Continuity: Executive succession plans in history

You go outside the company for a CEO when there are problems in the company and things need to be shaken up. This was the case with Sculley and Amelio, though obviously those cases didn't work out so well.

Things are going well at Apple, so no need to go outside the company. My betting is on Tim Cook. He's smart enough to realize that he needs to let his designers come up with innovative products and stay out of the way. He's also an operational genius and he has Steve's trust given his 2 shots at running the whole show while Steve has had medical issues.

I'd trust Ive's style and design choices the most. He's proven himself with amazingly well-designed products. Whoever the next leader is needs to remember what sets Apple apart from other computer manufacturers. It was imitation of the PC companies that caused the late 80s-early 90s downfall of Apple.

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.

I don't know, but guys, let's be reasonable, I consider the chance of one of Steve's kids taking over to be very low. After all, Apple is a company, not a kingdom (at least legally) :-)

The discussion about what Apple shoud do when Jobs leaves the company is a valid discussion. Is he leaving right now? No, all signs point to not a chance. However, to stick your head in the sand and say nothing is wrong is equally disturbing and ignorant.

Will Apple hire one of Steve's children, as Jeremy said, it is very much last century. However, I do think that they have the people in place to move forward when Steve does step down.

I just honestly think that this time isn't going to be Steve's last hurrah. That said, this will be a good dry run to see how the company does without Jobs at the helm.

For the succession comments, I would suggest everyone take a close look at Scott Forstall's partial keynote presentations online. He introduced some parts of Leopard, then the iPhone SDK. The charisma is there. The confidence is there. The smirk is there.

While I hate to speculate that a 6-month leave of absence is the beginning of the end for Steve Jobs, there's no question that he won't be around forever. What does it hurt to speculate?

We need someone dynamic and techie who also has a love for Apple. Any ideas? Obama fits two of those three, but I don't think he is an Apple lover :-)

Apple *should* promote from within, whereas MS should have brought-in a few outsiders.

I'd argue that Apple doesn't need a CEO in the traditional sense of running the business, but rather more of a Chief Strategist to continue innovation and serve as the public face for the company. That in fact is the role that Jobs has been doing since his return and it's where his absence will be felt. Someone to foster new ideas, present them to the masses and generally push the envelope. Apple has more than enough people to handle the day-to-day business side of things that a traditional CEO does.

Well....
Of course you guys got a point there....
I rest my case, your Honour.

...
(but still :-p)