Apple Will Flourish With or Without Steve Jobs

How has the United States done without George Washington? Should the Boston Celtics have folded after Red Auerbach. Disney without Walt? You get the picture.

The recent paranoia over the health of Steve Jobs has been taken way out of proportion and is in need of correct perspective. Apple (AAPL) will survive without him. All great institutions do just fine without their founders. Under many circumstance the founder/visionary is not even the best leader for ensuing growth phases. We all applaud Mr. Jobs for his innovative work at Apple but even he has made mistakes. He launched the first iPhone with a faulty price plan. He has struggled to get television shows and digital movies to the mainstream. He was probably 10 years late in getting Windows on the Mac. There is no doubt that he is a creative genius who produces top notch products but the scoreboard shows that no Apple product, beside the iPod, can claim even 10% global market share.

What Steve Jobs has done is laid the foundation for Apple to grow, with or without him, for the next generation. Nobody who buys this stock should be buying it because of Steve Jobs. This story is much larger than one man. Apple is protected by rigid barriers to entry. Do you realize how difficult it is to crack into the computer operating system market? I'll use the word impossible.

Microsoft (MSFT) has created such an OS monopolistic ecosystem that it has become impossible for any competitor to get compatible software written for their start-up. Apple was smart/lucky enough to maintain a niche group of loyalists who used the Mac OS through the generation of Microsoft's growth phase. That was so vital to their success because there were always just enough users to warrant software development for the Mac platform. Good luck to any company who wants to try and launch a new OS, there won't be any software to run. We happen to live in a time when computers and phones are more than just gadgets; they have become essential elements of business and social society. These devises are more of a necessity to us than cars, clothes, and according to the latest data, even religion. Not a bad era to have the only OS in town.

Microsoft's folly with the Vista release has allowed Apple to become a mass market share player. In the most recent Net Applications Survey Apple's share of the operating system market grew 5.69% in May to hit a record 7.80%, while Windows in all its flavors dropped half a point to 91.17%. That's a record low for Microsoft, which nonetheless still runs on 9 out of 10 computers on the Internet. This trend has taken years to develop and Apple is about to reap the rewards, with or without, Steve jobs. He has set something very powerful in motion that not even he can stop.

Apple's use of Leopard on the iPhone will cause every $199 iPhone user to become comfortable with the Mac system. If you thought the iPod had a nice halo effect for Mac Computers just wait for the iPhone halo. Apple's OS provides the solution for modern day touch screen technology and mobility.

Apple is the next Microsoft but they will be even bigger because they dominate the hardware as well. Legendary investor Warren Buffett says, "In business I look for economic castles protected by un-breachable moats." Thanks to Steve Jobs' reluctance to outsource the Mac OS, Apple is perched in the protected castle. His company will live on much longer than he. It's time to come to terms with the fact that Steve Jobs won't live forever and that doesn't change the fact that Apple has the best fundamental growth story in the world.

Disclosure: Long AAPL

Comments

[driftingcloud]

Seems to me that I remember a Jobs-less Apple once before. The results were an $8/share company that wrote increasingly bad operating systems. They lost significant market share and, eventually, some of their most faithful developers didn't want to work on Apple applications anymore. The less than visionary bean counters who took control of the company tried licensing hardware clones instead of making things people actually wanted, so no surprise people began migrating away from Apple as fast as they could. While I'd like to share your faith, there is no obvious heir apparent at Apple. Without that, I remain very guardedly long.

[User 158605]

Thank you! I love Steve but there is no stopping the beauty of Apple.

[philsukalewski]

Nice article but I disagree with the opening premise. Disney could be a great prelude to what could happen without Steve Jobs: Walt died in 1966 and Disney had a nice run-up as Disney World came to life, the the stock crashed in the early 70's, as no one with Walt's vision (& more importantly clout) was in control & it was a dead stock for 10+ years until Michael Eisner came along in the 80's.

Jobs has the clout to do what he needs to do without the board second guessing him. Whoever follows Jobs, will not have such a long leash for awhile.

That being said, I do believe that Jobs has utilized the key competencies of Apple to launch the company in a great direction.

[Jerlad]

DriftingCloud, I'm also guardedly long Apple, for the same reasons that you cited.

This article is a little too rosy for me. It should be compared to the following to get a more realistic picture of a Job-less Apple:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I think the jury is still out on Apple without Jobs. iPhone 2.0 should soon cause the shares to rise, hopefully breeching major resistance at 190. Then I plan on selling all my Apple, probably never to return. Just too risky for my blood above 190.

