Does MacWorld Make Sense?
Apple stock fell on the news that not only would Steve Jobs not be giving the January MacWorld San Francisco keynote speech, but that Apple will not participate in MacWorld after 2009. Probably the reaction was worry that Jobs’ health is the reason behind it all, and that if he goes, the company will disintegrate. Well, all history with Apple of the 1980’s and 1990’s aside, there’s little reason to believe this. Jobs is a visionary, but he’s not the only guy with ideas at Apple.
Some good points have been made that actually suggest that Apple’s new move makes more sense. First, that the MacWorld Expo in San Francisco is poorly timed–in January, people have spent their money already and will wait for a while to spend more. That makes sense–I’ve been in that situation more than once, visiting the U.S. where things are priced cheaper and returning to Japan before a nice new product is introduced. By avoiding the badly-timed MacWorld Expo, Apple can do a better job of utilizing the holiday sales season. It just makes sense.
It means that Apple will feel more free to announce product releases more freely. It means that Apple won’t fall prey to the frenzy of too-optimistic rumors that always precede these shows, raising expectations so ridiculously high that everyone is disappointed when the news is only great, and not miraculous. This is probably why there have commonly been massive stock selloffs after the Expos, and Apple probably got tired of being beaten half to death every time they showed people cool new gadgets and reported great performance.
When you think about it, doing away with the keynotes might be the best thing for Apple. Its success has always been with its products, not scheduled conventions. While the keynotes have been entertaining, they were never necessary.
I suspect that the comment about January being a bad time for MacWorld is simply not true.
My older brother has been in the consumer electronics business for 25 years. Everyone in the business knows that the busiest time of the year isn’t Christmas but the two months after Christmas, especially the month after Christmas. The logic goes something like this: People spend money on others during December, they spend money on themselves in January. After you’ve spent so much on everyone else, come January, if you’ve got the money left over from Christmas, the desire to get what you truly want for yourself, apperently, is quite high.
The largest annual convention in the world is the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas right after New Years each January.
My bet is the same is true for Apple products as it is for most other consumer electronics.
Also, I don’t agree with the idea that Jobs is not fundamental to the performance of Apple. Apple look like it was going the way of atari in 1999. Job’s return and Apple’s revival are closely timed – and I suspect that a graph of Apples stock value and revenues would show that. I know Jobs doesn’t design and build the products, but he does bring something unique to the table, beyond his ego. If I were a holder of Apple stock I would be very interested in Jobs nuturing along a Ceasar to follow up on his Augustus. Technology companies appear to me to be brittle in the area of leadership. Companies, such as Intel, do seem to get along after losing a dynamic founder. But many appear to begin to lose their dynamism and begin to decline.
Here’s a column on Apple and Jobs that makes some of my points but much more informed by the venerable “i cringley” over at PBS.org
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20081207_005508.html
In that case, why not have the show at the beginning of December, before the Christmas rush as well? Why deliberately miss a season where sales rise, even if they don’t rise as much as the following months? The months are consecutive, so why not catch them all?
Not really. Soon after Jobs left in 1985, Apple’s stock rose. Remember, booting out Jobs was seen as a sound business decision at the time, as he was seen as capricious and unstable–which he was. They wanted more conventional management. Apple’s stock remained fairly high throughout this period with a slight slump at the end; it was also here that dividends were paid, something that was not done when Jobs was in control, both before and after. After Jobs returned, the stock actually dipped.
Now, there was a surge a few years after Jobs returned–but it was not because of Jobs. It was reflective instead of the market as a whole peaking–and then falling–in the late 90’s and going up to mid-2000. Discount that, and you’ll see that Apple’s stock fell when Jobs returned and stayed that way for about six years, until the iPod line started taking off–and then Apple’s stock did as well. It was only after the iPod took off and the switch to OS X solidified that Jobs’ reputation was cemented. Sure, before he was always seen as a visionary, but it was only recently that he was seen as a successful visionary.
Now, all of this is about stock prices and reputation–but when it came to actual management skills, in terms of producing great things, Jobs was really the mastermind behind it all. After Jobs was ousted in ’85, the company got mired down in bad management, most notably the mess of a product line. But during that time, their technical people continued to pump out impressive stuff, including the beginning of the PowerBook line, System 7 and 7.5, and now-industry standards like TrueType.
But there is another reason to see why Jobs’ leaving will not be as big a blow to Apple as people think: in 1985, Jobs was shown the door and people he did not approve of ran the company–into the ground. This time, the same will not happen: Jobs is the one calling the shots, and only the people he approves of will be in charge. He decides who is in charge of the creative process–and he will decide who runs Apple for some time to come. Right now, that candidate is seen as being Tim Cook, though there is an impressive lineup of managerial talent at Apple, including many creative geniuses. Apple, led by Cook, with Schiller and Ive to drive products and innovation is an impressive A-team, with lots more powerful forces surrounding them. Jobs has set standards and styles of innovation that will survive him ably.
My point is, Jobs hasn’t single-handedly revived Apple. It’s the people, the style, and the corporate culture that he has installed that did the trick. Jobs is a charismatic salesman, no doubt, and I will be happy if he stays in charge for another twenty years. And though I know the market will panic when Jobs leaves, I won’t. And I think that this view will eventually prevail–it was even given official stamps of approval when it was being considered recently by the business world. It’ll be rocky, but Apple will be fine.