next, and ensuring that there are
clear objectives. _THIS_ is the discussion worth having; points about who the
next CEO are subsidiary, and only useful insofar as they give us information
about these important questions.

[1] Particularly with his "Hogwash" comment.

~~~
megablast
Why do you imagine that the WSJ writer or Gruber feel that they have a firm
grasp on the matters? They are just speculating, nobody is calling it here. As
much fun as it is to deride these articles, you seem to be missing the point.

------
wallflower
To better understand the role of Steve Jobs, I recommend reading this
excellent article from Technologizer (that got buried on HN as some good
submissions do) about Edwin Land of Polaroid and the innovative product of the
time, the SX-70.

"Edwin Land was brilliant, prescient, prickly, and demanding, and hounded his
employees into doing great things they might never have accomplished
otherwise. That sounds like Steve Jobs. Land described photography as “the
intersection of science and art.”

Jobs likes to cite Land’s quote and says that Apple’s work sits “at the
intersection of the liberal arts and technology,” a location which is surely
in the same neighborhood. Land demoed new Polaroid products himself at
corporate events that were famous for their hypnotic effect. Jobs carries on
the tradition.

And both Land and Jobs were forced out of the companies they founded, in two
of the more preposterous decisions in business history."

<http://technologizer.com/2011/06/08/polaroid/>

------
mojuba
I think a bigger problem is that there is still no competition to Apple in the
market in terms of design and the drive.

Dell, Samsung and others could have learned something already but amazingly
they keep manufacturing crappy hardware locked to crappy software, probably
just a tiny bit better than before the MBP era, but overall their approach and
philosophy hasn't changed.

Sony looks good compared to them, but unfortunately it's too expensive (you'd
rather buy a Mac for that money, wouldn't you?) plus Sony has never been a
company that designs stuff with users in mind. Their hardware can be solid
looking but there is usually nothing new or exceptionally well executed for
the user.

Now that's the saddest part of the story for me, rather than when and who will
replace Steve Jobs.

------
michaelpinto
I hate all of this talk because it's disrespectful to the man who has given
his all and is very much present (and a man who certainly reads the Wall
Street Journal). It's interesting to note that prior to this meme of "who an
replace Jobs" the #1 meme was always "when is Apple going to die?" For my
money on both accounts you'd be foolish to write off Steve Jobs until the fat
lady sings.

The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs on "medical leave" is doing a much
better job of managing Apple than quite a few other tech companies where the
CEO shows up each day and is in perfect health.

------
chalst
Gruber makes a good point about the likelihood of a successor coming from
within Apple, but the following seems paranoid to me:

> _I can’t see how a speculative and sketchily-sourced story such as this,
> published 30 minutes before Apple announced overwhelmingly positive
> financial results, was not intended to dampen, to some degree, the positive
> effect of those results on Apple’s stock._

What interest does the WSJ have in manipulating Apple stock? This is
effectively what Gruber claims.

~~~
KuraFire
The WSJ doesn’t, but they like scoops because scoops draw traffic and thus, ad
revenues. And lots of competitors have an interest in manipulating Apple
stock, and they also know that a publisher like the WSJ likes scoops.

~~~
blinkingled
Interesting that it doesn't get brought up when the manipulating "story" is
all pro-AAPL unicorns and panacea.

~~~
mbrubeck
Actually it does get brought up regularly. A lot of articles were written last
year about how Apple itself fed stories to the Wall Street Journal, for
example:
[http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...](http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_controlled_leaks/)

~~~
blinkingled
What do Controlled Leaks have anything to do with alleged willful downward
stock manipulation attempt by WSJ using a story which was later refuted by
Jobs?

------
evo_9
Jonathan Ive - He's creative and brilliant similar to Jobs. Apple needs an
unconventional leader - Tim Cook is too convetional to lead and inspire from
the top.

------
blinkingled
"Put another way, the obvious structure for a post-Jobs Apple is simply Apple
as we know it, without Steve Jobs."

Steve Jobs is as unique as it gets and if that wasn't already obvious - the
one line summation was more than enough to express everything written in
preceding lines. "Proving" other people as not being Steve Jobs was optional.

Although it remains to be seen how much of Apple as we know it remains after
Jobs (things may warrant a change who knows).

------
IdeaHamster
Speculation on Steve Jobs' successor strikes me as, well, pointless. The
dynamic that drives Apple today is very much the same dynamic that drove it at
the start: Woz and Jobs. We saw, in the late 80s and early to mid 90s what
happens when the "Jobs" half of that dynamic is not there. The "Woz" dynamic,
however, has had a good line of succession to cary it forward the entire time.
Looking forward, it seems pretty clear that with a few more years of grooming
and practice on stage that Scott Forestall will replace Jobs and keep that
part of the company moving forward. Astute observers, however, would also be
focusing on Federighi. It seems less clear to me that he will be able to carry
on Woz's legacy...but I could be wrong.

Apple with Jobs, but without Woz, is just an empty suit...a really, really
well hand tailored $6000 fine Italian 3-piece suit...but still just a suit

