Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fake Steve Jobs Says 'Leave the Real One Alone'

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the vacation-sounds-nice dept.

Apple 166

Stoobalou writes "Dan Lyons, who has been lampooning Apple's Steve Jobs for many years, has posted his last item as Fake Steve Jobs and signed off. Lyons, who has been impersonating the messianic Apple supremo in the notorious tech blog since 2006 and even managed to maintain his anonymity for quite some time, despite being a well-known tech hack, has parked his vitriolic pen for the last time." Most people expect FSJ to return if RSJ does.

cancel ×

166 comments

iJobs (-1, Troll)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916624)

"Out sick" == "in beta"

Re:iJobs (0, Troll)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916670)

no, deprecated.

Re:iJobs (-1, Troll)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917428)

Always deprecated, and always a prize shithead. I hope he enjoys his self-imposed exile as much as the rest of us will.

Re:iJobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917832)

u mad

I am the need-all (-1, Offtopic)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917946)

I am the voice inside your head
and I control you
I am the lover in your bed
and I control you
I am the sex that you provide
and I control you
I am the hate you try to hide
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct
I speak religion's message clear
and I control you
I am denial guilt and fear
and I control you
I am the prayers of the naive
and I control you
I am the lie that you believe
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct

I am the need-all in you vain.

Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916630)

Think you miscategorized this one.

Re:Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916676)

idle will be notified when fake fake steve jobs appears in the wild...

who gives a flying fuck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916638)

really.

seems familiar (5, Funny)

Nialin (570647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916662)

"Leave Stevie alone!"
*applies extra eyeliner, sobbing*

We might stop making fun of him (4, Interesting)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916684)

If every Apple press conference thing wasn't really just about him in the end. He wouldn't get up there and tell people what they already know if he didn't want to be in the spotlight.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916740)

And why was there no press conference to announce he had sold $1.4 billion in Apple shares in the 3 days before his announcement.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916798)

And why was there no press conference to announce he had sold $1.4 billion in Apple shares in the 3 days before his announcement.

That's interesting if true. I suppose he figures he can't be thrown in jail if he's dead.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916930)

If true, I would suspect it was an automatic sale from a pre-existing stock divesting plan that's been in place for a year or more. At my old company, if you didn't use a long term plan for when to sell shares (either by naming certain times of year or certain stock prices, and amounts), you were limited by the company lawyers to a couple of weeks per year where you were allowed to sell.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916948)

citation needed

Sales by C-level execs are normally registered with the SEC 30 - 60 days before the sale takes place.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34919034)

Not if its already in is pre filed trading plan. Even those are not necessarily written with clarity in mind. But they do let you report after the trade just like everybody else.

Trades by insiders are here?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL+Insider+Transactions [yahoo.com]
And yes, they are all routinely cashing in shares, as are all insiders from all companies. Its part of their compensation, and you can't buy a Yacht or a Liver transplant with shares.

That being said, Jobs does not appear on that list.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34918104)

It's not difficult to check:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=aapl

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918772)

And why was there no press conference to announce he had sold $1.4 billion in Apple shares in the 3 days before his announcement.

Look, Ma. No mention of the Great Satan at all. [yahoo.com] There was no announcement because it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (0)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916848)

Then you're not the target. Most of the world isn't geeks, so in 1999 when he showcased built-in WiFi in laptops, the audience gasped since they weren't as bleeding-edge as you.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (5, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917048)

In his defense, at least he didn't get all sweaty while clapping on stage for 20 minutes chanting nothing but "Developers".

Steve Jobs looks pretty good when you compare him to other industry CEOs.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (3, Insightful)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917294)

Ballmer is a pretty poor example. To his credit, he probably comes across as one of the few people in the tech arena who would be tolerable over a beer, but a less-than-stellar showman who at his best is a parody of himself. He inspires pity more than loathing.

Now when will we get Fake Larry Ellison? That guy is just a comedy goldmine. The often attributed, arrogance of Jobs, greedy, self-serving, with a sense of self-denial and a twinge of bat-shit insane.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917386)

Ballmer is a pretty poor example. To his credit, he probably comes across as one of the few people in the tech arena who would be tolerable over a beer, but a less-than-stellar showman who at his best is a parody of himself. He inspires pity more than loathing.