[User 213863]

If iPhone 2.0 took off, plus the fact that Mac PC can run Windows and Office, the 6% market share of Mac PC should increase gradually. If it only grows to 10%, that is still a healthy 40% growth of the market share. Is it not possible to see the stock going up to a new level? I agree with the article, with or without Steve Jobs, good things will continue to happen for Apple.

[davesmall]

Most really successful companies are founded by visionary entrepreneurs who focus on customers and are willing to take risks. They are change instigators. Their natural enemy is the bureaucrat - usually accountants and lawyers - who tend to be change avoiders seeking budget compliance rather than innovators seeking change.

When Steve left Apple the first time he was replaced by a guy from Pepsi Cola (John Sculley) and the Bureaucrats started taking over. Apple naturally began to decline. Bureaucrats only know how to lead when going downhill.

What's so remarkable about Apple is that the entrepreneur made a comeback. And the second time around he was experienced, seasoned, and better able to run a big company than before.

Great entrepreneurs are never short on ideas and vision but they often lack the resources and team to make those ideas really percolate. This time he insulated himself from the bureaucrats and surrounded himself with a team of like-minded innovators such as Jonathan Ive and Tim Cook.

Losing Steve would be a tough break but it wouldn't be so bad as bringing in another Pepsi Cola guy.

[blah-blah]

Jobs is more tied to AAPL than any other CEO. Losing him would dump the stock(think Buffett leaving BRK only worse) and more than likely stifle the future innovation of the company.

It still could keep going, it just wouldn't be the rock star it used to be. Nice article of hope but I wouldn't fool yourself.

If I were long, I would wait for the bounce and walk.

[delreyjones]

Great article! I think your point about being next-to-impossible to break into the field of operating systems is well-made. During their years without Jobs, Apple was just lucky enough to (barely) sustain its ecosystem. And even though he was gone for ten years, this Apple ecosystem was created by Jobs and sustained during his absence. But at the start of that period, even Jobs himself didn't understand how difficult it is to break into the operating system field. During the start of his absence, he "knew" that because of NeXT's technical superiority, it would thrive in the market. By the end of his absence ("wandering the desert"), he had learned, the hard way, the truth about breaking into the field of operating systems.

It was a fantastic coincidence that NeXT was dying from lack of market acceptance at precisely the same time Apple was dying from lack of innovation.

That said, it's not quite accurate to say that the "rest is history". It's more accurate to describe the most recent decade, i.e. Jobs' second term, as prologue to the future. During his first term, Jobs was in no way preparing to exit; he was a brash, twenty-something self-made billionaire. And even though he may have embodied Apple just as much then as he did now, his elite genius was not as well recognized. There was a common belief then that Apple needed adult supervision, and perhaps even Jobs believed that to some extent.

Today, everything is different because of three, well-understood facts:
- everyone recognizes Jobs' unique genius (the stock will take a hard, but temporary hit when he leaves)
- the company is structured exactly as Jobs wants it to be
- everyone recognizes Jobs' mortality

So it's obvious that Jobs' next departure from Apple will be nothing like his first. He has well learned the lessons of history and this case, nothing is being repeated.

[AdamC]

My take on this is a visionary leader like Jobs will plan at least 5 years or more down the road. Snow Leopard the next OS didn't happen by chance neither is the 2mp camera in the iPhone. Licensing Exchange from MS has its purpose. They may even be laying the groundwork for cloud computing now, etc..
For me the best is yet to be, based on the legacy of Steve Jobs.

[Davewrite]

Some good points in the article and posts here.

I'll just ad one more thing on the OS thing. Microsoft's grip on the OS is a double edged sword for a Microsoft and an opportunity for Apple. It's a positive for Microsoft as it's tremendous market share (a near monopoly in same areas) gives it tremendous revenue but because it needs to support so many legacy applications, hardware configurations that it finds itself in bind in innovation. Many are still sticking with XP which is what 7 years old? This gives an opportunity for Apple which can innovate much quicker and increase it's OS lead. OsX because it is Unix based is a more modern (and stable and secure) OS than Windows and Apple innovates faster with it, from XP to Vista, Apple has put out Cheetah (Puma), Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard. Next year it has promised Snow Leopard.

