Speaking at the firm’s annual shareholder meeting, Apple COO Tim Cook addressed the company’s new data centers, worker mistreatment in China and Apple’s success thus far in that market. Shareholders also rejected a resolution requiring the board to disclose a detailed succession plan.

Cook led the shareholder meeting, stepping in for CEO Steve Jobs in that capacity. Cook fielded questions at the close of the meeting (via CNBC), during which time he addressed Apple’s new North Carolina data center, which will be fully operational this spring. He added that it’s intended to support MobileMe and iTunes, which could mean that rumors of an impending revamp of Apple’s cloud-syncing service are accurate, and that Apple might indeed be intending to offer the service free to all owners of its devices, as the Wall Street Journal had previously reported. At the time, the WSJ also reported MobileMe would become a cloud-based “locker” of photos, audio and video, which would also explain the need for a massive new data center.

That he mentioned iTunes also suggests Apple could be looking to significantly expand its streaming services. Apple currently offers streaming video content for Apple TV users, but the added capacity provided by the new, huge NC facility could easily accommodate the long-rumored iTunes streaming subscription service.

Cook also deflected a question about recent allegations of worker mistreatment at supplier factories in China, saying if it hadn’t been reported on ESPN or CNBC, he hadn’t seen it. He went on to talk about Apple’s efforts to improve health and safety standards among its suppliers.

As for the meeting itself, it saw the defeat of a shareholder proposal that Apple prepare a detailed succession plan. I argued that such a plan would be a bad idea in an earlier piece, and it seems Apple’s shareholders agreed, since the proposal appears to have been defeated according to a preliminary count of votes made by proxy prior to the meeting. Votes made at the meeting still have to be tabulated, but the results of the initial count almost always win out.

In addition to the succession planning vote, there was one other shareholder proposal voted on at the meeting. It allows shareholders to prevent the election of board directors who run without opposition from being acclaimed by withholding their votes. Surprisingly, since it was opposed by Apple and generally expected not to succeed, this second motion passed the preliminary vote.

A vote to approve Apple’s existing board members also passed, with all seven members remaining intact, including Steve Jobs. Apple’s other board members are William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Albert Gore, Andrea Jung, Arthur Levinson and Ronald Sugar.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• 5 Companies That Ruled Mobile in 2010
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies to Watch in 2011
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies That Ruled 2010

The ISS’ statement, included on a proposal to be voted on at Apple’s general company meeting on Feb. 23, reads as follows:

ISS believes that shareholders would benefit by having a report on the company’s succession plans disclosed annually. Such a report would enable shareholders to judge the board on its readiness and willingness to meet the demands of succession planning based on the circumstances at that time.

It sounds like a fair and reasonable request, but that’s what it’s clearly carefully designed to sound like. If you look at what shareholders are really asking for, stripped of well-chosen wording, it becomes much less easy to swallow, for Apple’s corporate management, and hopefully, for Apple shareholders, too.

Basically, by revealing its plans for succession in firm detail, Apple is endangering the amazing depth of bench it currently enjoys. We reported on that depth in a piece last month detailing the current succession picture at Apple. It’s easy to see why the company would like to keep its plan for who’s in line for the top spot under wraps. Keeping that caliber of talent from looking toward greener pastures is no easy task, and the promise of one day reaching the top spot is one of the few things that can prevent ambitious eyes from wandering. Take that away and you could see the players furthest down on the chart taking flight. Not to mention it basically advertises top talent to competitors, making head hunting easier.

HR concerns aside, a public plan of succession at a major corporation is hardly standard practice. As reported by Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski this morning, only 35 percent of companies even have a succession plan at all, let alone a public one, and Apple is among them. Steve Jobs may carry more weight than the CEOs of other companies, but that’s no reason to go demanding a peek behind the curtain.

A 2010 survey on CEO succession planning conducted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business found that generally speaking, medium and large cap companies spend very little time on succession planning. On average, boards of directors spend about two hours a year on plans for CEO succession, and only 50 percent even have a document detailing what they’d be looking for in a successor. Sixty-five percent of firms haven’t even asked their internal candidates whether they want the job or not, and only 54 percent are doing any grooming of succession candidates. Simply put, succession planning isn’t generally a priority at most companies.

Apple’s shareholders are clearly more nervous than those of most other companies about what will happen to the company once current CEO Jobs is gone, but they shouldn’t be. More than any other company it its space, Apple has demonstrated its ability to succeed in the short-term while always planning for the long haul. The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad and the App Store are all prime examples of Apple anticipating the curve and taking advantage in a way that left its competitors scrambling to catch up. A much more specific and fresh example is Apple’s stance regarding e-books and in-app subscriptions. In both cases, it created a perfect honey trap for content providers, initially offering free platform access while quietly laying the groundwork for staking a claim on publisher and distributor profits down the road. It’s the kind of five-steps-ahead thinking that no one else in the consumer electronics space can compete with, and it’s an integral part of Apple’s culture, so there’s no way it applies only to products and not to internal management processes.