Now when will we get Fake Larry Ellison? That guy is just a comedy goldmine. The often attributed, arrogance of Jobs, greedy, self-serving, with a sense of self-denial and a twinge of bat-shit insane.

Bat-shit insane doesn't come in twinge; ultrasonic shriek perhaps.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (2)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918232)

I like to imagine that he walks around his Japanese mansion dressed as a Batman villain, muttering the true, secret name of his estate; the one that only he can know, the special name, while reading and re-reading The Catcher in the Rye. Every other name is for the fakers, the phonies.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917776)

Now when will we get Fake Larry Ellison? That guy is just a comedy goldmine. The often attributed, arrogance of Jobs, greedy, self-serving, with a sense of self-denial and a twinge of bat-shit insane.

We had him a few years ago: http://fakelarryellison.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917830)

Fake Steve Jobs did a few entries as Fake Larry Ellison. I think they're a pretty accurate impression of Larry.

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918942)

Doesn't Ellison have a green goblin costume at home?

Re:We might stop making fun of him (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918418)

Or compare him to OPK.

Steve Jobs: "Android isn't best for the customer."

OPK: "Android is like peeing in your pants."

Re:We might stop making fun of him (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918818)

Every press conference? I suppose you don't attend the earnings reports. He has participated in a few but most of the time it's Tim Cook, COO and Peter Oppenheimer, CFO that run them. Steve Jobs does lead the more public events like WWDC and very public announcements when they launch a new product. It's a double edge gripe: If he doesn't lead these things, people will complain how he's not involved and should do more for Apple. If he does lead them, people like you complain about it. You can't have it both ways.

How important we make ourselves seem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34916714)

Sorry, I have a problem who like to ape someone and then suddenly determine when enough is enough and act like they should have last say about who does what. You can't poke an animal with a stick and demand that others leave it alone when you've decided that enough is enough. The real world doesn't work that way.

While his blogging may have been mostly harmless it doesn't give him a free pass to crap on others for doing the same thing.

Re:How important we make ourselves seem (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917482)

Poke an animal with a stick while it is alive is one thing (even if I don't quite like this analogy). Keep poking and annoying it while it is dying is cruel, and at best in very poor taste.

Re:How important we make ourselves seem (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917590)

I think the animal would happen to care a lot more while its alive rather than while its dead. Which one is the cruel one again?

Re:How important we make ourselves seem (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917788)

I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing? Who has comprehension problems?

Re:How important we make ourselves seem (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34919310)

"I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing?"

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

About time really.... (3, Informative)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916716)

I thought that Fake Steve blog shut down 2 years ago. It was funny for a while but got stale real fast when he was unmasked and the whole book thing.

Re:About time really.... (1, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916804)

I can't imagine how it lasted more than a week without RSJ's quiet approval. Either it somehow suited Apple's master plan, or just amused RSJ.

If it didn't pass muster, about 4 hours into it the mag would have gotten a call. "Hi. This is Su Emharder from Apple Legal. We're Apple. We don't do fakes. Neither do you. You have twelve minutes to post a retraction on your site."

Re:About time really.... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917284)

Parody is protected. There is nothing RSJ could do about it.

Re:About time really.... (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917396)

That's now how I envision Apple's legal dept. at all. For me, both Apple and Sony have a few ED-209s calling people on the phone. "You are in violation of our intellectual property. Please cease and desist. You have fifteen seconds to comply. I am authorized to use legal procedures."

Re:About time really.... (2)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917840)

A one point RSJ said that FSJ was pretty funny.

Re:About time really.... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918406)

Which was a smart move. Whether or not he thought it was funny, it was the smart way of handling it. He's not going to be able to win a lawsuit anyways, may as well take advantage of the opportunity to appear grounded.

Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916776)

Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.

But if Steve goes, whence Apple? I'm sure he has a large cadre of lieutenants who can make good decisions in his stead, but can they get along? Can they drive the teams and call BS on half-assed engineering like Jobs? Do they have his business acumen?

