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.