With the well publicised news that Apple Inc. icon and CEO Steve Jobs is taking an indefinite hiatus from his role as head of the world’s most valuable technology company, it has been interesting to observe the varying reactions to his rather prompt departure.
It of course comes as no surprise that Jobs, who underwent a liver transplant in 2009 during a similar six month absence, has decided to take some time to focus on his own health. In 2004 Jobs divulged to Apple employees that he had been diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer, though a rare less aggressive It was commented numerously after Apple Worldwide Developers conferences in 2008 that the San Francisco born businessman was looking considerably leaner than usual. I don’t want to focus too much upon the health of someone who despite his international status is a human being first and a business mogul second; more important is the effect Jobs’ absence may have upon the company, with numerous questions now being thrown around about the leadership of Apple: will a single individual step into the shoes of Jobs on a temporary basis; can the likes of Jonathan Ive or Tim Cook come together and consolidate successfully; will there be any kind of boardroom bust ups if control is levelled upon a group of senior employees rather than one person; what kind of influence, if any, will Steve Jobs have on product development and the overriding direction Apple expansion over the next year, two years or however long?
The announcement of Jobs’ leave of absence is thought to be very strategic, with shareholders having ridden a wave over the past year and share prices at an all time high; the day of the announcement itself was also an American national holiday meaning that investors had more time to let the news be absorbed. As suspected though when trading reopened in New York shares were down more than 5pc on the NASDAQ.
Despite this initial fall, it is widely believed that if financiers can ignore those itchy feet for long enough the company will not only recover, but bounce back with significant gains. Just as in 2009 when Jobs had to leave Apple to undergo the aforementioned surgery stocks suffered a similar reactionary downturn before a substantial recovery. Also just as in 2009, the year of the update and the relaunch, 2011 is set to see a continuous stream of product revisions and upgrades; we already know about the Verizon iPhone and spectators are eagerly anticipating the iPad 2 and the iPhone 5 to be unveiled and there will undoubtedly be some Mac desktop and notebook . With the strategy of so many big businesses today being ‘plan ahead’ it would be unsurprising if the iPhone 6 and 7 were already well under way in the development stage.
As we might all suspect I think that Apple will do just fine without Jobs for the foreseeable future, but in the long term the loss of his personality and methodology will no doubt be a big blow to the company. Jobs has something about him that even a comparative corporate figurehead such as Bill Gates lacks, an unconventionalism that just seems to work so that when the torch is finally past, it won’t be like Steve Ballmer’s succession at Microsoft, but something a little more poignant. What this indicates is the unique status and authority of the industrial celebrity, how one person’s prominence can so considerably define a multinational corporation employing thousands.
Whether or not Tim Cook or Jonathan Ive share this ‘star power’ is debatable, but in the meantime I have no doubt that Apple can continue to succeed without Steve Jobs at the helm, and as the man himself has already outlined, I’m sure wherever he is and whatever his health may be, he will still have a very real impact upon the overall evolution of his brainchild.