The problem of building a company around a single person means that person is the weakest link. When Steve decides to give up the mantle, will Apple be able to adjust to the absence and still succeed in the same ways?

I doubt it, and that's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (4, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916910)

I do think however that Jobs' ideas of what Apple should do to stay in the lead are a lot clearer now than the first time he was in charge.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916964)

Yes. [nytimes.com] Well, mostly.

Cooke (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917034)

It's a measurable fact that Apple's market cap grew under Tim Cooke more than under Steve Jobs. One can question if he kept the idea pipeline stocked or was just a steward of an existing process. But the former is fact and the latter is speculation.

It is likely that Steve has hired people who are great with ideas but not with the type-A self confidence he has. It's a common trait for uber egotists to drive other egotist out of their circle. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I'm saying it is a common thing. It has been the dominant management style for most of human history.

Thus the trouble is not replacing steve jobs but imagining who in his inner circle is capable of stepping up to be him. THat person may in fact not be in his inner circle. But maybe they alos don't need to replace him with someone just like him. they need a new leader with a new style. THey just might not find it right away till steve is truly gone.

Re:Cooke (2)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917082)

yeah, i bet it was real hard to keep that train going for less than a year.......

come back when he's had to do it for 3 or 4 years and see where the company is.

I'm not saying he can't, but I am saying the time he was "the head" was so short as to not be statistically relevant.

Re:Cooke (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917098)

This. I think about this a lot since my company is run similarly. The inner circle are smart, capable, but do not have the same spark. They can emulate the leader, think "what would the leader do?", but do not have the same X-factor that makes the leader successful.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (3, Insightful)

qengho (54305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917072)

... I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

Um, yeah. Some folks [cnn.com] might beg to differ [cnn.com] .

I view this as a one-day-only 5% discount sale.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (2, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917690)

Um, yeah. Some folks might beg to differ.

The same folks that were in denial about the housing bubble right up until it burst?

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34919070)

Look, both of you are basically playing roulette, so stop arguing and see who's right when the ball stops rolling in a year or so.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34918018)

Apple stock is only down 8.75 points at the current moment in time, and it is slowly creeping back from the 14 points it was down at the opening of the market...

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918096)

"I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise."

...so later when its price falls, you can buy it back up and make a profit?

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34918226)

Commie News Network says that Apple is going to do well? Why believe them? Commie News Network also believes that Barack Osama was born in the United States. Why trust Ted Turner?

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34918420)

Yeah, talking heads don't know shit about the market. They are usually days and weeks behind what the market is actually doing.

Not that I think shorting AAPL is a good idea right now. It will almost certainly waiver, possibly for years, even if Jobs leaves permanently.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918716)

... I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

I view this as a one-day-only 5% discount sale.

Ancient wisdom: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". The price and daily change in AAPL may be utterly irrational, but it's still a courageous bet to trade it either way in quantity.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917130)

This post contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain as they are based on current expectations and assumptions concerning future events or our future performance. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are only predictions and speak only as of the date of this prospectus. Forward-looking statements usually contain the words "estimate," "anticipate," "believe," "expect," "plan," or similar expressions, and are subject to numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties. In evaluating these statements, prospective investors should carefully review various risks and uncertainties before investing.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917138)

The problem that I see in the future of Apple without Steve Jobs is that no matter how good his future replacement could be, people will always say that things are not the same, that Jobs times were better, and will be their fault for taking advantage of that cult of personality

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918268)

The problem that I see in the future of Apple without Steve Jobs is that no matter how good his future replacement could be, people will always say that things are not the same, that Jobs times were better, and will be their fault for taking advantage of that cult of personality

Yeah, like all the whining around here about how things were 'better in the old days". Borland / DEC / Compaq / IBM (well, maybe in the Selectric days). What's the tech equivalent for 'rose colored glasses'?

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917292)

Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.
But if Steve goes, whence Apple? I'm sure he has a large cadre of lieutenants who can make good decisions in his stead, but can they get along? Can they drive the teams and call BS on half-assed engineering like Jobs? Do they have his business acumen?

