This is the Top News Stories section from My Yahoo start page. The first 4 stories seem quite appropriate for this section. These are important news stories that have real life altering impact to many people. The 5th story is just absurd. Honestly people, it's just a damn phone. People are dying in the world and the Gulf of Mexico is a disaster zone. Those are important stories. Whether a phone loses cellular signal just doesn't really seem that important in the grand scheme of things. Granted, Apple brings a lot of this upon themselves with the way they handle PR but I would hope that the powers that be that shape and deliver our news would have elected to push a story like this to Page 2. But in the ever growing chase for eyeballs, news outlets want to push what brings in the most readers. Who cares that only 3 million iPhone 4's have been sold versus the hundreds of millions of other phones on the market. There's only one thing that people love more than fawning over winners and that's to watch them fall.

For the record, I own an iPhone 4. Haven't had any issues with it - antenna related or otherwise. The damn thing does slip out of my hand more often than the previous model so I'm happy to cash in on my free case courtesy of Steve Jobs. If the outcome of all the hoopla is that I get free stuff, so be it. I just think we all need to gain a little perspective of what's truly newsworthy.

     

Click here to download:

I_really_want_to_need_the_iPad.zip (355 KB)

So the announcement came a couple of days ago and everyone is deciding (or has already) whether to get the new Apple iPad in March/April. Let me start by saying I really like the device. Looks slick, great screen, great UI, and the few apps that were demo'd look really good. Let's not forget the price of $499 which blew me away - very affordable given what the device does. Imagine all the eBook readers, portable DVD players, digital picture frames, etc. that already cost between $100-$300. Those devices are pretty much screwed.

As part of Steve Jobs' demo, he talked about a third class of product between the iPhone and a laptop. He said this new class needed to do a few things much better than either of the other two. To some extent, I agree with him that the iPad does do certain things better - photos and eBooks in particular. But I guess they don't do them better enough for me to buy yet another device. I split my time between two indispensable devices - my laptop (Macbook 13") and my phone (iPhone 3GS). If I were to lose either one of these, my productivity is pretty much shot. However, a tablet computer just hasn't made itself indispensable to me just yet.

So if not adding a new device, what about replacing one? Well, the iPad can't replace my phone because it's too big and can't make phone calls (VOIP, maybe?). As far as my laptop goes, I don't really do much on it besides email, web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, occasional presentations, image manipulation, and some light HTML. I guess the iPad can handle all of those save for the image manipulation (is there an app for that? basically Photoshop light) and HTML (also, an app for that? Dreamweaver light?). But the biggest thing that I need is to be able to access a file system where I can create folders, move files around, etc. Without that it's impossible for me to replicate my day to day job on the pad. I toyed with the idea of getting this for my mom or wife because they don't do much besides email and web browsing but both like to watch videos online and without Flash support, they'd still be using their desktops half of the time.

All in all, I'd love to buy this. If I had all the money in the world I'd buy two. I'd also buy a 60" Kuro Elite, Tesla Sedan, and NetJets fractional. All of which fall into the "nice to have but not needed" category.

Let's rewind to 1996..... My first job out of college was at a database marketing consulting division of American Express called Epsilon. There I was introduced to the lovely world of Excel grunt work and Mainframe TSO queries. However, one of the highlights of the job was that the first account I was put on was Apple Computer. Epsilon basically compiled the direct marketing lists that Apple sent promotional mailers to. Though my exposure to Cupertino was quite limited (Epsilon's offices were near the Transamerica Building in San Francisco), I did get to meet a lot of the folks in the marketing department at Apple. The atmosphere there was somewhat muted. Gil Amelio was in power at Apple and seemed to be running the company like any other computer maker - trying to sell as many cookie cutter machines as possible while cutting costs. The only difference was nobody wanted Macs and Gil wasn't really interested in doing much besides running a lean operation. As you can probably guess, that's the formula of someone looking to streamline a business either for sale or the slow inevitable march to oblivion.

One day towards the end of my first year there (as things were getting progressively worse for Apple), news came of an unexpected bold move - the purchase of NeXT Computer and their NeXT OS which is the basis for today's Mac OS X. However, the more important asset in the purchase was the return of Steve Jobs though at the time, his role was as of yet undefined. At this time, Apple's stock was hovering around $4 (split adjusted) and languished for years. No one thought much of the purchase, in fact, a lot of folks panned Amelio for over paying for NeXT. Why would you, a company with an OS the vast majority of the world doesn't use, buy a company with an OS even fewer people used? Didn't really make sense until July of 1997 when Amelio was ousted and Jobs took over. I remember on the date of the announcement, I popped my head into the Epsilon Account Director for Apple and said, "Have you heard the news?" She replied, "Yup, I'm on the phone with my stock broker now." Apple stock price was about $3.80. I bought about $5,000 worth - almost my entire portfolio was now Apple stock.

Fast forward to today, Apple just announced its most profitable quarter ever. Buoyed by iPhone sales and the impending launch of its tablet computer, Apple's future can't be any brighter. That $5,000 worth of stock would be worth about $250K today. The operative word here is "would be" since I sold it once the stock doubled a year or so later. I guess you can't really cry much over a stock transaction that netted you a positive gain but still, no one thought Apple would hit these heights 13 years ago. If you had asked me in 1997 to bet on whether Apple would still be in business 13 years later, I would have given it a 50/50 chance. Gotta give them all the props in the world. A testament to one man's blinding adherence to doing insanely great things.

