MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jun 08, 09 - 09:17 am Comment from: NCIceman

Not a bad idea, but I would rather see the handoff more formally announced. Have a declared transition period. That way, everyone feels safer with the transition.

Jun 08, 09 - 09:31 am Comment from: ron

If the company is solid, and set up correctly, there should be no problems.

Jun 08, 09 - 09:40 am Comment from: breeze

Why do all these anal ists and wannabe writers think that their mediocre perspectives and shallow understandings they can predoct or second guess Apple?

" As CEO, Cook would continue to oversee operations."

Tim Cook is already the Chief Operations Officer.

-jcr

Jun 08, 09 - 09:57 am Comment from: HMCIV

Give Steve a subordinate position? That's a great idea! How'd that go last time?

i totally agree with the writer. this constellation would cease one and for all all further speculation about the succession plan and would keep jobs in his primary role (only with another title) at the company for as long as it takes to end the dark age of computing (aka microsoft).

Jun 08, 09 - 10:51 am Comment from: breeze

Steve Jobs will always lead and call the shots if he's around. That's not to say he would not delegate and relegate operation roles differently.

Apple is growing at a substantial pace and sooner or later the new products will turn into full fledged divisions that will in and of themselves require division leader roles etc...So it's totally expected that tope executive rolls and positions will evolve.

They'd better keep Cook happy, and not lose him. He's as irreplaceable and vital to the company as Jobs.

Boom Boom Boom and watch out here comes the King of Innovation.

Jun 08, 09 - 11:15 am Comment from: breeze

Cook's also a die hard Apple core team member and believer.

Jun 08, 09 - 11:22 am Comment from: Cascadians

They know what they're doing, and they will do it well.

All this anal cyst speculation, all froth.

I just want that Tablet!

Perhaps Jobs' experience with John Sculley in the 1980s would make him reluctant to ever surrender his CEO title?

This is palpable nonsense.

Apple appears poised to make some announcements. Jobs is on track to return. Macs seem likely for receive updates. Snow Leopard seems set for release.

Where does this guy get his amazing powers of foreknowledge?
Had I not read Arik's articles I'd never have figured out that Apple might release its OS or Jobs would return when he said he would.

I would love to be paid big money to restate corporations' press releases.
BusinessWeek, can I have a job?

The short answer is no. I, or any of us here, could probably have run Apple for the last few months. That's not to take anything away from Tim Cook, but most of the past 3-4 months were probably scripted out before SJ left. There have been a lot of products in the pipeline, and other important decisions were made prior to SJ's departure that meant that Apple could have almost been in cruise mode.

It's the long range strategy, including product planning, that trip up average CEOs, and those areas are where SJ shines. Tim Cook might be a fantastic CEO, but basing it on the last few months only is crazy.

If Steve does in fact return at the end of June, I hope he takes on a lesser role. By a lesser role, I mean one which does not tax him as much.

His role should be the creative visionary, whatever Apple wants to call it. Tim Cook can be CEO, or President and COO, or whatever. The titles are a bit irrelevant; everyone knows Cook is running the daily operations and Jobs is directing overall product innovation and direction.

The big issue is that Steve doesn't need to be a traditional CEO and still handle the creative aspects of Apple. It's just too much work and stress when he's having health issues.

Jun 08, 09 - 04:31 pm Comment from: ken1w

Who cares what official titles they hold... Apple needs both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook to be its best. Jobs for innovation and long term strategy. Cook for operational efficiency and day-to-day (short term) management. They are both great leaders.

Jun 08, 09 - 05:30 pm Comment from: Larry

Cook should remain CEO. Jobs will keep doing what he's doing regardless of title, but for investors, having a healthy CEO (Tim Cook) is important. Apple needs a succession plan and letting Cook be the CEO is a seamless transition.

What a nonsense.

Cook is and was COO; he always did the same day-to-date management.

So there is no point of moving positions at Apple.

Of course, if Jobs returns, he definitely will and should keep CEO position since this is the only way to keep thing the way he wants.

Being "public face" has nothing to do with it.

I would suppose this journalist from "Business Week" perfectly understands this; however, he needs money and should write something that would generate page/advertisement views.

Jun 08, 09 - 09:31 pm Comment from: Hg Wells

Amazing how few even discussed Tim Cook before SJ took a break. Things change.

And there would appear to be other personnel power at Apple.

Buy.