[mrhockey123]

It's hard to disagree with either side in this debate.
Jobs is a visionary leader, one who is willing to take chances, but who knows exactly where he wants to go. As has been mentioned, everything that Apple has done since Jobs came back was to position the chess pieces to quietly get Apple's products into most homes in America.
Job's vision, to use iPods as the "gateway drug" toward getting people to switch to Mac, has become more and more transparent lately with the introduction of iPod Touch and iPhone. These things are basically running OSX for all intents and purposes. If you can learn to use these products, you're 80% of the way to knowing how to use a Mac.
(cue the 'this is your brain - this is your brain on Mac' ads...)

The real issue with Apple is that Jobs has an almost omnipotent reputation in computer land, and also in investor land. The psychological effect of Jobs leaving may well be more severe than the real effect on the company. I am sure that as iron-fisted and as smart as Jobs is, he has learned well from his previous mistakes, and he knows exactly what would happen if he walked away and let the bean counters take over.

Having said that, most good organizations today, including Apple, emphasize culture very strongly. The whole point of a corporate culture is so that everyone is on the same page, and knows what they should be doing even if there are no hard and fast rules around for the particular situation. I think Jobs, and Apple, do have a plan for managerial continuity - it would be irresponsible not to have one.

The long and short of it is that when Jobs announces he's leaving (and let's face it, he IS HUMAN - which might be hard to believe some days) Apple's stock will likely fall hard. I'd say it would be a buying opportunity in the short term at least.

[mkreisel]

AAPL without Jobs is strong short.

You have no idea what caretaker CEOs can do to companies that need innovations to survive.

[Johnnymack]

What are people ACTUALLY afraid of?
Would a new CEO do these things?
- Return to OS9! Let's see 9.3!
- Return to Power PC chips, so we can't run Windows natively again!
- To heck with USB and Firewire, bring back SCSI !
- Wireless 811 and Bluetooth, since they are invisible, don't give people a perception of value, so we'll discontinue them!
- iPods will change to Parallel Port connection, or optional floppy transfer.
- MacBook Air will have 3 pounds of steel added, to give it "more substance"
-Let's bring back the CRT imacs!

ridiculous, right?
Steve did the "heavy lifting", and this company will grow on autopilot for years!
Besides, aren't people really concerned because he isn't obese like most Americans?

[windsurfar]

I couldn't agree more with the tone of the article. Steve Jobs has been the architect of the resurrection of apple for sure, but i wonder if he is truly managing the success as well as it could be. For example not letting content suppliers to set their own prices on iTunes. I would love to have access to older songs and movies for less than current pricing, and i fully agree that a current release may demand a higher price. It doesn't matter to me. However he seems to be making it difficult for these suppliers to believe in him as a negotiator interested in the idea of a win-win for all. Prices would be controlled ultimately by the consumer on iTunes. if people decide not to pay more for a current release it will show in the sales revenue, and the studio would then react to lower the price.
WIth the iPhone... why not make a version that has a physical QWERTY key board as well as the full touch screen iphone? Let the consumer decide which one is better for them, as opposed to Steve telling them which one is best for them. If they had released a 3G full QWERTY key board version, with the touchscreen version, there would no doubt be higher sales, many i know who have considered the iphone and decided not to go with it, was because of the bad feel and slow rate of typing they experienced while testing the touchscreen. Why reduce your potential market by just saying NO to those who would prefer a full QWERTY key pad, give the consumer the choice.
No removable battery is another issue that is significant amongst enterprise users. Would this be such a bad thing? Yes it may disrupt his sense of how the "style" and design of the iphone would come out, however important "form" is, "function" must not be ignored, the non-removable battery is a non-starter for many in enterprise, while the consumer crowd like myself really couldnt care less if the battery was removable.
As successful as itunes and the iphone are and will be, they may have been even more successful if he were to compromise a little on these and other issues.
Lets face it, he is a difficult guy to like, or deal with, and that can always effect business relationships.
An accomplished/polished CEO along the lines of Schmidt from Google may be just what Apple needs to succeed even more in the future.

[Partners inGrime]

Yep, thin people live longer.

ps Leopard roars!

[andyzaky]

This is such a good article. My sentiments exactly. I just hope that the rest of Wall Street gets the picture

[Toni]

It's irrilevant. Wihout Jobs, the stock would be hit hard.

