Steve Jobs resigns, but doesn't leave the building

Iconic Apple leader clinging on to power a little longer.

Apple's co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs has finally resigned, handing over the reins to Tim Cook, formerly COO at the firm. But Jobs has asked to become chairman instead. After a long battle with ill health, he wrote in a letter to the Apple board:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple's CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

Steve

Apple's brand is inextricably linked with Jobs, who was actually ousted by his own board in 1985 only to found another successful firm, NeXT Computer, which Apple then bought - bringing Jobs back into the fold in 1996.

That marked a turning point in Apple's fortunes, as Jobs and recent hire Tim Cook brought efficiency back to Apple's business, and innovation back to its product lines. That innovation was best highlighted by the iMac, and continued with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The latter three are especially noteworthy, shaking up the music player, smartphone and tablet computer markets immeasurably.

Those innovations, as well as a huge advantage over competitors thanks to its vast component purchasing power and economies of scale, have helped Jobs and the Apple team grow the firm to where it is today: worth around $220bn (£194bn) and profits of $7bn (£6.1bn) in its most recent financial quarter.

Apple without Jobs

So what does Jobs' transition from CEO to chairman really mean for Apple? Precious little in the short to medium term, as it turns out. Not only has Tim Cook shown he can effectively lead Apple during Steve Job's previous bouts of illness, but as Michael Gartenberg, research director at analyst firm Gartner notes, "While this marks the end of an era for Apple, it's important to remember the there's more to Apple than any one person, even Steve Jobs. Continuing as chairman Mr. Jobs will continue to leave his mark on both the company and products even as he transfers the reigns to Mr Cook."

The firm is of course in superb financial health, is the most valuable technology firm in the world, and has the most precious brand of any firm according to brands agency Millward Brown. Its technology roadmap is already clearly established for the next few years at least, with better versions of various iDevices already on their way.

But longer term there is more room for doubt. Not only is Jobs largely credited with Apple's turnaround in the Nineties, but many of the firm's most iconic designs are said to have been heavily influenced not only by designer Jonathan Ive and his team, but by Jobs himself. He is said to be maniacal about ease of use, sending products back to design if they are not immediately intuitive.

Another area where Jobs' experience has clearly paid off is in his building not just of computers and gadgets but related ecosystems. His deftness here was first highlighted by iTunes, which enabled Apple to capture not just a large chunk of the MP3 player market but a large chunk of the music distribution business to boot.

Jobs helped build another ecosystem around the iPhone, making it easy for developers to build applications to populate the Apple App Store, and spawning an entire industry in the process. 72 per cent of Apple smartphone users download at least ten third-party applications, while 73 per cent of BlackBerry users have picked up five apps or less, according to research by media analysts Compete.

The iPad again has an ecosystem of third party application developers, helping to make Apple's tablet potentially far richer than competing offerings. A lack of applications was one of the reasons HP's Touchpad saw such muted demand - HP ditched its 'iPad killer' just 45 days after its launch.

But these ecosystems have not been without their critics. Publishers have been angered that Apple takes 30 per cent of any subscription revenues they earn selling subs through the App Store.

Users have complained that the App Store is not truly 'open', since all applications must be approved by Apple. Apple doesn't allow any pornography in the App Store for instance, but more worryingly Apple has been accused of blocking applications that compete with its own apps. It blocked an iTunes-like application and Google Voice, prompting the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and pressure Apple to change its stance.

It also refuses to allow Adobe's Flash player to run in the browser on its devices like the iPhone and iPad. Apple claims this is because Flash is proprietary (as are many of Apple's products), and is left wanting when it comes to security, performance, reliability and its impact on battery life. Others believe it is simply to maintain its stranglehold on the App Store - Flash can be used to enable all sorts of applications and games that would not require a download from the App Store, robbing Apple of potential control and revenue.

But for all this, it's clear that these ecosystems are one of the reasons that Apple has done so well with Jobs at the helm. Once one has invested in applications from the App Store, many punters will stick with Apple devices if one breaks or is lost or stolen, to avoid having to start over with new apps.

With Jobs now in the chairman role he will still have influence over Apple's direction and those all-important ecosystems, an area where he seems to have a Midas touch. But if, as seems likely, his tenure at Apple is finally coming to an end, Apple's long term future is surely less assured without him. After all, it was only when Jobs returned to Apple in 1996 that its boom years really began.

I've been saying since January that Jobs should leave Apple, not just for some of his less convincing recent business decisions but also in order to bring clarity and consistency to the leadership role. Questions over his health have surely been a distraction for management and staff.

Apple's iconic co-founder has not been without his critics for some of his approaches to competition and customer service. But few would question his utter brilliance at this technology lark, his passion for the industry and of course for Apple. Whichever way you look at it, Apple will feel his loss when Sir Steve finally does leave the building.

Jason Stamper is NS technology correspondent and editor of Computer Business Review.

Jason Stamper is editor of Computer Business Review

Getty
Show Hide image

David Osland: “Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance”

The veteran Labour activist on the release of his new pamphlet, How to Select or Reselect Your MP, which lays out the current Labour party rules for reselecting an MP.

Veteran left-wing Labour activist David Osland, a member of the national committee of the Labour Representation Committee and a former news editor of left magazine Tribune, has written a pamphlet intended for Labour members, explaining how the process of selecting Labour MPs works.

Published by Spokesman Books next week (advance copies are available at Nottingham’s Five Leaves bookshop), the short guide, entitled “How to Select or Reselect Your MP”, is entertaining and well-written, and its introduction, which goes into reasoning for selecting a new MP and some strategy, as well as its historical appendix, make it interesting reading even for those who are not members of the Labour party. Although I am a constituency Labour party secretary (writing here in an expressly personal capacity), I am still learning the Party’s complex rulebook; I passed this new guide to a local rules-boffin member, who is an avowed Owen Smith supporter, to evaluate whether its description of procedures is accurate. “It’s actually quite a useful pamphlet,” he said, although he had a few minor quibbles.

