The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Ignore this guy. I agree everyone has a right to privacy. But when Jobs devised a plan to make himself and Apple one and the same, when he decided to project the image of the messiah of the Apple cut, he forfeited his right to hide things like this, not from fans, but from stockholders, software developers, and those whose lives are tied to the success of Apple. No man is bigger than Pepsi, no man is bigger than Walmart, no man is bigger than CVS, but Jobs, unfortunately, is as big as Apple. And that, I'm afraid, is by design.

His followers demand to know this information. Not reporting it doesn't make it not news.

↓↑report

oh, nonsense.

Apple is a publicly-traded corporation that has made a huge impact on the technology world. Steve Jobs is its (unusually high-profile) executive, who gets personal credit for a large portion of the company's success. so (1) his health is a direct concern of both shareholders & fans of the company, because for YEARS now we've been led to believe (by sites like TUAW & others) that so much of what makes Apple, well, *Apple* is tied up in this man. & (2) Steve maintains a certain level of "celebrity" based solely on his position & the mystique he purposefully carries around his persona. when you're a celebrity, even your private life becomes a matter of public interest. to think that Steve is not aware of that -- or doesn't accept it -- does him a far greater disservice than speculation about his ability to do his job.

don't get me wrong, it's touching to be concerned about the welfare/feelings of others. but man, what *i'd* like to see cease is exactly the sort of "Guru" crap that you're pulling up here. the man's not a guru, he's a corporate executive. & whether or not he has a viable succession plan in line is so ridiculously important to the future of Apple, i'd feel TUAW to be remiss in *not* bringing up the issue.

↓↑report

So you don't think the executive succession plan of a publicly traded company should be discussed publicly?

And you think that the only reason why Jobs might leave the CEO role is his death, like a king or a mafia boss?

And you think we all worship him like he's the benevolent lord of some attractively designed and user-friendly fiefdom, raining electronic doo-dads down upon his adoring subjects?

A lot of TUAW readers are Apple shareholders. Shareholders have a right to know about and discuss issues that might impact their income. And if there is one thing I've learned, it's completely irresponsible to fail to have and make known a succession plan, from the smallest local company to the biggest multinational.

↓↑report

@Kev orng:
"A lot of TUAW readers are Apple shareholders. Shareholders have a right to know about and discuss issues that might impact their income. "


Are you completely nucking futs?
The amount of TUAW visitors with AAPL stock is less than 1% -- most likely way less than that.

Either way, TUAW is not an outlet for shareholder discussions, unless, of course, the stock in question is that of Weblogs, Inc -- and even then, there are most likely more relevant places to discuss issues.

Unfounded speculation on non-logical choices for the succession is just plain stupid. If Apple were to actually announce something, THAT, on the other hand, would merit discussion.

As it is everyone is just going through the same old pre-MWSF hysteria we're used to, albeit in a "Who's gonna replace sjobs!!?" fashion.
It does nobody a favor, and lowers the constantly sinking TUAW reputation.

↓↑report

@Rylin:

How do you know what percentage of TUAW readers have Apple stock? You certainly never queried me. I'd venture to say you completely pulled that figure out of your butt; you simply made it up, based on nothing at all. Super lame.

42.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.

↓↑report

@ Rylin:

for someone flaming others on a blog with a "constantly sinking reputation," on a post of "unfounded speculation" that "is just plain stupid," i've certainly seen some long-winded discussion from you on here. related to the exact same issues. *cough* http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/05/steves-ok-everyone-relax/ *cough*

your posts become 23.4% less sensible each time, i suppose?

↓↑report

@Adam S: Yep, I pulled the number out of thin air, but I also used a fair bit of reasoning to arrive at the number.

TUAW has an estimated 40000 pageviews per day (alexa), with 2-3 pageviews per visit, on average (various websitecheckers that have been +-10% for sites I've been involved in).
Not everyone visits TUAW every day, but some of us visit several times per day, and the demographic is rather spread out (roughly half the visits come from outside the US).
In other words, 10000 unique visitors per day sounds reasonable, and that would put the number of AAPL holders at 100 people a day.