[digivision]

Don't you people think that Steve Jobs alone is not to be credited with the Apple renaissance, it's true he deserves the credit to bring back innovation but he hasn't done it alone, he surrounded himself with the right people some of them were already Apple employees for years
No my fellow mac users , should Jobs leave tomorrow Apple will not fall,
there are too many smart and visionary people running this company
Jobs could retire tomorrow and Apple will still be great so long that they
keep designing their products, I am going to start worrying only when I see 2 flops in a row.. that would mean they ran out of ideas
Take MS as an example, until they find a new CEO they are done ..

driftingcloud... even when Apple was at $8 MacOS 9 was far superior than Windows95
Apple had great software back then .. FileMaker, Appleworks,Cyberdog, Graffiti later used by Palm...the Powerbook DUO, Newton, emate, Quicktake camera etc... these are the precursor of today's macs,the iphone,low cost PCs , tablet PCs,ultra portable pcs, PDAs etc...

If they had a fault was to try to be ahead of technology 2 steps too many..and of course lousy marketing :-)

The company had a few bad quarters but they still managed to eliminate debt and put a decent pile of cash in the bank. With over 500mil in cash Apple was never on the brink of failing as many people believed.. I remember most shareholder complaining about Job's choice to eliminate the clones most likely you are one of them(assuming you've been a shareholder for that long)
Now, we all know SJ made the right choice.
Eventually SJ will retire for whatever reason and the board will name a new CEO he might be worse or even better than SJ, but as long that SJ leaves with a strong product line and a marketing strategy in place there is nothing to worry , until the new CEO makes a wrong choice of course.

[digivision]

windsurfar
"WIth the iPhone... why not make a version that has a physical QWERTY key board as well as the full touch screen iphone? Let the consumer decide "

that's exactly what the old Apple did.. try to be all for everyone
and to always jump on new technologies years ahead of the rest
ok .. that lead to some amazing products but commercially speaking not so valid
Technology needs to simplify our lives not complicate them.
Technology is like ice cream , you can put 20 toppings on it but if you
have bad ice cream , toppings can't make it better.

Unless of course you have burned taste buds, in that case you need the toppings to make it interesting

[windsurfar]

digivision...

The full QWERTY key board is a validated and very popular way to enter text and emails, it does "simplify" and speed up text entry for some potential consumers... RIMM's incredible success demonstrates this, offering the consumers the choice would be wise in my opinion and would positively effect iphone sales, especially in the enterprise.
Overall i like Job's choices, as a shareholder i would prefer a small amount of flexibility on some issues, that i believe would enhance sales ie revenue.

[davesmall]

Windsurfer - Where do you get the idea that a physical keyboard (like Blackerry) is superior to the iPhone's touch keypad?

When I was first considering buying an IPhone one year ago I tested both of them at my local AT&T store. The results were discouraging for both of them. My fingers were much to large and the keys much too small. I made a lot of typing errors. Since both keyboards were equally lousy, I decided to go for the iPhone over the Blackberry because of it's other positive attributes.

Now that I've had a year with my iPhone I find that my typing speed has increased rather dramatically and typing errors have decreased as well. It's not just practice and familiarity. There are some really great tips and techniques you can learn for typing on the iPhone's keyboard.

Perhaps the same would have been true had I bought the Blackberry instead. I have no way of knowing for sure.

At present, my take is that I don't want a physical keyboard on my iPhone. It would add bulk and reduce screen size. Screen area is much more important. The touch screen keyboard works well enough. I would hate having my phone filled up with buttons where there should be screen (as with Blackberry).

[windsurfar]

digitimes...
You are proving my point. You prefer the touchscreen, and you have that option... for those that prefer a physical keypad, Jobs has decided not to offer them that choice, i say offer 2 versions, then all consumers regardless of their keypad preference could have an apple alternative, and sales would be even better for the apple phone.

[captainccs]

>>>Apple was smart/lucky enough to maintain a niche group of loyalists who used the Mac OS through the generation of Microsoft's growth phase.

Not really. It's that some of us refused to use crap. Corporate America was and is the victim of turf protecting IT specialists who prefer the complicated over the simple because it gives them job security.

In any case, OS is yesterday's news. Welcome to the World Wide Web, browsers, thin clients and web apps.

[davesmall]

Windsurfar said: "For those that prefer a physical keypad, Jobs has decided not to offer them that choice, i say offer 2 versions, then all consumers regardless of their keypad preference could have an apple alternative, and sales would be even better for the apple phone."

That sounds good Windsurfar but how are you going to do it? If you put the physical keyboad on the top surface you will be reducign sreen size to make room for the keyboard. Would you really want to do that?