Transparency in the corporate world is generally spoken of as a good thing, but in Apple’s case, that might not be the case. With perfect transparency, there’s no way Apple would’ve achieved the level of success it has today. The cult of secrecy surrounding the company’s product plans is one of the primary reasons media outlets like this one even exist, and why an Apple press event commands the attention it does, while one from Asus or HP barely raises an eyebrow. If shareholders are happy with the company’s performance, they shouldn’t go messing with the formula that enabled its success in the first place.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• 5 Companies That Ruled Mobile in 2010
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies to Watch in 2011
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies That Ruled 2010

That the question is even asked at all is a testament to Jobs. Since his return to Apple in 1996, the 55-year old co-founder of the company has led it with a sense of purpose and focus of direction rarely seen among multi-billion dollar, publicly held corporations. Under Jobs, the iPod became for MP3 players what Kleenex is for facial tissue; the iPhone started a consumer rush on what was once a market relegated mostly to business users; and the iPad beat all expectations and single-handedly brought tablet computing mainstream. It’s Jobs’ extreme degree of control that accounts for much of Apple’s success, but might it not also lead, ultimately, to failure?

The problem with extreme authority is that once it’s removed, chaos often ensues. Even if someone else steps up to fill the power vacuum, that person won’t be Steve Jobs, no matter what other qualifications he or she brings to the table. And without Steve Jobs, in the minds of loyal followers, the general public, stockholders, and maybe even Apple employees, Apple just isn’t Apple.

At least, it isn’t the Apple we now know. But does it necessarily follow that an Apple without Jobs will be a failure? That’s a much more extreme claim, and one that ignores a number of very important factors. The first is history. Remember that we’ve been here before; from January to June of 2009, Jobs took his first medical leave, which turned out to be for a liver transplant. During that time, Apple COO Tim Cook stepped in as interim CEO. After an initial dip following the announcement of Jobs’ leave (like the one we’re seeing today, as Mathew reports), Apple stock prices rose steadily during that time, peaking at around $145 at end of Cook’s tenure, even amid rampant speculation that Jobs’ absence may become permanent. Apple was so impressed with Cook’s performance that the company gave him a $22 million bonus.

Cook isn’t exactly the only luminary in Apple’s talent pool, either. There’s top product designer Jonathan Ive, whose signature look has made Apple products the go-to gadgets for the fashion conscious and image-obsessed. And there’s Senior VP of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller, who came to Apple with Steve upon his return, and who has played a significant role in past company presentations. Schiller is now also arguably Apple’s most prominent social media presence through his Twitter account.

None of these potential successors have the celebrity status that Steve Jobs enjoys, but there’s no reason they should as of yet, since that role’s been more than adequately filled by Jobs himself until now. And while a celebrity CEO has been a major boon for Apple in the past, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the company will flounder without one. To suggest so is to ignore the hard work and resourcefulness of the Apple employees that turn Jobs’ vision into a reality. In fact, according to some Apple employees who spoke to us, you often have to work around Jobs subtly on issues where he’s very clearly in the wrong. Having a more reticent corporate leadership could allow dissenting opinions to surface, leading to products that would otherwise come to market late or not at all (a 7-inch iPad, for instance).

While Jobs’ current leave comes as a surprise to us in the media, there’s little chance it was something Apple isn’t prepared for as a company. Steve Jobs may be largely responsible for Apple’s success, but he won’t also be responsible for its failure. That has, and always will be dependent on the quality of the products it creates, and on the resourcefulness and ingenuity of the thousands of employees that work every day to make those products a reality.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• 5 Companies That Ruled Mobile in 2010
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies to Watch in 2011
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies That Ruled 2010

Blogger Om Malik could never have predicted he’d have a heart attack at the age of 41. But he did foresee one thing clearly: He would never build a business on a single blog so closely identified with one author.

(Found|READ is one of GigaOM’s newer sites, launched last March. The others include WebWorkerDaily, NewTeeVee and Earth2Tech.)

We think Owen is a tad too critical of other bloggers whom he deems less expansionary than our own leader, but he raises an important issue that even young founders need to consider — it’s a spin on the age-old “Succession Question.”

We all like to think we’re invincible, or irreplaceable. The truth is that none of us is. And in fact, as founders surely now, we all need help to make our businesses fly — none of us is an island.

If your aim is to build a sustainable company (recall our ‘Rich or King?’ question), you really must have a succession plan in mind, if not in place. At the least, you need a backup plan, in case something unexpected takes you out of the game temporarily. It needn’t be a life threatening event, either — all kinds of nondramatic things could take you away from your business for a period of time.

‘Success is where opportunity meets the prepared mind.’ And so this prompts our…

Question of the Day:
Do you have a backup plan in place? Or, are you managing your startup as if you are an island?

If you’re not sure, ask yourself questions like these:

* Do you have more than one great engineer?
* If you’re outsourcing, do you have more than one vendor you trust?
* Do you have more than one person who is a great at selling?
* Do you have more than one person who is familiar with your billing and the ins and outs of your HR?
* Is there someone on your team who could step in an take your position at your next board meeting, and maintain the the confidence of your directors?

If you’ve answered NO to any of these, your operation looks more like an Island, than a Village.

Consider this your opportunity to re-strategize with the Village Template in mind. Trust us, some day you will need someone — perhaps many people — to step in for you and carry the ball. We all do.

What is your backup plan? Please send us your suggestions for ways founders, of even small operations, can make their businesses function more like a Village and less like an Island.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012
• Defining work in the digital age: an analysis by GigaOM Pro
• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013