~~~
philwelch
Woz's lineage is in the overall engineering talent. Woz himself was no longer
a major part of the company by the time the Mac was designed. Guys like Bud
Tribble, Andy Hertzfeld, and Bill Atkinson were three of Woz's (many)
successors already. It's not down to any individual exec to carry on Woz's
legacy, because Woz was never an executive, not even an engineering executive.
He only wanted to be an engineer. There are thousands of successors to Woz,
and perhaps not a single successor to Jobs in the whole company.

~~~
rbanffy
> There are thousands of successors to Woz

That alone means a lot of authority. Woz embodies half of Apple's soul - the
brilliantly unique hardware. It's true his half has been taken care by his
successors, but it's still his half, although I suspect the PC-ness of current
Macs would be offensive to him and he being on board would be our only chance
of seeing an elegant x86-based computer, ever.

That said, he wouldn't probably be a good CEO. But he could be brought on
board as an advisor. Apple has grown into a vastly different company since the
Apple II days, but there is nobody else who can personify what Apple is all
about.

Interestingly enough, every interview I see with him is mostly Apple-centric.
Although he doesn't work there for about 24 years, this shows how closely
associated with Apple he is in the eyes of the public.

~~~
schrototo
> I suspect the PC-ness of current Macs would be offensive to him and he being
> on board would be our only chance of seeing an elegant x86-based computer,
> ever.

In what ways do you find the iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook Air et al. to be
inelegant or PC-like?

~~~
rbanffy
Every x86 box has, unless I am very wrong, an ISA bus buried somewhere in the
chipset. Deep down there, you may find a functionally complete IBM 5150 PC. I
wouldn't be surprised if, somehow, you could trick the video hardware into
emulating a CGA (or an MDA text mode).

If you ever had the chance, take a look into the schematics of a 5150 and
compare how clumsy, inefficient and plain inelegant it is when compared to a
years-older Apple II. Then you will fully understand why I hold x86-computers
in such low esteem.

And yes, I am typing this on a x86 laptop. I'd love to have an option.

~~~
philwelch
It's no secret that x86 is an inelegant architecture. There was no shortage of
RISC CPU architectures in the 90's designed to dethrone x86. Windows NT was
even written to run on two of them (DEC Alpha and PowerPC). Apple and IBM
carried this experiment forward the longest, but it didn't work out that way.

~~~
rbanffy
No it didn't because economies of scale took their toll. Still, it would be
possible to build an elegant Mac around an x86 processor, but Apple would have
to design and manufacture their own chipset. Nothing would make the CPU
elegant, but, at least, the rest of the computer wouldn't be this mess.

But then Macs wouldn't be able to boot Windows. When that becomes irrelevant,
we may see change.

Minor nitpick: Windows NT has been ported to MIPS, PPC, Alpha and Itanium, and
was originally developed for the Intel 860 (though that version was never
sold). Legend says there were Intergraph Clipper and SPARC ports too. If
Microsoft pulls off the ARM release of Windows 8, that will be one more
architecture with a Windows NT port.

------
mlinsey
I agree with Gruber's analysis, but one part that worries me is the idea of
having each SVP accountable for product decisions for their own area. I think
that so much of Apple's advantages stem from hardware and software that are
designed with each other in mind, that it would be much better to have a
single person be SVP Product Design under Cook, so that there was always
someone responsible for the entire cohesive user experience. Unfortunately,
choosing such a person for this role among the three product SVP's that Gruber
names is itself a very difficult political problem, and any choice could
result in other talent leaving.

------
cpeterso
In Daniel "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons' book _Options: The Secret Life of Steve
Jobs_ , the real Steve hires a stand-in so he can finally take some time off.
Are we sure this hasn't _already_ happened? :)

------
jayfuerstenberg
What's most important is what Steve Jobs has taught us.

If you have a relentless drive and a vision to make products better people
will flock to you. It doesn't happen overnight but it does happen.

The next CEO will or won't embrace Steve Jobs' vision and the company's
success will reflect that. It's inevitable, but the lesson has been learned
and can be applied again and again by anybody who cares to.

------
statictype
_Beloved within Apple, but he’s been out of the game for decades, and, let’s
face it, is a bit of a flake._

What makes him a flake?