Perhaps you're thinking of a pull-out keyboard which would increase thickness and bulk. Would you really want to do that?

[Apple Heavy]

Jobs has spent the greater part of the past decade putting Apple back on the right path to success and the changes at Apple have been strategic and with a long term focus.
If he were to depart, it would take a real incompetent replacement to undo what he has done. Remember, it took no less than 3 CEOs after his departure the first time to run the company almost into the ground.
Unfortunately, there is likely to be some negative shot term reaction by the stock market if Jobs were to leave because of emotion and action of the short selling vultures.

[fatcat]

Pancreatic cancer is normally a death sentance,quick,one good friend only lasted 2 weeks.He was playing golf a week before he died.

I play the aapl options occasionally,both up and down,but I'm scared of the long side now because of what I know about cancer.I could easily see 100 pts down if the worst happened.This guy is too important to this company..

[User 200631]

"Remember, it took no less than 3 CEOs after his departure the first time to run the company almost into the ground"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't John Sculley the guy who licensed portions of the Mac OS to Microsoft? If Steve Jobs were still around back then to prevent this, wouldn't Apple now be the dominant OS?

In any case, John Sculley's self-deluded run while at Apple pretty much set the stage for its decent into the abyss. The other 2 knuckleheads were just ineffective CEOs who were minding the store as it was going bankrupt. That he has not been taken to task for his role at Apple just mystifies me.

And no, I'm not a pissed off Steven Jobs...

[wallywonka]

The well known historian H,G. Wells said that a man's greatness can be measured by 'what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him. Don't worry people...Steve's got it covered!

[apple1]

I love Apple and I love Steve Jobs. Apple will grow only with Steve Jobs at the control. Yes, we have great technology and innovation at Apple but that is because it under the vision of Jobs. There are too many companies out there copying Apple products, from iMac to Macbook to iPhone, and for cheaper prices. Without Steve Jobs vision, Apple will become a mediocre company and Apple stocks will suffer accordingly. I still love Apple products but not Apple stocks.

[poohead]

If you want a QWERTY keyboard on a phone get a RIM Blackberry. Jeez. The whole point of the iPhone is to NOT have a keyboard you retards.

[Apple Heavy]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't John Sculley the guy who licensed portions of the Mac OS to Microsoft? If Steve Jobs were still around back then to prevent this, wouldn't Apple now be the dominant OS?"

Jobs left because of his disagreement with Sculley's direction for the company; specifically Jobs objected to an "open" Mac.
PC's became dominant over Macs because of IBM and the "clones" (Compaq. Dell, Packard Bell) who were pushing a lot of MS DOS systems out and that's where the developers went.

[Apple Heavy]

One more thing; Jobs departure from Apple was mostly the fault of the board of directors who supported Sculley over Jobs.

[Tom B]

"PC's became dominant over Macs because of IBM and the "clones" (Compaq. Dell, Packard Bell) who were pushing a lot of MS DOS systems out and that's where the developers went."

DOS machines were shipping in '81 and were backed by Big Business (IBM, etc). The Mac didn't ship until '84. Apple never caught up from that 3 year head start, particularly, with MSFT getting graft from every PC shipped-- loaded with Windows or NOT. And with MSFT getting apps out faster on the Windows side.

[Tom B]

""Remember, it took no less than 3 CEOs after his departure the first time to run the company almost into the ground""

Gil Amelio deserves some credit for fixing some of the finances and bringing Steve Jobs back.

"Apple will grow only with Steve Jobs at the control."

Eric Schwartz (GOOG) would do a decent job, although, clearly he's not perfect-- pushing the doomed Android platform being an example.

[Tom B]

TYPO: GOOG CEO Eric SCHMIDT, of course.

[Apple Heavy]

"DOS machines were shipping in '81 and were backed by Big Business (IBM, etc). The Mac didn't ship until '84."

What about the Apple II, Apple iii, and Apple Lisa.
These were all Apple products and the Apple i and Apple II started it all. The Apple III was one of the best business machines I ever worked on.

[Apple Heavy]

"Gil Amelio deserves some credit for fixing some of the finances and bringing Steve Jobs back.'

I will give him credit for hiring Fred Anderson as CFO who fixed the finances, and Ellen Hancock as CTO who orchestrated the acquisition of NEXT which brought Jobs back to Apple.

[Toni]

It's irrilevant. Wihout Jobs, the stock would be hit hard.

[Apple Heavy]

As I stated earlier.....

