1 Comment

Summary:

Nine days ago, Steve Jobs explained his decision not to appear at Macworld by going public with a hormone imbalance. Today, he told employe…

Nine days ago, Steve Jobs explained his decision not to appear at Macworld by going public with a hormone imbalance. Today, he told employees, shareholders and the public that he will take a five-month leave of absence to deal with his condition, which he called more “complex” than originally thought. Given that Steve Jobs’ name is synonymous with Apple (NSDQ: AAPL), strong opinions about his temporary departure abound. Just a few examples:

Apple can live on without Steve Jobs: Robert Scoble: “It

  1. It's nice to see pieces talk about possible successors for Jobs, instead of merely repeating unoriginal speculations as to Jobs' health.

    Yes, Jobs has been great for Apple, but all the focus on Jobs obscures the fact that he has worked with and been supported by a number of other competent people within the company. Who's to say that much of Apple's success could have come about Without their help?

    Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor') did a post back in July on his branding blog – http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv – asserting that Apple and Jobs are two separate brands. Tantillo argues that Jobs should have a succession plan. I don't necessarily agree, but I do think he makes a good point about Jobs and Apple being two separate brands–Apple would be different without Jobs, but different is not always bad.
    http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/24/brand-advisory.aspx

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post