~~~
emehrkay
I would assume that he called him a flake because Woz openly praises "the
competition."

~~~
technoslut
Flake may be too strong of a word but Woz is a little odd. It's not that he
praises the competition but that he doesn't seem to be aware of the potential
media storm that follows it. He also mentions that he only carries hundreds
and advertises his whereabouts on Twitter. Then there is the painful
appearance on Dancing with the Stars. It just wouldn't be the way a potential
CEO would act.

~~~
statictype
I agree that neither would he be interested nor would he fit the role of CEO.
But I don't see how he's a flake. The guy is brilliant and is an important
reason why Apple ever got off the ground in the first place.

------
mw63214
even though I'm anti-Apple, I've always thought James Dyson would be a perfect
fit, along with his company. Apple -> Dyson -> Sensor Network -> Internet of
Things(with some design love)

------
panabee
some of these choices are designed to be provocative, not necessarily
legitimate. "built to last," the wonderfully insightful book on technology
entrepreneurship by jim collins, contains interesting analysis about the
difficulties in replacing a charismatic, controlling founder like jobs.
suffice to say, the odds are against apple. but so they were in 1998.
[http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-
Essent...](http://www.amazon.com/Built-Last-Successful-Visionary-
Essentials/dp/0060516402)

------
Raphael
Let Apple figure it out.

------
avjinder
Jack Dorsey would be a good candidate for Apple CEO but I cannot imagine how
he's going to handle three rapidly growing companies. He is the CEO of Square
and the Chief of Product Design at Twitter and according to a recent
interview, he mentions that he works 18 hours a day managing the two
companies. Though Jack Dorsey is a good fit for Apple, he will never be CEO of
Apple.

------
donnaware
I think I would be perfect for the job. he he, but seriously, they should look
the the startup world, that is the only way to match the creativity of the
jobster.

------
anactofgod
As usual, Gruber is right.

And, the Wall Street Journal turned into the Yellow Journal years ago. I
wouldn't wipe a parrot's ass with it, let alone lend any credence to what's
printed in it.

------
wallflower
Just to throw it out there, Mark Zuckerberg could be a candidate if Apple ever
acquired Facebook.

~~~
cageface
Zuckerberg would be a terrible choice for a lot of pretty obvious reasons.

------
spage
Ashton Kutcher would be a near-perfect replacement for Steve Jobs. I'm not a
fan of either, just sounds right to me.

------
mrshoe
Apple needs someone who has wired their mind to think just like Steve Jobs.
Someone who is able to rationally explain all of the decisions made at Apple,
even the ones that look downright crazy to most outsiders. Someone who has
spent the last 10 years trying to make themselves one with the Apple brain
trust so that they can accurately predict Apple's future game plan. Someone
who has immense support from Apple employees and customers alike.

It's obvious why Gruber omitted this, but you know it crossed his mind, and
I'm surprised no one here on HN has mentioned it: Apple should hire John
Gruber to replace Steve Jobs as CEO.

~~~
thaumaturgy
It takes more than a popular blog to be a CEO.

------
hluska
Sorry to be this thread's grammar troll, but I would be very happy if OP (and
the person who wrote this article) would edit the title to read:

On Seceding Steve Jobs

Succeeding means something totally different than seceding!

That bit of ugliness aside, I agree with the basic premise of this article. It
would be tremendously risky for the board to bring in an outsider, and when
you consider the structure of Apple's management, Tim Cook is the only
reasonable choice to secede Jobs. However, Mr. Cook will have his work cut out
for him as Jobs has an iconic stature, both within his company, on Wall Street
and throughout the technology community.

However, on a strictly personal note, I feel sorry for whoever does eventually
replace Mr. Jobs. There will inevitably be a few years when every time the new
CEO makes an error, someone (either within the company, on Wall Street or
within the media) will say, "If Steve Jobs were around this would never have
happened."

In that regard, getting Steve Wozniak to firmly and publicly support the new
CEO will be a major factor in his/her success.

~~~
wrs
Sorry, no. Those verbs are indeed totally different, and you have them
backwards.