"Unfortunately, there is likely to be some negative shot term reaction by the stock market if Jobs were to leave because of emotion and action of the short selling vultures."

...... and this will be no different from other hits the stock has taken in the past , especially earlier this year.

What's relevant is that the Apple franchises are sustainable and the stock will recover.
In any event if the stock goes from $300 to $200, it won't matter to long term holders who have already bought it or are buying in below $200.

[mollytjm]

Thank you for a great blog, Jason! i see 'one-tune-toni' is at it again... any stock is hit hard at first when a popular and good CEO leaves or dies...but the point here is that Jobs isn't the only leader, the only innovator,or the only smart person at Apple. It's not the tiny place it was when Jobs left the first time. There are many teams in place and they work well and the future products are already in the pipeline. and, must we say it again...Apple is sitting on a huge mountain of $$$.

[bszlachta]

@driftingcloud: "Seems to me that I remember a Jobs-less Apple once before. The results were an $8/share company that wrote increasingly bad operating systems. "

Right, things are no different now than they were then. Let's see:

1985: Apple's assets were the soon-obsolete Apple II/III, the failed Lisa, the new, still-unproven Macintosh, and scant experience with writing OS software.

2008: Apple's assets are a resurgent and growing Macintosh line; proven consumer and server OSes considered the best in the business; acclaimed software from iLife to pro apps; the most successful stores in retail; domination of the music download business; the iPod phenomenon; the iPhone phenomenon; a brand worth billions on its own...

You're right. No difference at all.

[Tom B]

"What about the Apple II, Apple iii, and Apple Lisa.
These were all Apple products and the Apple i and Apple II started it all. The Apple III was one of the best business machines I ever worked on."

I didn't forget about those, but I think they had poor penetration in business. Maybe I'm wrong? There were LOTS of DOS machines out there in '84

[gambitwit]

I bought my first Mac in 1985 and many of its iterations through my present enormous 24 inch imac. I have never been let down by this amazing machine. And I am beginning to understand just how important the osx and ALL that it includes, and that I have been using all these years, really will be to the human enterprise in the future. And when the WORLD population really understands this, Apple will become a mighty force and cascade of cash.

[captainccs]

I have been an Apple user/dealer/associate (on and off) since 1980. In 1984 Jobs was the problem and he was fired. His exile at Next did him a lot of good and the 'new' Steve Jobs has left behind a lot of the problems he had in 1984.

Specifically, IMO, the big mistake Jobs made in 1984 was trying to take IBM head on. That was a loosing proposition because IBM, at the time, was "The Business Computer." Because Jobs was a cheapskate, he didn't want to pay the Beattles royalties. He downplayed the Mac as a music box, BIG mistake. In this new iteration, notice how the Mac is aimed at the creative user and not at the business user (leave the boring stuff to Wintel). Claris and FileMaker are gone. iThis, iThat and iTheOther are now in.

Make no mistake about it, the 'new' and the 'old' Steve Jobs are two different people.

[Apple Heavy]

Apple (and Jobs) was quite capable of taking on IBM in the 1980s. What Apple was not able to do was to compete against the cheap DOS clones.

The difference between Apple/ Jobs then and Apple/ Jobs now is Marketing, Marketing, Marketing....

[mags]

I don't disagree that Apple's stock, once Jobs leaves, will be hit hard. I do disagree, though, with all of you saying that he is the center of the entire Apple universe. Jobs has a reputation for hogging the credit for the products which Apple comes out with, so there is no reliable way to measure how much influence/participatio... he has when it comes to product innovation.

Bill Gates is now retiring. He built up a HUGE empire and was one of the most influential people of the last 10+ years. I don't imagine that MSFT's stock is going to take a huge hit from him leaving. I also don't see Google's stock taking a huge hit if Schmidt leaves google (I could be wrong on that one). A time may come where Jobs just fades into the background and it wont be a huge deal for him to leave, so lets not start panicking now.

fatcat: Please do some research before you start saying things about Jobs's cancer. He had a very rare form of pancreating cancer called islet cell neuroendocrine tumor which is far less aggressive or deadly than other types of pancreatic cancer. He is not going to die within weeks, if he did, Apple's PR team would be in extremely hot water for lying about it.

[Stockguy456]

It is a tough environment for many companies. The stock will suffer with or without Jobs. Look to fuel cell, solars, turbines, wave, wind, & energy storage. New forms of energy will allow for a global expansion.