No One Questioned Microsoft’s Viability When Gates Left…
by John Paczkowski
Posted on January 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM PT
What Apple might do if CEO Steve Jobs does not return from his medical leave of absence and how the company would fare without him have been the subject of much jawing this past week. And not without good reason. Wednesday’s announcement was certainly a stunner–one that shook Apple investors to the core of their timid little hearts.
Apple (AAPL) has portrayed itself over the past decade as a company gloriously resurrected by a single man. And now that that man is ailing, the company is paying the price. But the fact of the matter is that Apple has never, EVER, been in a stronger position that it is currently. And while it will always be better off with Jobs as its leader, his absence doesn’t suddenly make it as if the iPhone or the iPod or the Mac never happened.
Someday, someone will take over for Jobs–the company OBVIOUSLY has a succession plan; it’s just not willing to share it at this point– and while there be a major upheaval in Apple’s share price, there won’t be one in its operations or performance. Certainly, that’s the opinion of many of the analysts who cover the company.
“A lot of people think Jobs is responsible for every single decision made at Apple,” says Gartner analyst Van Baker. “The reality is that’s not true. Just go down the executive line. He’s got a very competent team there.”
J.P. Morgan Securities’ Mark Moskowitz agrees:
“In our view,” Moskowitz said in a recent research note, “[Apple COO Tim] Cook and the other members of the Apple management suite have played a critical role in monetizing the vision and mandates of Mr. Jobs in recent years. Here, we do not expect any changes during this difficult period, and we expect the R&D pipeline to remain robust.”
As does Pacific Crest Securities analyst Andy Hargreaves:
“You’re getting a company that is a leader in smartphones, that has been gaining share in the PC market and probably continues to do so,” says Hargreaves. “It’s dominant in digital media and has a very talented management team regardless of whether Steve Jobs is there or not.”
And Kaufman Brothers analyst Shaw Wu as well.
“The fact of the matter is that Apple has become an institution, a culture, that transcends more than one individual,” Wu told Reuters. “… If you look at Apple’s growth prospects compared to a lot of these other companies, it’s arguably the most promising….The fundamentals haven’t really changed. Apple still has big competitive advantages. We think a lot of the innovation, a lot of his style, his thinking, a lot of that has been ingrained into the company’s DNA.”
You’d think that after all these years, that’d be the case. Just as it has been the case at other iconic companies. When Bill Gates ceased his day-to-day involvement at Microsoft (MSFT), the company didn’t suddenly grind to a screeching halt.
No one questioned the company’s continued viability either.
Comments
ErixClix got a jump on this very topic with a great article called “Contrast In Corporate Leadership.” http://www.erixclix.com/2008/0.....eadership/
Posted by Eric Goodman at January 16th, 2009 at 11:48 amNo one had those questions when Gates left because Microsoft is now just all about leveraging an existing technology and customer base to make money. Microsoft’s business model has an infrastructure that as long as you take care of, the money will keep coming out.
Apple on the other hand is competing in brand new hotly contest markets like the iPhone. Their business is based on having the vision to create better products and keep innovating. A much tougher task and tasks we know Jobs is good at wringing out of his company. We don’t know how good his successors will be at this without him.
Posted by Levander Thomas at January 16th, 2009 at 12:33 pmYour missing the point. Perception in marketing equals reality. Sure Steve is not the person behind every Apple product but people believe he is. In his absence the perceived value of the product will flounder hence losing real value.
Posted by Andrew Clarke at January 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pmNo, I covered that point in the last sentence of my last comment.
How can you possibly know how instrumental Steve was in making these decisions? Even if it’s just a question of whether or not Apple will enter a market or not? Apple is only selling a few different types of hardware devices while the temptation to delve into more has got to be there. Jobs has made comments publicly about having intentionally decided not to enter markets. We have no idea if without Jobs, Apple will start entering markets they don’t belong in hurting their performance. I’ve seen several stories come out of Apple over the last five years about how it was Jobs that kept telling a group they had to go back and make their product better.
We just don’t know how much of an influence Jobs is over this stuff.
The comparison to Microsoft has no bearing whatsoever. Microsoft has a much easier task to keep being successful than Apple does.
Posted by Levander Thomas at January 16th, 2009 at 8:14 pmThis is a non-issue except to technology bloggers and others who have nothing better to do.
Do you really thing that 1 of 25,000 people leaving Apple will create a problem for Apple?
No. And investors or stock brokers who believe it will should not be listened to.
Apple has plenty of talent and plenty of vision beyond just Steve. Get real people.
Posted by Joe Allen at January 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pmI guess you could also say that Obama, W Bush, Reagan, et. al, don’t matter. They’re just one person out of 300,000,000.
But, who the president is is probably only of concern to people who have nothing better to do.
Posted by Levander Thomas at January 18th, 2009 at 2:03 amI’m not sure if Microsoft has been hurt more by Gates leaving or the fact that it created Vista, which hasn’t worked out too well.
Posted by Ken Okel at January 18th, 2009 at 6:39 pm