|
|
|
|
|
|
by mullingitover
1256 days ago
|
|
|
> It's not actually Jobs's choice. Apple is a publicly owned company, and both Jobs and Cook are employees, not owners. Jobs could recommend a successor, but the board of directors had the power to reject the recommendation. Never forget that when Jobs demanded that the Apple board of directors choose between him and John Sculley, they chose Sculley. Upon Jobs' return to Apple, the board was entirely replaced by Jobs' hand-picked people. From that point on, they were simply there to rubber stamp his decisions, and given the company's performance after the iPod launch they would never second guess him. It was 1000% Jobs' choice. |
|
|
This is the point though. It only lasts as long as the stockholders have confidence in the leadership. If the stockholders start to worry about the future performance of the stock, they can replace everyone, including the CEO and board of directors.
Cook was a known, safe choice to the stockholders. Whereas if Jobs had chosen some kind of maverick or outsider as his successor, the stockholders would be very worried about that.