It is not so much the person of Steve Jobs, it is the direction the company is taking. When Sculley threw Steve Jobs out, the company then went _intentionally_ into a different direction than Steve Jobs wanted. That's why he had to go. We also may assume that the Steve Jobs who left back then was less experienced and less good at what he was doing than the Steve Jobs that returned many years later. Amelio on the other hand did an excellent job. He came to an Apple company that was in deep shit and figured out exactly what to do to make it survive and make it great again: Some emergency measures to keep the ship from sinking, hiring Steve Jobs back, and getting himself fired in the process. Nobody could have handled the situation better than he did. He did what was best for Apple, not what was best for his reputation.

Anyway, the difference between back then and today is that Apple today knows that Steve Jobs' direction is exactly the direction they should be aiming at. So whether Steve Jobs is there or not, they won't change their direction this time.

And you are supposed to short a stock before it drops, not after.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917656)

I doubt it, and that's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

Has Steve Jobs died?
Has he even quit Apple?
Has the years of planning ahead Jobs has done for Apple expired yet?
Has Apple even done something un-Jobs like yet?
Has Apple even hinted about a poor choice in their future?
Has Apple posted anything but stellar results last time you checked?

Let's go deeper now...

Do you think the people in Apple have not learned anything last time Jobs quit?
Do you think Jobs has not selected people who understand his strategy?
Do you think Jobs single-handedly came up with the marketing, design, ideas of the products Apple sells?

So, you're shorting and advising us to short based on your superficial amateur analysis, and based on your eager gambling hunch, tuned for blood.

Have you stopped to realize that we buy shares to *support* a company, and that shorting against it *hurts* it? It's not just about you and your meager speculation profits.Do you realize that a million of gullible, easily scared speculators following advice similar to yours, would turn Apple's failure into a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I find it fascinating that in this forum on Slashdot, every time something happens with Jobs, we have these to reoccurring flocks of commenters:

1) one that repeatedly asks "why is the stock moving every time something happens with Jobs"

2) the other that repeatedly spreads FUD about Apple going down without Jobs and talking about shorting

And somehow that question "why" never seems answered, as if they don't see each other. And it's simple: the investors are a simple, ill-informed, easily scared bunch, that's there to bet on the easiest most visible probable trends in business, and make a buck, with completely no regard as to what is the effect of their actions. They sit in an echo chamber and reinforce their own beliefs, and sure enough if they try hard enough, their delusions turn into a reality.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

stinkbomb (238228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918046)

If Apple didn't want to have their bottom-line affected by the vagaries of an irrational stock market, they shouldn't have gone public. Simple as that. Public companies know the risks they take - it isn't all IPOs and piles of investor cash; sometimes investors are going to take advantage of your weaknesses.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918368)

If Apple didn't want to have their bottom-line affected by the vagaries of an irrational stock market, they shouldn't have gone public. Simple as that. Public companies know the risks they take - it isn't all IPOs and piles of investor cash; sometimes investors are going to take advantage of your weaknesses.

Apple's bottom line isn't affected by the stock market at all. The only time when the stock price affects the bottom line is when the company needs to borrow money, and a high share price makes that easier than a low share price. There have been many occasions in the past where Apple has made announcements that predictably made the share price go down. For a short time. Like saying "we just had a record quarter, but the next quarter will likely not be quite as good".

memories! like shorted stock inside your mind! (2, Interesting)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917818)

You've been shorting AAPL since it was what, something like $13 bucks a share? You must have a lot of money to waste, shorting AAPL.

Re:memories! like shorted stock inside your mind! (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918452)

That's why I don't recommend people short. The worst case scenario is a company like APPL which is vastly overpriced, but yet finds a way of growing to fit the market cap. Or where the delusion takes years to bust, in which case you're out a shitload of interest, assuming that the price ever does come down far enough to justify covering on price alone.

If you really think that the price is going to tank, you're much better off going with options. As much as I despise the way they distort the market, they are the way of handling this sort of scenario where you believe the price to be too expensive.

There is no limit to the risk when shorting (1)

Max Hyre (1974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918896)

That's why I don't recommend people short.