It seems appropriate that on the day I get my shiny new iPhone 3GS that the Wall Street Journal reports that Steve Jobs underwent a successful liver transplant about two months ago. The story goes on to say that Jobs has recuperated well and is set to return back to daily work activity at the scheduled end of June. Nothing more I want to say other than glad he's doing better.  It's always great news when a cancer survivor bounces back.

Techcrunch has a guest post from Todd Dagres of Spark Capital. In it, he suggests that President Obama should get Steve Jobs to run a joint government bailed-out GM-Chrysler. Though I agree with the overall strategy of the article (firing the current auto execs and streamlining the product line), I don't think Steve Jobs is the best person to actually execute this. His other choices (should Steve not be available), John Chambers or Craig Barrett are somewhat more plausible, though not quite there.

It's a little simplistic to think that Steve can make everything he touches into gold. Though Steve has had great success at Apple and Pixar, the shear size of the auto companies dwarf even those two industry leaders. I think Steve could be a great product strategist for the auto industry, but I think it'll take someone with big industrial operational experience to execute on a new product vision. Maybe it's a tag team effort - Steve leading product development and someone like say, Jack Welch to run operations? I know Nardelli was a GE alum but I don't have much confidence in his ability to lead given his lackluster results at both Home Depot and Chrysler.  Perhaps the master can do better than the student.

Valleywag is "reporting" that Steve Jobs is undergoing surgery today. There's speculation as to whether this is true or not. Michael Arrington wrote a post that Steve was actually in the office today (according to his source). My position on this doesn't center around whether the information is true or not. If it is true, then we should respect Steve's privacy and give him the time he and his family needs to recuperate. If not, people are just writing gossip for the sake of gossip and the report doesn't deserve another second of thought.
 
After reading the Valleywag article, I couldn't help but feel dirty. Has the technology industry reporting become like the tabloids? What next? Are we going to start hearing about high tech executives on x17online.com? Oh wait, too late. Every Jobs rumor overheard at a party or bar or toilet seems to be getting airtime. And to make matters worse, we're not reporting on the usual brainless tabloid topics - this is a person's health not what shoes they're wearing or who they're sleeping with. This goes beyond journalism's fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and borders on harassment. I know nobody reads my blog but just so I don't sound like a hypocrite, this will be the last item I write about Steve's health except to welcome him back in six months.

Apple released its First Quarter results today. As I suspected, they did quite well and the after hours trading on its stock reflect that (currently trading up 9% from today's close and about 12.5% from yesterday's close). A lot of sites are viewing this as a reason to show that Apple is doing quite well without Steve. Not to say that Steve was or was not a big factor in today's results, but I think if you really want to have a clear picture of how Apple does without Steve, wait a few more quarters to reach that determination. Even though Steve never wrote a line of code or created a hardware design, his "force of nature" attitude probably kept Apple from turning out crappy products these past few years. To use a very graphic analogy, whipping a horse is a much more effective method to make it to run than offering it a sugar cube. It'll be interesting to see what products Apple turns out without that particular jockey on its back. Anyone remember the Quadra and Centris? I thought so...

Apple's stock took a pounding after news was released that Steve Jobs would take about six months off to recover from his "hormone imbalance".

The New York Times is reporting that people familiar with Jobs' current medical treatment say it's not a recurrence of his pancreatic cancer but something that is not allowing him to absorb nutrients from his food. That's definitely a good sign and I'm glad he's taking time off to rest. It was said that stress wasn't helping in his recovery so now he can take all the time he needs without the prying eyes of the media.
 
Though Jobs is largely responsible for the turnaround of Apple almost a decade ago, I think Apple's in a current position to be fine without Jobs at the helm. As long as everyone else holds on to the ideals of making the highest quality products with no compromises that he espoused, Apple will continue to turn out winners. It was the years when Apple was led by folks more interested in profits than products that Apple was lost. With guys like Jonathan Ive and Bob Mansfield around, I think we can expect to see great products from Apple, even without Jobs steering the ship ... though it never hurts to have him in your corner.

News broke this morning that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has disclosed he has a hormone imbalance that lead to his steady decline in weight this past year. Rumors about him on his deathbed, I suppose, are greatly exaggerated. I've been on the fence regarding whether he was right or wrong to not share this information earlier. A person's health is nobody's business but their own. But as the CEO of a very public company, doesn't he have the obligation to his shareholders to disclose any and all information that might affect the health of the company they own? Put it that way, the answer seems clear. However, put it another way like so - as the owner of a business, do you have the right to ask about the private health matters of your employees? Your answer may be different.
 
In the end, I think that Apple has always been a secretive company and Steve Jobs has always been very tight lipped about his personal life. However, I think that this whole thing could have been diffused very quickly by either offering full disclosure early on - "Steve is undergoing tests to figure out why he's losing weight. We've ruled out a return of his cancer and the best medical team in the country is on the case. They have assured us that his life is not in any danger." Or by having a very clear succession plan - "The success of Apple can be attributed to many good people, not just Steve. In the event that Steve wishes to step down, it'll be in the good hands of Person X." One thing I'll give Microsoft is that the ascension of Ballmer to the throne was gradual and very clearly laid out. You can at least rule out any succession ambiguity as the cause of their recent woes.