This news is fueling the always simmering rumors of Jobs' health problems. I don't think that is the issue though. This event costs Apple tons of money, and worse, it locks them into a particular expectations cycle with regards to Wall St. (the expectation being mind blowing new product announcements every January just after Christmas.) And while the free publicity was nice, Apple might well think they can still generate that with events produced at Apple (and by Apple) on a schedule more of their choosing. That would fit with their corporate style of being control freaks.
So while I don't really care, and I certainly never went to one myself, there is still something sort of sad in an "end of an era" way. To my mind Apple is going through a big psychological transition now (starting earlier this year or so) from the cool scrappy upstart (think: the pirate flag hanging over the original offices of the Mac group, or the 1984 commercial attacking IBM,) into a state of the art money making machine (and finally Wall St. darling whatever that's worth these days.) MacWorld Expo was sort of the Burning Man of the Mac community, and Apple just isn't doing anything these days to support that sort of feeling associated with it's products (that's going a little too far, but maybe you get the idea.) Not quite as fun for someone like me (an interested watcher,) but I can see why they are pivoting a bit from a business perspective.
Daring Fireball has a bunch of links to responses and speculation from bloggers and the press.
makes sence to me
This event costs Apple tons of money, and worse, it locks them into a particular expectations cycle with regards to Wall St. (the expectation being mind blowing new product announcements every January just after Christmas.) And while the free publicity was nice, Apple might well think they can still generate that with events produced at Apple (and by Apple) on a schedule more of their choosing. That would fit with their corporate style of being control freaks.
aapl down almost 7% on the news. I suppose this is from the "Jobs is going to die!" line of thought. This sort of confirms my suspicion that if Jobs ever did have to leave Apple the stock would get crushed since it's conventional wisdom that Apple is successful mainly through some supernatural powers of persuasion that Jobs' wields - dubbed RDF, the Reality Distortion Field. And while I buy that is a big part of why Apple has gotten to where they are, I just don't think it's so important going forward. They needed a visionary to get here, but at some point the visionary tyrant (and by all accounts Jobs is a super tyrant,) can get in the way of the money making. Someone like Phil Schiller might be a fine successor even though he lacks the spark in terms of personality. Getting a big ego out of the way might allow Apple to work better with the other big guys (telecoms, RIAA, MPAA) that they need to work with.
This thinking deflates my enthusiasm for sure, but if I was an investor I would definitely watch for a huge dip whenever the eventual succession takes place. And I guess the more unexpected the timing, the bigger the dip. And like they say, "buy low, sell high."
agree, most bizz's that size can move on and even up w/o the founder/vision chief....than again some can die
Vision is highly underrated by some folks in high tech management. That may not be an issue with Apple, but I've seen it up close and personal in several companies. It can be done w/o a visionary in chief, but it has to be valued all the way up the chain.
This news is fueling the always simmering rumors of Jobs' health problems. I don't think that is the issue though. This event costs Apple tons of money, and worse, it locks them into a particular expectations cycle with regards to Wall St. (the expectation being mind blowing new product announcements every January just after Christmas.) And while the free publicity was nice, Apple might well think they can still generate that with events produced at Apple (and by Apple) on a schedule more of their choosing. That would fit with their corporate style of being control freaks.
So while I don't really care, and I certainly never went to one myself, there is still something sort of sad in an "end of an era" way. To my mind Apple is going through a big psychological transition now (starting earlier this year or so) from the cool scrappy upstart (think: the pirate flag hanging over the original offices of the Mac group, or the 1984 commercial attacking IBM,) into a state of the art money making machine (and finally Wall St. darling whatever that's worth these days.) MacWorld Expo was sort of the Burning Man of the Mac community, and Apple just isn't doing anything these days to support that sort of feeling associated with it's products (that's going a little too far, but maybe you get the idea.) Not quite as fun for someone like me (an interested watcher,) but I can see why they are pivoting a bit from a business perspective.
Daring Fireball has a bunch of links to responses and speculation from bloggers and the press.
- jim 12-17-2008 3:57 pm
makes sence to me
This event costs Apple tons of money, and worse, it locks them into a particular expectations cycle with regards to Wall St. (the expectation being mind blowing new product announcements every January just after Christmas.) And while the free publicity was nice, Apple might well think they can still generate that with events produced at Apple (and by Apple) on a schedule more of their choosing. That would fit with their corporate style of being control freaks.
- Skinny 12-17-2008 4:11 pm
aapl down almost 7% on the news. I suppose this is from the "Jobs is going to die!" line of thought. This sort of confirms my suspicion that if Jobs ever did have to leave Apple the stock would get crushed since it's conventional wisdom that Apple is successful mainly through some supernatural powers of persuasion that Jobs' wields - dubbed RDF, the Reality Distortion Field. And while I buy that is a big part of why Apple has gotten to where they are, I just don't think it's so important going forward. They needed a visionary to get here, but at some point the visionary tyrant (and by all accounts Jobs is a super tyrant,) can get in the way of the money making. Someone like Phil Schiller might be a fine successor even though he lacks the spark in terms of personality. Getting a big ego out of the way might allow Apple to work better with the other big guys (telecoms, RIAA, MPAA) that they need to work with.
This thinking deflates my enthusiasm for sure, but if I was an investor I would definitely watch for a huge dip whenever the eventual succession takes place. And I guess the more unexpected the timing, the bigger the dip. And like they say, "buy low, sell high."
- jim 12-17-2008 4:15 pm
agree, most bizz's that size can move on and even up w/o the founder/vision chief....than again some can die
- Skinny 12-17-2008 4:27 pm
Vision is highly underrated by some folks in high tech management. That may not be an issue with Apple, but I've seen it up close and personal in several companies. It can be done w/o a visionary in chief, but it has to be valued all the way up the chain.
- mark 12-24-2008 4:00 am