I’ve lost track of how many cover stories I’ve read about Steve Jobs’ mysterious illness and his leave of absence from Apple. The announcement came on Wednesday, and right after the stock markets opened on Thursday morning Apple shares were down 5.7 percent. Shares recovered Thursday afternoon, but as I write this (Friday Jan. 16th) shares are back down to 80.73. New York Times reporter Joe Nocera, who has written more than once about his private off-the-record conversation with Jobs last summer, yesterday argued that the time is overdue for Apple and Jobs to tell all (read it here). Also yesterday, Brad Stones wrote in the New York Times “Can Apple Fill the Void?”
A solitary, genius individual, being immortalized as the creative genius responsible for a company’s success. Readers of this blog know what I think about stories like this: they’re always a myth. Innovation never comes from one person’s genius, and that’s not the way it happened at Apple, either.
It’s well established in the history of computer technology that Steve Jobs did not invent any of the technologies that make Apple products famous. The Apple II was not the first personal computer. The MacIntosh was not the first windows-and-mouse computer. The iPod was not the first portable MP3 player. And the iPhone was not the first Internet-enabled PDA (I love my iPhone but I had almost all of the same features three years earlier on my Palm Treo).
What distinguishes Apple products is not their technical innovations, but their superior design and their focus on the user experience. (I’d never want to give up my iPhone and go back to my old Treo!) People say Jobs was responsible for the emphasis on design at Apple. But Silicon Valley has been a hotbed of design thinking for decades. IDEO (and its current CEO Tim Brown) have been promoting “design thinking” for years. Stanford created an interdisciplinary design-oriented school known as the d-school. Is it an accident that a company like Apple, profiting on these same philosophies, happens to exist down the street from IDEO and Stanford? I don’t think so.
There are good reasons, however, for a company like Apple to propagate the myth of a legendary and gifted leader. The same thing happens in big science laboratories, where the assembled postdocs and graduate students have a vested interest in the reputation of the professor that they work for (you can read about this research in my 2006 book Explaining Creativity). Thomas Edison created the public image of a genius inventor largely for publicity and marketing purposes (historians have known for years that Edison didn’t invent, it was the inventors that he hired who did the inventing).
Steve Jobs is important for Apple in the same way that any gifted and talented CEO is important for their company. I believe his skills are a uniquely good match for what Apple has needed in recent years. But his importance is not due to his creativity, or to his unique gift for design. Apple’s creativity and its design sense are collective, organizational qualities and don’t reside in any one person. Any time you hear someone telling a story about an indispensable genius, you should get suspicious, and start looking for the real story.
Check out my other blog posts about Apple by searching for “Apple” at the upper right of this screen.
8 thoughts on “Apple Without Steve Jobs”
Yes, Jobs has been great for Apple, but all the focus on Jobs obscures the fact that he has worked with and been supported by a number of other competent people within the company. Who’s to say that much of Apple’s success could have come about Without their help? I’ve seen a few articles profiling these people (Cook plus about 5 others), but that’s it.
Dr. Tantillo (‘the marketing doctor’) did a post back in July on his branding blog, asserting that Apple and Jobs are two separate brands.
Tantillo argues that Jobs should have a succession plan. I don’t necessarily agree, but I do think he makes a good point about Jobs and Apple being two separate brands–Apple would be different without Jobs, but different is not always bad.
I agree completely, and thank you for posting those links. I’ve read several articles in major newspapers that criticize Apple for not paying more attention to their succession plan…I don’t know enough about their internal processes to know whether they’re working on that, or not.
Here are the two pieces I have seen with (short) profiles of other possible leaders –
That Macworld story (the second link) is wonderful and fun to read! Thanks again.
whoops, this is the correct one on MacWorld. It’s just referenced and linked to in the article above.
Steve is a business genius, I think Apple will struggle to find and equal. But they have such a great icon of a business that they will survive.
Jonathan Ive designs all apple products and the advertising comes from his designs, as does the whole look of apple.
Steve was smart to hire Jonathan but there is no replacement for Jonathan.
I hope Steve pulls through but he can be replaced by someone within the company.
Thank you…I agree the designs are such a critical part of Apple’s success.
[…] leader. But he’s not a lone genius. Like all lone genius stories, this one is a myth. Back in 2009, I blogged about the important role played by the design team at Apple, led by Jonathan Ives. And earlier this […]