To be more detailed, there is literally no limit to how much you can lose by shorting.

When you simply buy a stock, the most you can lose is what you paid for it. If the company goes bankrupt, the stock price can't go below $0.00.

If you short a stock, you're borrowing shares to sell now, betting that the replacements you need to return later will be cheaper, and you get to keep the difference. But, if the price goes up, there's no limit. You still need to buy the replacement shares, at whatever they cost then—there is no way to know how much you might lose if you bet wrong.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (0)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917822)

You are correct, with Steve in play, nothing but High Quality Engineering [google.com]

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (2)

nordah (1365739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917864)

[T]hat's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

How to get rich of Apple and other stocks:

Step 1. Give dubious investment advice on Slashdot.

Step 2. Take a market position counter to your own advice.

Step 3. ??

Step 4. Profit!!!

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (3, Interesting)

Eil (82413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917970)

Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.

It's true that Steve turned Apple around when he rejoined. But let's not forget that he was originally ousted from his own company because his impulsive decisions, empty showmanship, and abusive management style threatened to rip Apple apart right when it should have been concentrating on building a long-term strategy. Those other CEOs and executives who ran Apple during Jobs' exile wouldn't have produced the superstar corporation that Apple is today, but at least they knew how to keep the company afloat long enough for Jobs to mature on both a business and behavioral level. (Even if they didn't realize that's what they were doing.)

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (0)

elbles (516589) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918258)

Oh, come on. Yes, Steve Jobs helped Apple recover from the brink of bankruptcy, but from all I've read (and I've read a lot), I've gotten the distinct impression that Apple was so poorly run from the early 90s on that anyone would have been a huge improvement. That said, I also read in Apple Confidential (great book, for those who haven't read it) that Amelio's efforts near the end of his tenure helped pave the road for the turnaround Jobs orchestrated, but I don't have the book handy to see if that was something Amelio said himself, or if it was some a (relatively) independent observer. Jobs streamlined their terribly bloated product line, providing clear delineation between consumer and professional products, scraped numerous and bloated OS development projects, et cetera. You could argue that with hindsight, they were clear decisions, but I think they would have been clear to anyone worthy of managing a company of that size. This isn't to say that Jobs isn't great at what he does, but rather that Apple's success isn't dependent upon him. Jobs is a polisher and perfectionist, traits that aren't necessarily common, but they aren't hard to find either. And let's face it: over the past three years or so, Apple hasn't released a single revolutionary product. Everything's been an evolution over existing products, and it's worked well, but it can only work for so long, with or without Jobs at the helm (and no, I don't believe Jobs is the ultimate difference maker in Apple's ability to create great products).

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (0, Troll)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918918)

And let's face it: over the past three years or so, Apple hasn't released a single revolutionary product.

Look, I know it's popular here on Slashdot to act like there's nothing new under the sun, but this statement is wrong and disingenuous. Firstly, I note that you chose your period very carefully to leave out the iPhone. The iPhone really did change phones and handheld computers, Slashdot whinging notwithstanding. However, I suspect you are willing to concede that. In the last three years... well there's the fucking iPad (2010) for one. I mean, look guys, you can deny all you like, but this shit is changing the whole computing landscape. It's going to pretty much usher in the end of desktop computing as we know it for most people. The App Store (2008), was a revolutionary, microsoftware for the masses.

You may think these aren't revolutions because they aren't revolutionary enough for you on a technological level. But they are business and social revolutions.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (2)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918404)

Apple got rid of the great Steve a long while back. Now all they have is the good Steve. Apple has survived with and without Jobs before, and I am sure they will survive when Jobs is no longer with Apple anymore. Will it be the same company? Not so sure about that, time will tell. I am pretty sure the "Apple Formula"* can be carried on with or without Jobs though.


*Take existing technology, put it in a very pretty box, market the hell out of it. Repeat.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918788)

Frankly, it wasn't hard to outperform someone whose only experience was with selling soft drinks. Who the hell thought that marketing computers was exactly the same as marketing Coke?!? Anybody with experience in consumer electronics and computers should be able to do better than John Sculley.

