A Look at Steve Jobs - What Happens to the Apple When It Loses Its Core? Part 2

In Apple's current form, is it just lost without Jobs at the helm? Absolutely! Can a vehicle be constructed through which, over time, a seamless transfer of power could be executed? Can we empower the next super man or woman to protect and grow this company until it kills him or her too? Well, it works for the papacy and the Pope might be the only one out there with as many devotees.

There are those who believe that a Job-less Apple is not as threatening an idea as I believe it to be. They believe that while Steve Jobs is unarguably a significant part of the Apple story, the success of the company is attributable to the work of many - not just one man. Apple has existed with & without Jobs over the years and while it is certain that Jobs has brought a lot of value, the thought that Apple, a system of so many organs, arteries, and working processes, would face a terminal diagnosis with his excision, is presumptuous and impossible. IBM moved forward with the loss of Tom Watson. Microsoft moved forward, and continues to do so as the market leader, without Bill Gates as CEO.

The fact is that corporations have been dealing with leadership transitions forever. Apple Inc. is not the first company faced with the loss of a great leader and it certainly will not be the last. Bill Gates, arguably the winner of the Jobs/Gates battle, based purely on revenues, is now celebrated for his graceful exit from his role as Microsoft's CEO. Steve Ballmer has been the CEO of record for Microsoft for over ten years and Microsoft has maintained its position as market leader so far. If a company so much larger than Apple can face the same problem and manage it relatively seamlessly, then Apple must be able to do to the same. Right?

Gates handpicked Ballmer and spent years readying him for the role before the transition became official in January of 2000. To put this in apple context, around the same time that Gates decided to begin preparing his heir, Steve Jobs was just claiming, or perhaps reclaiming, the Apple throne. Gates still maintained control of select corporate divisions including, most notably, the technological division. It was not until 2009 that Gates "really left" the company. 12 or 13 years were invested in to the preparation of the successor that would replace Bill Gates. The official transition culminated with the 2009 CES (Consumer Electronics Show) tradeshow where Steve Ballmer delivered Microsoft's Annual Key Note Address. This was the first time ever that anyone besides Gates had lead this program.

Steve Jobs has done nothing to prepare a potential successor or several successors to eventually assume his position. Appointing Phil Schiller to lead the 2009 keynote address and appointing Tim Cook to act as interim CEO during Jobs' sick-leave, were acts of desperate necessity and not representations of faith in the strength of his team. Schiller & Cook were understudies and it was clear to the world, to them, and, most importantly, to Jobs, that these temporary solutions had nothing to do with the future of Apple's operations. It is potentially impossible for Jobs to prepare an heir, in the fashion that Gates did, at this point in his life considering the consistent health problems he has faced over the last 5 years.