I'm nearly speechless after reading the LA Times article, Apple without Steve Jobs at the helm? Some investors think it's time.
In it, two different investment advisors, Michael Obuchowski, the chief investment
officer for First Empire Asset Management Inc., and Richard Klugman, director of consumer technology for Majestic Research, don't seem to understand much about innovation. They claim that since Apple has done just fine for the past 6 months without Steve at the helm, there's really no reason why he should return. Or, if he does, he should be an innovation advisor to the firm.
It's difficult to know where to start in describing how misguided and ill-informed this advice is. To start with, Steve has been involved with the company throughout this period. He's been on campus occasionally and in contact with all of the senior managers at the company. So, Apple isn't thriving without him at all, though it is in the very capable hands of the company while he doesn't focus on the minutia of day-to-day operations.
Second, the products Apple creates takes a lot longer than six months to conceive, develop, test, and deploy. To think that those launched within the last six months without Steve's involvement is simply ignorant. Most have been in development or over a year and longer. The vast bulk of their innovative development are based on platforms and systems developed long before Steve took a leave of absence.
Furthermore, while some people still think that retirement means a life of leisure, golf, and cruises, for creative people like entrepreneurs, that is probably the quickest way to death. For sure, Steve Jobs needs to focus on his health but innovation work isn't "work" to entrepreneurs--it's the reason they get up in the morning. It's what keeps their minds sharp and off any problems in their lives. I would bet that if Steve Jobs stopped coming into Apple regularly, his health would actually deteriorate--either that or he'd be quickly focused on NeXT 2.0.
Innovation isn't a process to be managed like other business processes. It's not turned-on and off like staffing a factory or call center. Innovation is a way of approaching the world and there are no boundaries to say when you've innovated enough or not. Apple's approach to innovation is also fairly unique. To think that someone could innovate successfully "behind the scenes" as "the person who drives everyone else insane" is exactly why US businesses are in such desperate shape today and find it so difficult to innovate. If innovation isn't supported and understood from the very top of the company it can only be successful by accident. Plus, innovation isn't the "wacky" process most managers and finance-types think it is. It's methodical and relentless and exhilarating and it needs to pervade an organization.
So many companies around the world are trying to develop the "iPod" of their industry in order to duplicate the success Apple has had and they're failing because they think it's something that can be done by anyone who's seen the Nightline video on IDEO and contained and controlled by more "rational" types for calculate ROI and IRR from the safety of their desks. It can't. They only way companies are successful with this approach is when they buy other companies who have innovated with a completely different perspective.
That some investors think that they're investments in Apple are going to continue to grow by handing the reins over to capable managers but in the absence of a visionary innovator with the authority to drive his vision at all levels of the company's operations contradicts exactly how Apple has achieved that growth over the last 10 years. Someday, Apple will have to live without Steve Jobs and, then, it will need to carefully navigate the urges and advice to "settle down" and run itself like everyone else. Until then, if I had investments in First Empire or anyone else who thinks that Apple would be better off right now without Steve Jobs (I don't), I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable keeping my money with them.