Steve Jobs’ (and Apple’s) Biggest Mistake

The financial world is a fickle place. When Apple was running wild with the iPod and the iPhone the analysts put signs next to Apple's stock that said "Free pony rides to fat profits." A note from Steve Jobs and a little speculation later the sign is "get your horse meat before the maggots show up."

The chuckling hyenas of the financial world aren't so interested in up as down as they are in change. Red numbers or green numbers are all profit in the hands of the right trader, the most important thing is that the stock moves. Stasis is boring, uncertainty is profit. Expect the announcement by Steve to generate a lot of profits one way or another.

Which brings us to Steve Jobs and Apple's biggest mistake. When a CEO steps down or retires there is always a reaction from the stock market. This is no surprise, the markets work off information, any information. With Apple things are a bit different. To the general public, the people who buy computers Steve Jobs (to borrow a overused cliché) is Apple Inc. The two are inseparable. An unhealthy Steve Jobs means an unhealthy Apple. An unhealthy Apple means a fading star in the tech sector.

But there is more than stock value in this situation. There are the users to consider. Apple has a lot of fans but the delineation between Apple fans (Mac and iPhone users) and people who believe in Steve Jobs is a murky line at best. Do you own an Apple product because you believe in Apple or because you believe in Jobs? The likely answer is that you like the product first. But the reason you trusted the product is because you believe in Steve.

This is Apple's biggest mistake, Steve's most obvious hubris. Steve didn't rescue Apple without a lot of help. Steve didn't take Apple from a marginal computer company to a major consumer electronics corporation alone. But people wouldn't know that from the PR. If you listened to Apple you'd get the idea that it was all due to Steve Jobs influence. You'd get the idea that every product, every software update, every application carried the personal blessing of Steve Jobs. On a logical level you know this is ridiculous. There isn't enough time in the day and if Steve was that involved then the Cupertino campus should be searched for Kryptonite because when Superman feels ill there's only one reason.

Part of the problem is just human nature. It is human nature to assign too much credit to the leader while giving the people working with the leader short shrift in the credit department. Joe Montana isn't Joe Montana without the offensive line on front of him. And Steve Jobs doesn't accomplish the turnaround at Apple without a ton of help from people around him.

That Steve had a ton of help, that there were other key players at Apple, is a notion that was never really pushed. No problem when Steve is (relatively) fat and healthy but a big problem now that Steve is sick. It isn't just the stock price that will be undermined but a lot of faith in Apple from the users will be going out the window as well. You might find yourself a little hesitant to buy that next Mac because you're not sure that Apple will be the same company after Steve Jobs leaves.

That is the real problem, by so publicly making himself the single most important factor in Apple's success. is that Steve is too closely tied to the public perception the company. That isn't fair to the users or the others that worked so hard for Apple to reach the level of success the company is currently enjoying. The bright side is that it is a safe bet that Steve has surrounded himself with supremely competent individuals, individuals that will be able to carry on with aplomb in his absence. The sad part is, because of the carefully cultivated cult of Jobs, everyone else will be forced to prove their competence under intense media scrutiny.

It didn't have to be this way. If Steve had stepped back from the spotlight a little bit on occasion things wouldn't be so uncertain. If Apple had forced other execs into situations where they were exposed to the public people wouldn't be feeling so uncertain about what a Steve Jobs' leave of absence means. They'd be worrying about Steve instead of about Apple as a company.