Osland, who calls himself a “strong, but not uncritical” Corbyn supporter, carefully admonishes readers not to embark on a campaign of mass deselections, but to get involved and active in their local branches, and to think carefully about Labour’s election fortunes; safe seats might be better candidates for a reselection campaign than Labour marginals. After a weak performance by Owen Smith in last night’s Glasgow debate and a call for Jeremy Corbyn to toughen up against opponents by ex Norwich MP Ian Gibson, an old ally, this pamphlet – named after a 1981 work by ex-Tribune editor Chris Mullin, who would later go on to be a junior minister under Blai – seems incredibly timely.

I spoke to Osland on the telephone yesterday.

Why did you decide to put this pamphlet together now?

I think it’s certainly an idea that’s circulating in the Labour left, after the experience with Corbyn as leader, and the reaction of the right. It’s a debate that people have hinted at; people like Rhea Wolfson have said that we need to be having a conversation about it, and I’d like to kickstart that conversation here.

For me personally it’s been a lifelong fascination – I was politically formed in the early Eighties, when mandatory reselection was Bennite orthodoxy and I’ve never personally altered my belief in that. I accept that the situation has changed, so what the Labour left is calling for at the moment, so I see this as a sensible contribution to the debate.

I wonder why selection and reselection are such an important focus? One could ask, isn’t it better to meet with sitting MPs and see if one can persuade them?

I’m not calling for the “deselect this person, deselect that person” rhetoric that you sometimes see on Twitter; you shouldn’t deselect an MP purely because they disagree with Corbyn, in a fair-minded way, but it’s fair to ask what are guys who are found to be be beating their wives or crossing picket lines doing sitting as our MPs? Where Labour MPs publicly have threatened to leave the party, as some have been doing, perhaps they don’t value their Labour involvement.

So to you it’s very much not a broad tool, but a tool to be used a specific way, such as when an MP has engaged in misconduct?

I think you do have to take it case by case. It would be silly to deselect the lot, as some people argue.

In terms of bringing the party to the left, or reforming party democracy, what role do you think reselection plays?

It’s a basic matter of accountability, isn’t it? People are standing as Labour candidates – they should have the confidence and backing of their constituency parties.

Do you think what it means to be a Labour member has changed since Corbyn?

Of course the Labour party has changed in the past year, as anyone who was around in the Blair, Brown, Miliband era will tell you. It’s a completely transformed party.

Will there be a strong reaction to the release of this pamphlet from Corbyn’s opponents?

Because the main aim is to set out the rules as they stand, I don’t see how there can be – if you want to use the rules, this is how to go about it. I explicitly spelled out that it’s a level playing field – if your Corbyn supporting MP doesn’t meet the expectations of the constituency party, then she or he is just as subject to a challenge.

What do you think of the new spate of suspensions and exclusions of some people who have just joined the party, and of other people, including Ronnie Draper, the General Secretary of the Bakers’ Union, who have been around for many years?

It’s clear that the Labour party machinery is playing hardball in this election, right from the start, with the freeze date and in the way they set up the registered supporters scheme, with the £25 buy in – they’re doing everything they can to influence this election unfairly. Whether they will succeed is an open question – they will if they can get away with it.

I’ve been seeing comments on social media from people who seem quite disheartened on the Corbyn side, who feel that there’s a chance that Smith might win through a war of attrition.

Looks like a Corbyn win to me, but the gerrymandering is so extensive that a Smith win isn’t ruled out.

You’ve been in the party for quite a few years, do you think there are echoes of past events, like the push for Bennite candidates and the takeover from Foot by Kinnock?

I was around last time – it was dirty and nasty at times. Despite the narrative being put out by the Labour right that it was all about Militant bully boys and intimidation by the left, my experience as a young Bennite in Tower Hamlets Labour Party, a very old traditional right wing Labour party, the intimidation was going the other way. It was an ugly time – physical threats, people shaping up to each other at meetings. It was nasty. Its nasty in a different way now, in a social media way. Can you compare the two? Some foul things happened in that time – perhaps worse in terms of physical intimidation – but you didn’t have the social media.

There are people who say the Labour Party is poised for a split – here in Plymouth (where we don’t have a Labour MP), I’m seeing comments from both sides that emphasise that after this leadership election we need to unite to fight the Tories. What do you think will happen?

I really hope a split can be avoided, but we’re a long way down the road towards a split. The sheer extent of the bad blood – the fact that the right have been openly talking about it – a number of newspaper articles about them lining up backing from wealthy donors, operating separately as a parliamentary group, then they pretend that butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, and that they’re not talking about a split. Of course they are. Can we stop the kamikazes from doing what they’re plotting to do? I don’t know, I hope so.

How would we stop them?

We can’t, can we? If they have the financial backing, if they lose this leadership contest, there’s no doubt that some will try. I’m old enough to remember the launch of the SDP, let’s not rule it out happening again.

We’ve talked mostly about the membership. But is Corbynism a strategy to win elections?

With the new electoral registration rules already introduced, the coming boundary changes, and the loss of Scotland thanks to decades of New Labour neglect, it will be uphill struggle for Labour to win in 2020 or whenever the next election is, under any leadership.

I still think Corbyn is Labour’s best chance. Any form of continuity leadership from the past would see the Midlands and north fall to Ukip in the same way Scotland fell to the SNP. Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance.

Margaret Corvid is a writer, activist and professional dominatrix living in the south west.