Re:Can Apple survive without Jobs again? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918966)

Difference between then and now is Steve Jobs.

When Sculley was given the reigns it was to keep Steve Jobs in check because the board feared and didn't trust Steve, then Steve left.

In 1997 they (the board) brought Steve Jobs back when they bought NeXT, then he took the whole show over and has had 13 and a half years to remodel the company, the corporate culture and groom successors.

ORLY (1)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916824)

This a yawn-story (== ranked a little bit above a non-story)

Re:ORLY (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918302)

This a yawn-story (== ranked a little bit above a non-story)

That's what Firehose is for. Once the story escapes, you're supposed to disparage the editor and the submitter. Preferably with pithy grammar related comments.

Please Read The Manual.

When you buy AAPL you are buying the leadership (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916840)

I agree that personally people should leave Jobs alone. Large investors in AAPL can make the argument that there is an interest in Jobs health because when you buy AAPL you are buying the leadership and I agree with that completely.

Jobs Not Long for this World (2)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34916858)

I think he's sicker than sick. To bail before the shareholder's meeting --where he has performed both effectively and with great personal gusto--tells me that he is simply unable to do it.

I am an Apple fanboy of 30+ years duration. I am saddened by this development and applaud Fake Steve Jobs for his tact and judgment in this case. The company itself, however, may well prosper under new leadership as Apple continues to morph into an IBM-style megacorporation focused on efficiency and customer service. Their retail stores have a huge upside for growth and widespread consumer acceptance will no doubt drive more corporate IT acceptance as users demand it.

I feel that this observation about Jobs's health and imminent departure, while perhaps in poor taste, needs to acknowledged as well

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917024)

The company itself, however, may well prosper under new leadership as Apple continues to morph into an IBM-style megacorporation focused on efficiency and customer service.

You are aware that the company's secondary image — second only to Steve Jobs himself — revolves entirely around them not being an IBM-style megacorporation, right*? Given that, if you completely remove the image, the flashiness, and the "we're not a heartlessly efficient megacorporation, honest!" corporate persona that was the entire cornerstone of the Mac vs. PC ads (not to mention their current advertising), what you're left with is an overpriced hardware manufacturer with paranoid fears of compatibility?

*: Regardless of what they actually ARE; I'm talking about the image they have, one which will become harder and harder to maintain the more they fall in that direction.

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918492)

The Mac vs PC ads were always puzzling. Sure to the people who have already drank of the flavor aid, I'm sure they were compelling. The rest of us wanted to beat the crap out of the Mac and hang out with the PC.

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917036)

IBM customer service? Are you kidding me? I think you must have never dealt with IBM.

They won't even fart at you unless you have a $50 million support contract with them.

$50 million no bad thing (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917232)

I am looking back as far as 1928. In IBM's early days -- which are the best comparison to those of Apple's current comparative youth --customer service was job one.

And by your own account, it's a huge profit center.

Yes, in the past five years, esp. since Lenova, there has been a big surge in customer complaints.

As I said, I've been an Apple booster for years and cut my teeth on the "Apple vs. IBM" wars. I've no reason to praise IBM except for the facts.

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917110)

I felt exactly the opposite. I was ready to dump apple stock till I heard about the shareholder meeting. I think that him not announcing record sales is exactly the time to step out. Apple is going to have a huge profits on the verizon deal. Comdex showed the ipad has another year to advance without any viable competition. In a year, if they play their cards right, the app store may make this thing an unbeatable device like the ipod was once itunes came along. In fact I think apple is going to make so much money off the Verizon deal they will have to jigger the earnings to book them in future years.

Consider if steve jobs were exiting when it looked like apple was headed for a rough patch?

You want this shareholder meeting on the heir apparent's shoulders. it will be easy and he will shine.

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (2)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917460)

Comdex showed the ipad has another year to advance without any viable competition.

COMDEX? Now you're just showing your age. :)

Stevevision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917772)

unbeatable device like the ipod was once itunes came along

iTunes, both the store and the software, is a flaming pile of bloated crapware. The iPod is an unbeatable device because, despite its many and varied flaws, the competition to it is somehow certifiably retarded.

