Steve Jobs takes medical leave: The impact?

I trust Steve Jobs from Apple is able to make a swift recovery. I hope the chap is able to beat it and continue a healthy existence.

There are, however, far too many mobile manufacturer and operator business plans that rely in part (or in some cases, wholly) on Steve Jobs taking his eye off the ball / leaving / quitting or being fired (fat chance).

Apple has played an absolute blinder over the past few years. An absolute blinder. They’ve led the market since the mention of the iPhone and they’ve totally shattered the dreams of the largest players in the industry. Humbled! That’s the word. They’ve humbled some of the industry greats. And they’ve confounded many by staying one (or three) steps ahead. The mix of technological wizardry, clear passion and word-leading marketing zeal has been awesome to witness.

How much has Steve Jobs played a role in this? Some would argue he is — as the Telegraph reports today — “irreplaceable”. I’m not so sure. To credit every achievement from the company as straight from the hand of Jobs is to miss the reality: The Apple machine is comprised of a significant amount of seriously committed rule-the-world types who think big and take no prisoners. If Jobs has set the tone, then these senior chaps and ladies are the backbone of a company that has positioned itself to sell a million iPads in a month without breaking a sweat.

The real issue is what a new CEO, free from the Jobsian doctrine would do with 50-odd billion dollars and an army of shareholders demanding the stock break $600. That’s where things could really get exciting.

With Jobs not working full time I don’t think we’ll see much change from the company given he will continue to have the final say. And given the company’s already executing — what — at least 12-18 months of Jobs-dominated plans. That can all change in the time it takes to write a memo though.

But what of a new CEO? Well… Two good quarters from a revitalised Nokia, obsessive competition in the form of Samsung, flat iPhone sales with just an extra 10m Verizon customers added and renewed pressure on the high end from Android… It wouldn’t take much to begin to chart a potentially different strategy for the company.

The Nano question has always been muted by concerned (and excited) sections around the industry. The question reads like this:

What exactly would be the effect on the world’s mobile ecosystem if Apple released an iPhone ‘Nano’ at $49/$69/$99 on Pay As You Go?

The bill of materials costs for the first generation iPhone are in that general ballpark particularly with a bit of Apple-subsidy. Last time I looked Apple had something like $53 billion to spend.

There’s no doubt Apple will have discussed the option. Indeed it’s when not if. But when is a very important issue — especially considering how things played out with the iPod Nano, the arrival of which signalled the democratisation of music players. At $49 everyone wanted one.

What could Apple do in a market like China or India where — yes — the 100m-strong middleclasses pick up and love the existing iPhones — but where $600 is entirely unrealistic for the other 900 million? (Rough figures). Does the company want to address everyone?

Will the company be given a choice by the shareholders clamouring for more goodness?

And will the new management team — freed by a completely retired Steve Jobs — decide to play in a wider market?

Whatever plays out, this at a macro level, this whole industry is going to keep getting more exciting.

(I say ‘macro’ because it doesn’t take me long to get really frustrated by the slow, lumbering operator giants that couldn’t innovate their way out of a wet paper bag.)

What do you see as the ramifications of Jobs retiring?

Posted via email from MIR Live