Where I live (i.e., a rather civilized country with a very high standard of living), less than 1/10 own stock in *any* company (in fact, I know of only five people I hang out with on a yearly basis who do), and none who own stock in AAPL.

Now, I do realize that visitors to this site are somewhat more likely to own stock in AAPL than someone who normally visits e.g. Neowin, but I think you'll find that the vast majority of TUAW visitors don't hold any AAPL.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely.
Am I? Probably, but I doubt I'm off by much.
Feel free to point to data saying otherwise -- I'd genuinely be interested in seeing it and find out where my reasoning went wrong.

@.:
Long-winded discussion?
I see a rather short post, along with clarification on what I meant.
I prefer to give people thought through.

As for TUAW's quality slipping, you'll definitely have noticed others complaining as well if you've noticed /me/ post several times.
That being a minor point, the bigger one is the eventual succession.

Are you seriously saying that the idea of one of Steve's kids being the future CEO of Apple actually holds merit and is worth posting about? Was it just a cheap segue to move things away from the auto industry? What about pointing out that Apple are likely to recruit from within its ranks or bring in someone from the outside (feel free to point out other options).

The post is basically a nice piece of history, and yes, it does ask people to sound off in the comments on what they think.. much like the constant rumor mongering that the Apple community is known for.

While the rumor mongering is fun on occasion, all this doom and gloom is basically saying Steve is dead and buried, with last year's lilies on top of his grave -- it's just not /right/

Stoking the fire is never a good thing (which is what the TUAW articles, Wired speculation, "industry analyst" one-sentence quotes etc. accomplishes) -- especially in troubled times.

If anything, people (yes, that includes stockholders) should trust that there actually is a sound plan for continuing without Steve.

↓↑report

@ Rylin:
".. you'll definitely have noticed others complaining as well .."

yeah, i notice people coming onto blogs like this & bitching about "declining quality" all the time. it's been happening @ Engadget for as long as i've been reading it (~ 3 years now). complaining about the "quality" of one of several thousand blogs, one which you willingly continue to read, is actually a pretty standard form of passive-aggressive venting on the internet. i'm just pointing out the irony in the sheer amount of thought/effort you put into claiming something isn't worthwhile. :P

"Are you seriously saying that the idea of one of Steve's kids being the future CEO of Apple actually holds merit and is worth posting about?"

no. i doubt the author was either, seeing as that's all of *one* sentence in a much longer post.

"What about pointing out that Apple are likely to recruit from within its ranks or bring in someone from the outside"

um, the author does this. explicitly. did you *read* the post? that was part of the whole "auto industry" bit you apparently dismissed. are you saying it isn't apt to compare Apple to other large industries? why not?


"Stoking the fire is never a good thing ..."

the fire of...? also, are you saying that we shouldn't discuss a company's problems? or things that are likely to affect its stock price and/or products? (& before you start, i'm not making a value judgment on whether Steve Jobs' health *SHOULD* affect the stock price. "should" doesn't factor it---it *DID* affect the stock price, regardless.)

"If anything, people... should trust..."

i agree. good sentiment. perhaps it would be better received if you said it without needlessly flaming people?

good day, sir.

↓↑report

@Rylin:

Your logic is faulty. You are reading a niche site about a specific company. Your logic about who owns what stock is for the general public. But your sample group is far from the general public. In fact, I'd argue this is likely a group that is far more likely to own AAPL than any old Joe.

↓↑report

What? You don't like Steve Ballmer? Maybe Apple could persuade him to take over.

(I'm off to throw up now)

↓↑report

Why do you (and others) read this as being about Jobs being dead, or almost dead? Nobody said he was dead or dying. It's like you're assuming that he holds the CEO role until death. King Jobs.

This article is speculation on what will happen when Apple has to replace Jobs as CEO. There are a number of reasons why a CEO might need to be replaced, and death is only one of them. Another one is resignation.

So, to paraphrase you, he doesn't have to be dead to resign as CEO. Keep saying that to yourself over and over so it will sink in. Steve Jobs does not actually have to be dead to resign.

↓↑report