The good short term news for Apple is their competitors are indeed more often than not completely retarded. You can see a repeat of the iPod hilarity happening in the tablet space. iPad? Not that good. Competing devices? Hilariously WTF.

The bad news is, unless they get a replacement Jobsian-level tyrant who can hold brutal executions in Cupertino, they're done for. Apple is doing well currently because you get the Steve Jobs(tm) experience with any Apple product. If they can't get someone in with big enough balls to rule over design and UX with an iron fist, well, they've got nothing.

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917430)

I think he's sicker than sick. To bail before the shareholder's meeting --where he has performed both effectively and with great personal gusto--tells me that he is simply unable to do it.

That's one school of thought. The other is, to announce a leave on a non-workday (market closed) JUST before announcing another record quarterly profit was timed very well to ensure that any spike from the bad news will be cancelled out by the good news.

Holiday Announcement (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918732)

Good point. But why not Friday afternoon and use the whole holiday weekend to spin backwards. Obviously, I know nothing. He may come pole-vaulting back onto the stage, tanned and rested. I sure as hell don't want to be right about a fatal illness.

Re:Jobs Not Long for this World (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917792)

applaud Fake Steve Jobs for his tact and judgment in this case

In this particular case, yes. Unfortunately, his second-to-last blog post compared pictures of Steve Ballmer and Jared Loughner.

The real Jobs needs to get with the 'bitch Cheney' (1, Funny)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917042)

I'm not sure why or how the world still spends time listening to or having to listen to Dick Cheney, but he seems to have heart attack over and over. Whatever they have him on, put Steve on immediately.

Re:The real Jobs needs to get with the 'bitch Chen (1)

chispito (1870390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917186)

I'm not sure why or how the world still spends time listening to or having to listen to Dick Cheney, but he seems to have heart attack over and over. Whatever they have him on, put Steve on immediately.

Because pancreatic cancer and a heart attack are basically the same thing.

Leave Britney Alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917058)

I'm serious.
Leave Britney Alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

Sounds ominous (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34917152)

Not liking the tone surrounding him right now. Hoping for a full recovery.

Steve Jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34917366)

Steve Jobs == abandonware and bye-bye you garbage prick

Re:Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34918048)

I Phone
I Phoneie
I phony

Stephen Jobs
stephan jobs
stiph han jobs
siff han jabs
stiff hand jabs
I phony stiff hand japs

Apple
Appole
Aphole
p in your a hole
I phony stiff hand jabs pee in your a hole.

Illegal? (2)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918130)

Isn't it now illegal for FSJ to exist? Didn't California pass a law making it illegal to impersonate a celebrity?

Re:Illegal? (2)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918272)

Like many other laws, intent is key. It's clear that Dan Lyons' intent has no malice. He would therefore be in the clear (if he decides to restore his FSJ mantle should RSJ return).

Re:Illegal? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918282)

I think the First Amendment trumps whatever stupid law California passed. Parodies have a long history of being protected speech, and no reasonable person would mistake the Fake Steve Jobs blog as the real Steve Jobs, so it doesn't satisfy the precedent for libel.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918356)

No.

There needs to be intent to defraud or mislead (of which there is no evidence here), and the law also phrases it as "credibly impersonate" (i.e. that it would fool a reasonable person), which should easily be dismissed in the case of FSJ due to the presence of the word "Fake" in his name.

Re:Illegal? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918530)

Doesn't matter what they passed, it would have to pass the courts, and it wouldn't. Parody is definitely a legitimate 1st amendment right.

Also, is FSJ even in California?

Re:Illegal? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34918532)

I seriously doubt that there would be any problem with FSJ. The only problem would be if he tried to pass himself off as RSJ.

Re:Illegal? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34919470)

Isn't it now illegal for FSJ to exist? Didn't California pass a law making it illegal to impersonate a celebrity?

According to the juvenile activist slashdot exaggeration of the law, yes. Otherwise, no.

Celebrity has no ON/OFF switch (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34919226)

Being a celebrity has no ON/OFF switch, and most "news" is not newsworthy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...